MiChello
De la Boucle
The Man-O-War, Cossack, F-15 and the War Elephant were/are also used by other nations as well, and they are uu's too.
Longbows vs. Crossbows
- Thread starter DragonRunner
- Start date
The Man-O-War, Cossack, F-15 and the War Elephant were/are also used by other nations as well, and they are uu's too.
Originally posted by Greyhawk1
I think Agincourt was a massacre because the French Knights got bogged down in wetlands in the middle of their charge thus giving the English Longbowmen a target for a longer time than they would have had with a charge over dry ground.
I'm no historian, this is just stuff I gathered from playing D&D. It could be complete nonsense
if it wasnt for the mud, and them geting boged down, the french whold have easly won the battele. the french allso had heavyer armor, wich cused them to get stuck even deeper in the mud, plus the mud made a sucktion around ther cain mail armor boots, while the english didnt get that becus thers shoes whear made of cloth.
i kinda like the idea of makeing the t-34 the russian uu,
MiChello
De la Boucle
I'm in favour of that one
There more than likely is one already made in the customisation forum.
The T-34 was hardly defining Russia though since virtually every warsaw pact country would have used it. Everybody identifies Cossacks with Russia however and I think that is what they were after with UU's.
The T-34 was hardly defining Russia though since virtually every warsaw pact country would have used it. Everybody identifies Cossacks with Russia however and I think that is what they were after with UU's.
MiChello
De la Boucle
They might have tried so, but they did not menage so
. I'm going to have to repeat myself:
Do_Sa_Nim
Chieftain
I think everyone should be able to get Man-O-Wars, and the British UU should be replaced with longbowmen. Frigates are pretty sad, becuase they can be sunk if they attack Galleons, and Galleons are supposed to be transports. Naval warfare is stupid untill ironclads, but that would change if everyone could have a hard hitting medival naval unit.
Halcyon
9000
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2004
- Messages
- 930
I'd advocate going into the editor and fiddling with the naval combat values. I also find that either making Longbowmen cheaper or giving them defensive bombard makes them of some use even with iron. I prefer the bombard, personally.
Unique units are supposed to be from their civilization's period of greatest power, though hence the triggering of golden ages. However, Russia was hardly at it's greatest under Stalin, nor was England at the time of the hundred years' war, so having T-34s or Longbowmen as UUs in the game isn't necessarily best. The T-34 is an especially silly suggestion.
Unique units are supposed to be from their civilization's period of greatest power, though hence the triggering of golden ages. However, Russia was hardly at it's greatest under Stalin, nor was England at the time of the hundred years' war, so having T-34s or Longbowmen as UUs in the game isn't necessarily best. The T-34 is an especially silly suggestion.
deo
Emperor
In the 100 year war there was a battle (England vs French)where 1500 longbows kiled about 20000 french knights and about 5000 crossbows.
The english have lost only 80 Footmens
The english have lost only 80 Footmens
supaguruzebidy
Kill,Kill,Kill,Kill,Kill!
In Agincourt the french cavalry charged up the side of a hill. They did not formate they did not wait for a command. The british forces had dug up the turf halfway up the hill in order to create a kill-zone in which horses and infantry would get bogged down. This was because henry the 5th had great training and knowledge of the ability of the longbow and his forces. He knew its optium range, its rate of fire,and the level of skill of his (mainly) welsh longbowmen. Henry set camp on top of that hill knowing that it was the best place to trap the french! He could see them comming from many miles away and organize his forces accordingly! The debate about wether the french did this or the french did that are pointless as henry was never stupid enough to set the field of battle to his disadvantage. He knew that he had the most devastating weapon in medival times and used it to his advantage. The french were arrogant and thought with all the heavy armour and massive manpower advantage they just couldnt lose, Henry knew better and led them into a lethal trap. It was and still is a golden rule of warfare told in the annuals of sun tzu and by the blood of a million men, never attack an apponent who has the higher ground. The french forgot this and paid for it with 19,628 men slain at agincourt for 526 english dead. To say that this was just because of mud is too overlook so much more. There are hundreds of books on the subject just type "agincourt" in your search engine. Also " Henry 5th" by shakespear is also a good read on the subject. The book "Cry God for Harry" is a startling insight into the life of henry the fifth and gives a gruesome account of the battle. "Henry 5" the movie with kenith brannaghe has some of the most brilliantly created battle scenes of agincourt you will probably ever see and definately shows the awesome power of the longbow. As for the answer to the question the longbow will always be the better weapon to me. The advantage the crossbow has is that it requires little training or skill just load it up point at the target and pull the trigger. Longbowmen required years of training and had to be of a certain height and build mainly short and stout and very strong. This is why so many of them were welshmen as they were perfect for the job being broad shouldered smaller than the english and very very strong.
supaguruzebidy
Kill,Kill,Kill,Kill,Kill!
Ha the definative answer stuffs the critics. Damn Im too sexy for this web site!
DragonRunner
Certified Band Geek
So the only reason the English won was because they were smart, and the French were stupid? That seems so right
just kidding.
Seriously, though, in terms of historical accuracy, a crossbowman would be more accurate for all civilizations than a longbow, regardless of power, skill needed to load, or whatever.
just kidding.
Seriously, though, in terms of historical accuracy, a crossbowman would be more accurate for all civilizations than a longbow, regardless of power, skill needed to load, or whatever.
supaguruzebidy
Kill,Kill,Kill,Kill,Kill!
Not really a longbowman was such an expert at his craft that he was capable of being accurate to within a one foot radius over a 200 yard distance when bombarding. When taking direct aim at a target he was pretty much lethal.Crossbows tended to have a recoil as well that in average hands made the weapon inaccurate. I suppose ultimately and expert crossbow man and an expert longbowman would be a close match in terms of lethality.But on the field of combat the 60 second loading time was a huge disadvantage for the crossbow considering in that time an average longbowman could launch off ten arows your average crossbowman would be too dead to get his shot off. The fact remains that by the end of the middle ages the crossbow was relegated to siege warfare being used as a sharpshooting tool picking of targets slowly one at a time. The longbow became the choice weapon of battle field archery. It was the medival machine gun while the crossbow was the sniper rifle. And yes the english were smart and the french while not dumb certainly did lack a certain ability to think things through thoroughly and certainly lacked the discipline required to mobilze an army of that size and maintain order effectively amoungst its ranks. The french nobility saw the battle as some sort of contest to win the french kings approval and desperately wanted to be the one to take the english king prisoner and gain the ransom that would be paid for his freedom. This led to internal bickering and no-one could agree on who would lead the charge which lead to all of them trying to lead the charge which caused congestion and meant there was no room to manuver and get out of the way of things as the first rows were mowed down the rows behind simply fell off the horses and became weiged down by the armour where they were either trampled to death or turned into pincushions. At the end of the battle many were still alive but just trapped or injured and laying in the kill zone. Henry that night ordered cornish militia into the kill zone to cut the throats of any french knight or soilder still alive. Many of the dead from that battle died that night unable to defend themselves pinned to dead horses by meter long arrows or lying dying in the mud with an armour piercing arrow head sticking out of their chest. This is where the longbow became more devestating than the crossbow because unlike the crossbow the longbow could just plain scare the opponents into defeat. The longbow could just demoralize the enemy upon sight. If you have ever used the V sign at someone you didnt like you owe this insult to the english longbowmen as when armies fled in front of them the longbowmen would taunt them with the V sign as these were the fingers they used to pull the bow string.
DragonRunner
Certified Band Geek
I don't think you got my meaning, supaguruzebidy. I meant that it would be more historically correct to say that more civs used the crossbow. that was a great amount of info, though. Thanks.
the mormegil
Emperor
When the French captured an Englishman, it was also those two fingers they chopped off so they could never use a bow again.
supaguruzebidy
Kill,Kill,Kill,Kill,Kill!
Yes dragon you are right more civs did use them. Mormegil that is why they would taunt the french by sticking them up and waving them at them because they were saying" look here are my fingers come cut them off".
