Longbowmans under ratted???

[Mad2rix]

Perhaps someone else would edit Longbowmans to have better defense armor and bombarbment, while Medival Infantry provide more hit points since they tough armor than Longbowmans.

 

[Vizurok]

True, but they're a seperate civ in the game, or in C3C at least ,

You're right...

 

[KoRnEa]

It should be the English UU becuase they used it the most. The rest just had a very advance archer, a crossbowman they were called. They even had Arbalest, another advance archer.

IMHO longbowmen should be the English UU. Other nations could use crossbowmen as the crossbow represented quite a revolution in warfare for that time period.

Exactly! The longbowman should be the English UU. It make more sense. Actually a lot of sense. Yes, the English had a good navy, but they were better archers. It makes more sense to have the Englsih UU the longbowman.

Japan used longbowmen as much as the English.

Korea, China, Mongols, Turks, etc, all had missile weapons superior than the English or Japanese longbow.

English golden age fits better with MoW's time

yes, English were good archers, but that's just according to European standards. the English navy was good on a world standard.

 

[dmanakho]

I agree that it really should be Enlgish UU, and it should have better defence value in Civ 3

 

[Aggie]

KoRnEa is right. It's a European (English) perspective to think that longbowmen were mainly used in England. Absolutely untrue. Other civilization used it ages before them.

I generally don't like slow units and the longbowman is even worse, because it has no defense. Therefore I don't build them at all. Fast units can attack and retreat in one turn, so they don't need a defender walking along.

 

[player1 fanatic]

But weren't Longbowmen mostly Welsh at first?

 

[Jawz II]

as anyone that know anything about strategy and tactic will tell you,long range troops are for defense and close combat ones for attacking,in real life,it applied during the middle ages and it still does


i guess they kind of got it the other way around,for civ

i actually saw a documentary on the battle you are talking about,the english succes was due to their lack of armour, turned out to be a great advantage in the muddy fields,and the location the armies on the terrain when they met,luck was a huge factor as an army of 3 times the size and mostly made up of knights will cut the other smaller one that is mostly archers to pieces in minutes on hard ground

 

[Babbler]

But weren't Longbowmen mostly Welsh at first?

I believe so. They were concripted into the English Army when Wales and England merge.

 

[Sukenis]

Longbowmen as better than MI in my opinion. The difference of 1 defence point meants very little seeing as both should be escorted by pikemen/spearmen. Since the extra defense point is nto a factor, the free shot puts longbowmen over the top. Even a red-lines longbow men can help defend a city or stack. I generally only have MI from upgraded swordsmen or when I need the extra defense point to make my army appear stronger (in the F3 screen of we are weak/average/strong compared to them).

 

[mintyfreshdeath]

England lost all of it's empire in 300 years
Germany Lost it's empire in 4 years
France lost it's empire in 1 month
America never lost her empire for over 200 years(a new world record for the longest lasting goverment of all time) YEA!!!
God save the world from destruction....please

What about the Roman empire? Or China maybe?

 

[tehfreak]

What does empire mean?
All those countries conquered their neighbors and then lost them.
I don't think America has conquered anything... your timer will not stop until somebody razes USA

I could say I have not lost my empire in 20years... what is an empire?

___

Mintyfreshdeath you stole my avatar

 

[mintyfreshdeath]

I just love the Impi tehfreak

 

[andrewlt]

I think it's the English that exclusively used the longbow to an effective degree. However, the longbow isn't necessarily the best bow in history. The Turks and the Mongols used composite bows that were on par with the longbow in terms of effectiveness. Our people had other designs such as recurve bows and such as well. I'm not so sure about the Japanese using the longbow, though.

I think the Sengoku period scenario handled it better. Longbows should definitely get offensive bombard. Their stats, however, should have better defense than offense.

There really isn't much you can do with Civ3's system of combat, however. Unless it changes to a much more complicated system, it can't really portray how combat was really done and the strengths and weaknesses of the units accurately. Knights and other cavalry are mainly for attacking flanks and more lightly armored infantry out in the open. They shouldn't really be good for attacking fortified infantry, especially pike and spear infantry and shouldn't be good at attacking cities. You're supposed to need infantry for that. Spears and pikes aren't necessarily for defense only. They're actually very good attackers. Their weakness is vulnerability in the flanks and if they break formation. There's really so much depth that the system lacks and I think longbowmen really can't have a niche of their own because of its limitations.

 

[KoRnEa]

The Turks and the Mongols used composite bows that were on par with the longbow in terms of effectiveness.

the Turk, the Mongol, the Korean, etc, composite bows weren't on par with longbows, they were superior to longbows.

I'm not so sure about the Japanese using the longbow, though.

Japan, for some reason, never got to using the superior composite bow, and only used longbows, on par with the English longbow in effectiveness.

----------------

I think longbowmen, and other archers, have weak defense stats because archers would be weak against surprise attacks..

 

[Reprisal]

I don't think America has conquered anything...

Someone needs to pay more attention in Social Studies: Navajo, Sioux, Cherokee...

- Rep.

 

[KabeDerlin]

Looking forward to that Hundred Years War scenario, truckingpete. Think maybe you could PM me some details?

 

[Alvin]

The english was the first to use the longbow to an effective degree, that all they have to do was shoot. The mongols otherwise used their bow in conjuction with their horses to feint then draw their enemy out , then while retreating, they shoot their bows at the enemy and slaughter them before they go foward with another attack.

 

[The Lombard]

And by the way alvin, America is not the longest lasting empire. Rome stood more then 500 years, mongol about 300 and some in china lasted even longer then that.

Not to mention the Byzantine Empire which stood for around 900 to 1000 years. Started around about 450AD, ended when the Ottomans conquered it in 1453. Hmm, which means the Ottomans also ruled for longer than America has so far, as they didn't disappear until after WWI.

And Alvin, lets not forget the ancient Egyptians who top the list with several thousand years of Pharaohic rule spread over several dynasties...


On Longbows vs Medieval Infantry: They are primarily designed for civs with no Iron and to that end I think they are a weaker unit. I think that Medieval Infantry are considerably better than Longbows defensively. It's true that the Medieval Infantry defence of 2 is pretty poor in the open, they will be owned by Knights, Longbows or other Med. Inf. But when the defence 2 is augmented by favourable terrain it can make a big difference. A Med. Inf. on a mountain is defence 4; a Longbow is only defence 2. A fortified Med. Inf on a mountain is defence 5 and will beat an attacking Knight on average. On other terrain like woods or hills the Knights et al will have the advantage again, but it will be a lot closer than if they were fighting the Longbows with their flimsy defence 1, meaning that the Med. Inf. has a reasonable chance. Of course, they should still be protected with Pikemen, but their defence 2 does mean it's not a total disaster if their escorting Pikemen are killed or reduced to the red.

 

[troytheface]

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. In so far as the composite bow being superior to the longbow...i am not sure i would agree...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...

 

[Alvin]

Yet during the battle of agincourt, the french knights charged at the english. Although you are right about the close quater combat, they Longbowman always(most of the time...at at least) have swords that they can have a chance against the French Infatrary.