Bow and Crossbow

[Sekata]

@Namespace

Namespace wrote:

Crossbows have the same armor effectiveness as bows right? So why would a crossbow be better against heavily armored targets? I rather attack twice with the bow and shred more of their armor than do a tiny bit of damage against their HP.
Also, against orcs I have to move my ranged units around a lot so their warriors don’t get any ideas to knock back one guy and go after them.

I think crossbows would have to be tweaked so they can make use of the berserk perk. Famed crossbows are probably also a lot better if they can literally one-shot any raider. Then again, famed war bows are probably even stronger.

Tier by Tier, the crossbow has advantage on armor piercing stat. The only exception appears to be the masterwork bow, which has 75% armor pen. Even then, it’s equal to the heavy crossbow in the armor pen stat, and eclipsed by it if the brother using the crossbow has the Crossbow Mastery perk (+20% to top out at 95% pen). I’m using the wiki for the numbers, so this is reliant on them being up to date. Either way, the crossbow mastery perk gives it an edge that bow mastery doesn’t confer.

[Namespace]

Sekata wrote:

Tier by Tier, the crossbow has advantage on armor piercing stat. The only exception appears to be the masterwork bow, which has 75% armor pen. Even then, it’s equal to the heavy crossbow in the armor pen stat, and eclipsed by it if the brother using the crossbow has the Crossbow Mastery perk (+20% to top out at 95% pen). I’m using the wiki for the numbers, so this is reliant on them being up to date. Either way, the crossbow mastery perk gives it an edge that bow mastery doesn’t confer.

Ah. I checked again. Warbow has 65% eff against armor 35% armor pen and Heavy Crossbow has 75% eff. 50% pen.
I really wonder if the armor penetration is enough to deal with Hedge knights. Does he die before his armor gets completely shredded? How many shots is that?
On my guy with crossbow mastery and heavy crossbow: 50-70 to HP, 0(35)-49 can Ignore Armor, 37-52 dmg to armor.
If a Hedge Knight is wearing Coat of Scales and Full Helmet: With armor taken into account (-10% of remaining armor) this drops to 9-24 on the first shot, 12-29 on the second (provided it hits the same bodypart). It really depends on how much HP they have I guess. I was thinking around 200 but maybe I’m wrong.
I suppose a famed crossbow with extra armor penetration and damage would be insane. Imagine 70-90 dmg and 100% penetration with mastery. The 20-25 damage that the armor will absorb won’t matter that much if ~50-60 dmg go through anyways, not to mention crits.

[Sekata]

Crits apply like you’d think. I’m not too sure how much base hp Hedge Knights have, but they can and do die with a fair amount of armor intact. I know for a fact that a crossbow trained brother with fearsome and berserk can get 2 kills in one turn on a good dice roll. A crit + kill on the first roll activates fearsome and the next shot can do heavy damage if it doesn’t outright kill the target.

[LasseFin]

http://steamcommunity.com/app/365360/discussions/0/135513901707647830/

Good charts which shows that crossbows aren’t really weaker.

[Namespace]

LasseFin wrote:

http://steamcommunity.com/app/365360/discussions/0/135513901707647830/

Good charts which shows that crossbows aren’t really weaker.

Did you read the conclusion?

Judging from these insights I think crossbows aren’t actually that much weaker than bows when it comes to raw damage per se. However there are a few factors here that break them apart:
1) Bow’s quick shots scale extremely well with high ranged skill. If you can consistently hit both every turn your dps will skyrocket.
2) Crossbows scale very poorly with perks. Most bonus damage perks only work with limited synergy with their attack style whereas they fit the bow perfectly.

This here is key. The damage perks I don’t think are that important anyways. It happens to me frequently that an archer kills three enemies in one turn. You won’t see that happening with a crossbow.

[LasseFin]

Namespace wrote:

LasseFin wrote:

http://steamcommunity.com/app/365360/discussions/0/135513901707647830/

Good charts which shows that crossbows aren’t really weaker.

Did you read the conclusion?

Judging from these insights I think crossbows aren’t actually that much weaker than bows when it comes to raw damage per se. However there are a few factors here that break them apart:
1) Bow’s quick shots scale extremely well with high ranged skill. If you can consistently hit both every turn your dps will skyrocket.
2) Crossbows scale very poorly with perks. Most bonus damage perks only work with limited synergy with their attack style whereas they fit the bow perfectly.

This here is key. The damage perks I don’t think are that important anyways. It happens to me frequently that an archer kills three enemies in one turn. You won’t see that happening with a crossbow.

Yes, I did. I should have wrote that it shows that they aren’t much weaker.

[Sekata]

I wouldn’t consider them weak at all. Any unit with a halfway decent base range can pick up a crossbow and be extremely effective (+15% accuracy), while the bow requires several levels and 60+ ranged skill to see any serious damage from the user. I can hire a brother and give him a heavy crossbow and he becomes a major threat with next to no training. The graphs are nice, but they only track damage under controlled circumstances that don’t exist consistently in game (always assuming a hit). The fact is that before a brother is heavily trained in range, the crossbow easily compensates for the single shot capacity by its higher accuracy. It doesn’t matter if you can shoot twice with the bow if each shot has 15% to hit and both fly wide. The strength of the crossbow is its easy usability. Between that and the fact that it always boasts superior armor penetration, it is a strong weapon that stands on its own. It may not get three kills in a row, but I’ve seen quite a few rounds where it’ll get a killing shot on a unit, trigger berserk and fearsome, and get a killing critical shot on a fully armored enemy.

Crossbow is not weak at all. Nothing to be sneezed at.

[varow]

Bows and crossbows are a real pain especially with bullseye. You cant hide anywhere, they have quite high chance even behind the view blocking objects. May it be nerfed somehow? At least less hit percentage on second row. Forests and swamps are impossible to play against marksmen, they see you even in bushes.

[GreatOne]

Well i tested crossbow and bows much more and to tell my opinion bows right now are more OP.
Yes you can instantly kill humans with xbow if you do a head damage.
But on orc it wont work, vs goblins you need more range

But xbow has some cool options for example you can shoot, switch weapon (fast hand perk) and do attack with 2h poleam
also damage vs humans is really strong, but humans are not the strongest opponent the damn orcs are and goblins with their long range poison attacks.

[Oh Brother]

The bow was dominate before the use of heavy armor became commonplace, and you had a faster rate of fire than xbows. Xbows inevitably became more powerful, which could defeat heavy armor and iirc, one of the popes tried to ban the use of xbows because they killed heavily armored knights with ease before they could get into melee. An interesting and very effective unit was the “Pavise crossbowmen”, which would carry a huge tower shield with legs that could stand up without holding it, while you could fire and reload with relative safety behind it. Some pavise xbowmen would strap the tower shield to their back, and would turn their back to the enemy while reloading, then turn and fire quickly before turning to reload again. Even earlier, the Romans used a “testudo” or tortoise formation to protect the unit from all sides and above from missiles.

A wise general wins before the battle, while the ignorant general must fight to win - Zhuge Liang

[hruza]

Oh Brother wrote:

The bow was dominate before the use of heavy armor became commonplace

Bow newer was dominate in the European warfare, unless steppe nomads came invading from the east here and there. Use of longbow during 100 years war was rare exception. One which moreover did not last even till the end of the war itself. “English” (in reality French kings which happened to be at the same time also kings of England) steadily decreased use of longbowmen in their armies till it was negligible.

Oh Brother wrote:

and you had a faster rate of fire than xbows.

That very questionable claim. Theoretically you indeed can fire bow faster. But that’s meaningless parameter. You almost newer want to fire all your arrows as fast as you can in as short time as possible in real battle. Mostly because just like today, the one to expend his ammo first is the one to loose. Fire rate in the real battle is dictated by ammo (in this case arrows/bolts) supply. Also because goal of archery is not to fire as fast as possible, it’s rather to hit the target.

Oh Brother wrote:

Xbows inevitably became more powerful

Another misconception. In reality the most powerful crossbows and the most powerful bows were about equal in power (with bows having better performance at range due to characteristics of arrow).

Oh Brother wrote:

one of the popes tried to ban the use of xbows because they killed heavily armored knights with ease before they could get into melee.

That’s true, but not because xbows could kill heavily armored knights. Knives, clubs, swords, bows, spears could also kill heavily armored knight, yet nobody have banned them.

The advantage of the crossbow over all other weapons wasn’t some unheard of power or penetration, it was the fact that it required almost no training to kill knight with it. You could give it to any peasant in the evening, show him how to load it, what end to point at the enemy and in the morning he could kill your knight.

No other weapon could do that. Melee weapons because weapon itself was not enough, you needed also skill to actually land it on the knight. Given how much training average knight received, average farmer had no chance.

In case of bow you did not need that sort of training, firing bow is simple enough and there is no skill which can make knight dodge arrow. However what you needed to fire the most powerful bows able to pierce heavy armor is sheer physical strength or your arms. It takes years of constant training to build muscle power needed to draw warbows such as ones used during 100 Years War. Untrained person simply can not draw such bows. Skeletons ow bowmen in the shipwreck of English warship Marry Rose actually had bone deformations similar to those of modern professional athletes.

It’s important to understand that early feudal order in Europe rested on the ability of elite -the nobility to maintain monopoly on use of force. Nobles were ones who could afford constant military training (and equipment, but training was actually more important), something which allowed them to dominate other members of the society who could not afford it simply because they had to dedicate most of their time to get enough food for themselves and their families. They could not afford to waste time on military training. Crossbow was disliked because it challenged status quo. It was not some Medieval wonder weapon and it wasn’t significantly more effective then bow. It also did not made crossbowman superior to the knight. But it did allow lowly peasant to challenge knight under certain conditions. That’s why they tried to ban it. And then only against Christians. You could fill infidels with bolts till your heart’s content.

Oh Brother wrote:

Even earlier, the Romans used a “testudo” or tortoise formation to protect the unit from all sides and above from missiles.

We don’t know what “testudo” used by Romans was. They newer bothered to describe it in their writings. All there is are pure speculations. And what you see in the Hollywood movies is almost certainly wrong. Just like most else you see in the Hollywood movies.

[Oh Brother]

hruza wrote:

Oh Brother wrote:

The bow was dominate before the use of heavy armor became commonplace

Bow newer was dominate in the European warfare, unless steppe nomads came invading from the east here and there. Use of longbow during 100 years war was rare exception. One which moreover did not last even till the end of the war itself. “English” (in reality French kings which happened to be at the same time also kings of England) steadily decreased use of longbowmen in their armies till it was negligible.

I was speaking in the context of bow vs. xbow as the subject of the original post stated, not bow vs. everything else.

Oh Brother wrote:

and you had a faster rate of fire than xbows.

That very questionable claim. Theoretically you indeed can fire bow faster. But that’s meaningless parameter. You almost newer want to fire all your arrows as fast as you can in as short time as possible in real battle. Mostly because just like today, the one to expend his ammo first is the one to loose. Fire rate in the real battle is dictated by ammo (in this case arrows/bolts) supply. Also because goal of archery is not to fire as fast as possible, it’s rather to hit the target.

There’s no question about it, xbows take more time to fire – period.
Your idea that if you fire more arrows/bolts faster than your opponent means you will lose the battle is utter nonsense

Oh Brother wrote:

Xbows inevitably became more powerful

Another misconception. In reality the most powerful crossbows and the most powerful bows were about equal in power (with bows having better performance at range due to characteristics of arrow).

Sorry to tell you this, but compound bows did not exist at that time, and if your referring to recurve bows, such as those employed by the Mongols, those also did not exist within the European theater during that period.

Oh Brother wrote:

one of the popes tried to ban the use of xbows because they killed heavily armored knights with ease before they could get into melee.

That’s true, but not because xbows could kill heavily armored knights. Knives, clubs, swords, bows, spears could also kill heavily armored knight, yet nobody have banned them.

Your explanation makes no sense. Clearly I must be wrong, please illuminate us on the “real” reason the pope tried to ban xbows.

Oh Brother wrote:

Even earlier, the Romans used a “testudo” or tortoise formation to protect the unit from all sides and above from missiles.

We don’t know what “testudo” used by Romans was. They newer bothered to describe it in their writings. All there is are pure speculations. And what you see in the Hollywood movies is almost certainly wrong. Just like most else you see in the Hollywood movies.

Who said anything about hollyweird? Again your wrong, try researching the “Column of Trajan”

A wise general wins before the battle, while the ignorant general must fight to win - Zhuge Liang

[hruza]

Oh Brother wrote:

I was speaking in the context of bow vs. xbow as the subject of the original post stated, not bow vs. everything else.

“Everything else” includes Crossbow.

Oh Brother wrote:

There’s no question about it, xbows take more time to fire – period.

Which is on it’s own meaningless parameter in the real combat. What matter is practical rate of fire, not the maximum one.

Oh Brother wrote:

Your idea that if you fire more arrows/bolts faster than your opponent means you will lose the battle is utter nonsense

Utter nonsense which is taught in basic training in any half decent military force. It even have name: “fire discipline”.

Oh Brother wrote:

Sorry to tell you this, but compound bows did not exist at that time

Sorry to tell you, but composite bows were already used by Romans in the Classical period in Europe.

“The normal weapon of Roman archers, both infantry and cavalry units, was the composite bow,” source

Oh Brother wrote:

and if your referring to recurve bows

I am referring to any high power bows, including longbow.

Oh Brother wrote:

those also did not exist within the European theater during that period.

Mongols came to Europe in 13th. ct. Which is exactly “that period”. Not that Mongols were the first to bring recurve bows to Europe. Recurve bows were used in Europe by Greeks, Romans, Scythians, Sarmathians, Huns, Avars, Magyars, Allans all before Mongols came.

Oh Brother wrote:

Your explanation makes no sense. Clearly I must be wrong, please illuminate us on the “real” reason the pope tried to ban xbows.

I did. All you need is to read it.

Oh Brother wrote:

Who said anything about hollyweird?

Your description of testudo matches that of the Hollywood.

Oh Brother wrote:

Again your wrong, try researching the “Column of Trajan”

Try to show me picture of the text on the Trajan column which says “testudo”. You can’t, because there is none.

Also try to refrain from attempting to insult me, especially with your level of knowledge of the affairs you talk about.

[Oh Brother]

@hruza
http://quatr.us/romans/architecture/trajanscolumn.htm

Stay in school
Don’t do drugs
and if you must post meaningless blather, try including something useful.

A wise general wins before the battle, while the ignorant general must fight to win - Zhuge Liang

[hruza]

Oh Brother wrote:

@hruza
http://quatr.us/romans/architecture/trajanscolumn.htm

Stay in school
Don’t do drugs
and if you must post meaningless blather, try including something useful.

I suggest you to stop with insults, because that’s just show you’re person witch can’t handle adult discussion and have run out of meaningful arguments.

That link you gave is completely useless. There’s no description on a Trajan column saying what column depicts is a testudo. I asked you to provide evidence of such a text and you clearly not capable of.

[Author]

Posts