Archers; Too heavily armed

Users who are viewing this thread

Vrkas said:
i vote to add tactical nukes, will completely settle the OP archers issue...........my 2c....


as for bdodigs post.....


Im pretty sure the armor Im wearing weighed less if not the same as what they wore back then, your high if you are going to tell me people of the body type / build of that period could run "preeety fast" with armor on.....

Im a recon scout and in better shape than 90% of soldiers and I can tell you theres very few people who can run fast in kit for more than 100m and then not be spent. So i dont buy that little dudes of that time period were ninja sprinting around in kit with all the crap they used to carry and wear....

There's the minor point that most armours and gear (bar heavy plate which vanilla units don't wear; and I prefer playing 1257 with RCM anyway) of the time weigh far less then the actual full kit of a modern day combatant. We're talking about 15kg to 20kg of combat gear for the timeframe (and most of it being armour, so it does not shift your center of mass, making it easier to move; moreso for plate which provided you with excellent weight distribution) compared to the 20 to 50kg of combat gear for today's solder. The plated knight of the timeframe was much less encumbered then the modern day marine with full gear, body armour, ammo, water, food and communications gear.

So yeah, people at the time could run preety fast with kit on. I can run preety fast with 15kg of stuff on me, if for a more limited time frame. It was definitely possible for a trained man to run and catch a not so fit archer.

Archers "kiting" isn't going to happen, unless you can, by virtue of carrying 10-15kg less (if you fight naked, I guess), outrun the other guy to give yourself at the very least ten seconds to turn, draw a bow with a 60+kg draw, aim, fire, and resume running. Don't see that working out.

The only reason for unarmoured troops at the time was the serious expense of it making outfitting everyone with armour unfeasible, really. Archers historically used whatever they could get their hands on.
 
HAbasta said:
Joza said:
I think they also shouldnt be very good on using melee weapons.
I agree with Joza here. But they should have like some sort of mail armor atleast.
but archers are not very good at using melee weapons as it is :shock: how much more can you nerf them, dammit? I think they're just fine as they are.
 
Says the noob: 'Cept that one crossbowman NPC from Jelkala.  After picking him up as a 'hero' companion, I checked his skills... and all of his melee values were as high, or higher, than his crossbow skill!  Beast!
 
I both agree and disagree because i have to admit they have stronger melee abilities then they should but they are still no match for well trained units. But that's just my opinion
 
Merentha said:
Historically, if they could afford armor, they would wear it.  Archers tended to be relatively poor peasants, often criminals.  They couldn't afford much, but sure as hell wouldn't chose a dagger over a sword.  Removing polearms seems like a fine idea to me though.  One-handed swords of various quality, plus an occasional small shield, seems fine to me for weapons.
i agree with that 100%
 
Northcott said:
Says the noob: 'Cept that one crossbowman NPC from Jelkala.  After picking him up as a 'hero' companion, I checked his skills... and all of his melee values were as high, or higher, than his crossbow skill!  Beast!
that's Bunduk, and he's a companion. It so happens that his archery is better than his crossbow proficiency. On top of that his Power Strike value is low(and that is what counts the most when regarding melee weapons) and his starting armor is weak. And again he's a 'hero'.

Leave the archers as they are!
 
Also, archers should have good physical attributes, like powerstrike.  Archery demands strength in the upper body.  That strength can be used just as well for swinging melee weapons.  With the strength, it is only a question of technique.  Which is something else entirely.
 
Ok, archers a long long time ago were mostly peasants who had joined the army. After awhile they might get better armor, even up to mail, but no knight goes for bows or crossbows over a melee weapon. That job goes to the less armed militias. Just going off the English, The longbowman came from the lower classes, who might move up in rank. The best they should have is a sword, and small shield with at best mail armor. They could sometimes get their hands on partial plate, but that was rare. Their job was to do the skirmish tactics of hitting and running back to make use of their less armored speed. They would get shredded by knights if they got into combat. They also should not get a strong upper body because "pulling a bow or crossbow is hard." Think of a heavily armored knight having the same upperbody strength as a longbowman. Thats totally not true.

Just to get somethings straight The Nords who are based of the Danish and Norse used mostly axes, sometimes swords, maybe bows, but not spears. It was very rare for them to have spears. If you think that your thinking of the Scottish, who had to defend themselves against the British cavalry.
 
JonTan said:
They also should not get a strong upper body because "pulling a bow or crossbow is hard." Think of a heavily armored knight having the same upperbody strength as a longbowman. Thats totally not true.

Although I think there is a difference between the physical fortitude of professional archers and knights, the draw weight on most bows designated for medieval warfare would suggest that archers do need quite a bit of upper body strength if they were needed to draw it several times over the course of battle. The longbow has a draw weight of 100lbs, and the bows that rival it aren't far off in the draw strength either. Drawing one of them took a lot of upper body strength.

JonTan said:
Just to get somethings straight The Nords who are based of the Danish and Norse used mostly axes, sometimes swords, maybe bows, but not spears. It was very rare for them to have spears. If you think that your thinking of the Scottish, who had to defend themselves against the British cavalry.

Every culture on the earth has used the almighty pointy stick. The Saxons, Danes, and Anglo-Saxons were no different. There are quite a few medieval era spear heads around if you google them. They did use axes, but not to the extent, I believe, that modern media makes it out to be. Spears would be one of the main weapons of the levied classes.
Throwing spears were also quite popular; even Odin had one.
 
Archers are fine wearing anything that ranges from cloth to medium armor. A chain shirt is not hampering your ability to draw a bow at all, and rigid medium armor is only strapped to a single piece of the body each. There are no "rubber bands" connecting your chest to your forearms, or anything like that. Every soldier is used to a bit of encumbrance from wearing armor of some kind. They are trained to draw their bows and load their crossbows under these conditions, and it's not hard to achieve either.

What I agree with is that Power Strike above maybe 1 (representing basic weapons training) has no place on any Archer unit. If they're trained that well with the Bow or Crossbow it would simply not be economic to also slap an impressive melee training course on top of that. Troops have specialized uses when they are part of an army. The more low-tech roots of the Nords were an excuse to let them have throwing weapons, and earlier, longbows.

And forgoing all this boring back and forth talk, there is the simple balance argument. Sharpshooters kick ass. They shouldn't kick ass in melee, too. Vaegir Archers likewise. Their PS is not deadly, but they have 2-H-Axes, and that seems silly considering how good they're at ranged combat.
 
Just to point out, most longbowmen didn't even pull their bows to full draw, as it was too hard. Some could, but most couldn't. Also spears were used, with the Danes and Norse, but not as often as the ax or sword in the higher classes. Spears were more for the militias, as they were easy to make.One thing they did use was the Svaerdstav (I think that's right) which was a sword-staff.
 
Disregarding the former post:

Spears were used almost universally in scandinavic armies, axes less and swords even less. The sword staff is not something historians agree on existing.
 
its really hard to survive in the battlefield if it has archers in them cause i kill an ordinary foot soldier in 2 hits or 1 depends and archers are exactly the same but they can damage me from afar so they fix that
 
Archers don't have shields, so unless you have a two hander with the blocking set to manual, while being very poor with it, the archer is going to be very easy to take down.
Besides other than the crossbowmen, the archers in M&B are the weakest in melee in terms of power strike and strength.
 
i dont now about you dude but i have great sword of war and on my horse i rarely kill them in one hit if not fast and usually i tend to end up in the middle of m enemies
 
There are much more heavily armored troops on the battlefield. Are you talking about Rhodok sharpshooters? Because the Vaegir, Nord and Swadian missile troops aren't very heavily armored at all.
It might also be the result of you using cutting damage instead of piercing and blunt damage which is less affected by heavy armor ratings.
 
Swadius said:
JonTan said:
Just to get somethings straight The Nords who are based of the Danish and Norse used mostly axes, sometimes swords, maybe bows, but not spears. It was very rare for them to have spears. If you think that your thinking of the Scottish, who had to defend themselves against the British cavalry.

Every culture on the earth has used the almighty pointy stick. The Saxons, Danes, and Anglo-Saxons were no different. There are quite a few medieval era spear heads around if you google them. They did use axes, but not to the extent, I believe, that modern media makes it out to be. Spears would be one of the main weapons of the levied classes.
Throwing spears were also quite popular; even Odin had one.
Indeed;
Wikinger.jpg
from the Frisian Wikipedia; "Midsieuske ôfbylding fan Wytsingdrakaars" or "Medieval image of Viking dragonships" (=longboats)
 
I definetly think rhodok sharpshooters are overpowered. Of course, the should keep their Über-crossbows, but they are dressed in the same mail armor as sea raiders, and cause enormous damage with their sword-swings aswell!
 
Back
Top Bottom