Archers; Too heavily armed

Users who are viewing this thread

WhichDoctor said:
jojymo said:
Ya just a few changes and it will be sweet  :lol:

Are the master necromancer at work again  :cool:

But yes it takes many years of training and quite significant strength to use a war bow well or even at all but any peasant can be given a crossbow and use it quite effectively. No offense to your Mum Blackthorn :razz:.
THE MOTHER OF AN EARL? A PEASANT...?!? *shock*
Naw- none taken. :wink:
The thing about the crossbow is also the relative cost of the missiles. I know- seems next to nothing, right? But you can fletch a bolt with materials such as parchment scraps or leather, even thin laminates of wood, whereas arrows require more pollarded wood, in longer lengths, and to be much more skillfully produced than crossbow bolts. I've also noticed wastage on the (reenactment) field favours bolts- they rarely shatter on impact, and are therefore cheaper to supply with missiles.
The only major downside is this- take an early period crossbow, and now shoot down from elevation. Watch the bolt gently slide down the trough and drop. Laugh at your own inefficiency. :wink:
 
well, that should be easily remedied. There can be some block against the feathers or whatever you use for fletching. as long as the fletching is stiff enough, it'll hold it in place. The trigger mechanism that releases the string also removes the hold. Dont say it is beyond the mechanics of the time. they created more complicated mechanisms than that. It also gives a reason why bolts would often have more solid fletching than arrows
 
Oskatat said:
well, that should be easily remedied. There can be some block against the feathers or whatever you use for fletching. as long as the fletching is stiff enough, it'll hold it in place. The trigger mechanism that releases the string also removes the hold. Dont say it is beyond the mechanics of the time. they created more complicated mechanisms than that. It also gives a reason why bolts would often have more solid fletching than arrows

And there's absolutely no period depictions. This is the problem- a score of small problems could be easily fixed, but the fix is inauthentic...
 
Blackthorn said:
The only major downside is this- take an early period crossbow, and now shoot down from elevation. Watch the bolt gently slide down the trough and drop. Laugh at your own inefficiency. :wink:

Spit heartily into the trough before putting the bolt in it.  No, don't drink from your canteen first - you want a rich, gluey, medieaval gobbet of spit, with day-old ale and maybe some blood from that rotting tooth...

It'll give you a second or two. 
 
Archers shouldn't be allowed to carry shields, it would solve the problems. Except for the Rhodoks, giving them the only archers with large shields would fit. Though seeing History other archers could be given an small buckler like shield seeing that some had shields.
 
The problem is that the game doesn't really reflect the historical and real-life differences of experience, skills, and inclination:

Archers were highly skilled in one particular area: Ranged combat.  They had little skill, experience or inclination to pitched melee and quite simply that was perfectly correct.  No commander would waste a hundred archers in a hand-to-hand brawl when he had men-at-arms on the field.  Men at arms were trained and equipped to the melee.

M&B however has an AI that makes everyone try and be everything that their weapon-load allows.  So where in real life, an archer with a shield and a morningstar would just be weighed down by kit which he would almost never get a chance to use, in M&B the same archer becomes an all-rounder par excellence able to mix it up with the Swadian Infantry.

The 'guarantee ranged' tag should somehow trigger AI behaviour similar to horse-archer behaviour: stay at range and use missiles.
The other way of doing it, that we can ALL do for ourselves, is to increase the melee skills for non-ranged units and decrease the melee skills for ranged units.  So that, for example, the outcome of a melee between Vaegir Marksmen and Swadian footmen will be a win for the Swadians.
 
Amman- "Archers were highly skilled in one particular area: Ranged combat.  They had little skill, experience or inclination to pitched melee and quite simply that was perfectly correct.  No commander would waste a hundred archers in a hand-to-hand brawl when he had men-at-arms on the field."
Sorry, can't let that one past the Authenticitiy Nazi. :wink:
Depends very much on where, when, who and context. There were specific divisions of Flemish mercenaries trained to be both Crossbowmen AND Spearmen, and thus could meet the requirements of a flexible commander. Militia were equally trained as both archers and melee troops- thus making wall defence a more valid option.
There is also ACTIVE EVIDENCE of archers being deployed where they would be drawn into melee- IE- to deliver volleys, then join the rear of the formation.
Whilst I agree, such men as Genoese 14th C mercenary crossbowmen would not be sent into melee- but in Scandinavia up until the 14th C all militia (including experienced veterans) were expected to report with bow and arrows, for use as an archer when suitable.
We need to abandon the concept of ''archers'' as a singular term referring to ONE GROUP in this thread- they differ nation to nation, class to class, period to period (even region to region within countries!). As such, there's merit to most comments, but decisive fact found in none.
 
kermitthefrog3 said:
i agree with archers and crossbowmen being to heavily armed, they should have a sword for mellee attacking but nothing else, however thier armour should be fair, not plate or scale, but stuff like the leather you start out with.
exactly just leather armour and a hatchet, short sword or a spiked club. Remember they were the lower classes and couldnt afford much.
 
they would start out with fairly average gear, but english longbowmen in particular had a habit of victory, and equipped themselves from plundered enemies with mail, bits of plate, helmets and weapons.

So there is no reason that a high-tier archer or crossbowman (high tier implies a number of victories behind them) should not have some good kit
 
Seems reasonable... at least. But they wouldn't equip themselves so heavy it would limit his movement.
 
PrinceGhaldir said:
Seems reasonable... at least. But they wouldn't equip themselves so heavy it would limit his movement.
Depends, really. What do you count as impeding movement? A gambeson is restrictive, if you 'aint used to it. That said I've done acrobatics in my hauberk and chausses to show people how spritely a trained man -can- be.
But again, I agree, but it's a question of circumstance.
And thank you Amman- it's nice to know intelligent and mutually respectful debate -can- happen on here! :grin:
 
I was more talking about full mail and plate. A great helm would limit his vision a lot, also not very pleasent archery speaking.
 
interesting. At one point, people argue that archers wouldnt get into melee, not needing the big armor or good weapons, but that also means there is nothing limiting them to equiping such items as long as it doesnt stop them drawing their bowstring. The next point is that they wouldnt equip heavy stuff to stay out of combat in the first place.....

If you are an archer, you'll equip the strongest armor you can find that allows you to still draw the bow. Regardless of where you will be positioned or what will come your way. Maximum protection against arrow AND that detachment that slipped through your lines and is now harrying the archers. Only the experienced troops (survivors of some battles with looted armor as mentioned before) would have such. ANY "imbalancing" weapon or armor can be compensated for in your aim. Its like saying i cant put my key in a lock because i have a heavy backpack. Unless one of my arms  is involved, i can compensate

the actual complaint here seems to be that the player army usually consists of only high tier troops, which indeed have much better armor and weapons, just in case, than peasants with a crossbow (swadian militia). Then the archers are indeed all equiped heavily. Vaegis skirmishers have an axe, a short bow and laughable armor. For every 50 skirmishers there are 20 archers and 10 marksmen (roughly). So, only 10 archers actually have good armor and good weapons, except those in your own army
 
same here, but you would have a problem if they were all top tier archers, or at least more of a bother

but, as pointed out, most low tiers dont have such great weapons or armor. So what is the problem?
 
Back
Top Bottom