Longbowmans under ratted???

[KoRnEa]

the idea of making the longbow more defensive has a few flaws...namely , the bow was a first strike weapon (offensive) ...also, if an enemy was to come to close quarters a bow regiment WOULD have a low defense. In otherwords i can see why the game creators made the stat desicion regarding archers. Bombard ability is the defense, but in close combat a sword or knight ect. would decimate a group of archers.

I agree 100%!

while it was technilogically superior and had a greater rate of fire does anyone know if its range was better? The ability to strike an enemy from a greater distance seems like it would be a favorable factor in a battle...

and the composite bow did indeed have the greater range advantage. about twice as far, actually..

they Longbowman always(most of the time...at at least) have swords that they can have a chance against the French Infatrary.

that's why they have the 1 defence

 

[CiverDan]

One thing about a stack of longbowman with a few spears/pikes cover is that the stack is very difficult to attack, unless u attack with enough units to "use up" the first-shot attacks by the Bows, Attacking 2 spear+12 Bow stacks with 3 MI/Swords is always pointless because the First-shot will gaurantee 3 dead MI.

 

[Demon_Axe]

ok in real history longbowmans never would have faced anything hand-to-hand unless they were the very last resort. usually they would fall back or retreat if the enemy broke through the lines.

 

[Alvin]

which almost never happened..

 

[norwegianviking]

Have you read your civpedia lately, ofcourse the produsers did research