romeo_longsword said:
With the latest 2.1 patch:
It's really unrealistic to be honest. How many times can an armored unit be shot by a top tire archer? This is not even a knight, just a crossbowmen. But beside the realism, it also unbalanced the gameplay, with archery damage being so weak, there is little point to pick archery units now. It is already overpower to pick mounted knights troops 100% even before your 2.1 patch, but this is now even worse.
3) A lot of armors, weapons are really poorly designed and unbalanced still, there are items that are cheaper, lesser requirements but more powerful. Amour pieces that are lighter, offer more protection and that are cheaper.
Overall, the 2.1 patch is a poor patch and it shows the danger of poor game balancing and desgin on the future development of the mod.
It can be shot infinite number of times by any bow if you could shoot someone in good armour with 2-3 arrows in reality then noone would use them. Archery is good as it is finally some mod that tryes to make it as it should be. Go play something else if you want termite heat navigated missiles. Maybe little flame from someone that really has to say something relevant to this and with I cant but agree:
-quote- Posts like these are why I took a 3 month hiatus from the R&A board, and why I resigned as moderator of the Armour forum on Sword Forum - they are almost painful to read, and to no surprise, I see the same names dredging up the same speculation, based on a belief in the superiority on one weapon as a matter of faith (and even in past have suggested a mystical ability to said archers).
Firstly, please provide a *single* documented example of a completely armoured knight, armed cap-a-pie (in plate, to handle one hurdle at a time - Bob and others can handle the mail end), who was killed by having a plate of his armour penetrated by a longbow arrow - just *one* example will suffice. I can provide you with several examples of lightly wounded people, who were either struck in a thin limb plate, or who were struck where the plate was not.
Secondly, Gabriel le Noir - I do not think so - your finding different arguments, if the people in question on said board were scholars of Arms & Armour. Suffice it to Say, the RA and others who have undertaken the tests against armour were suprised at how effective the armour was - they did not approach it with a predisposed bias, or if they did have a bias, it was an assumption that the longbow would have done much better - after all, they were raised with the cherished myth, intrinsicly wrapped in English Nationalisim, and brought into full glory during the Victorian era of the warbow as a superweapon.
Regarding your commentary on the crossbow - it is quite easy to prove that a majority of military crossbows across europe throughout the middle ages had a greater draw strength, and greater penetrative power than any military self bow contemprary in use - that is the principle reason the weapons were used. In comparison, if a warbow of high strength drew 150 lbs (to push the upper limit of what is known), one can compare militaary crossbows drawn by cranquin, and used as skirmishers in most continental armies - these average 300 lbs draw weight (and this without considering windlass drawn steel stave arbalasts, with upwards of 1000 lb draw weight). The crossbow bolt or quarrel was shorter, and *heavier* than the military arrows used. Even vitreons existed, with spiral fletching to impart a spin to a projectile - made intentionaly to defeat armour.
The advantages of the longbow were 1. ease of production 2. ease of maintenance 3. a high rate of fire 4. and last, but most certainly not least, a weapon allowing a far denser proportion of archers and a crossbow.
The rate of fire of the bow made it able to be used as a rapid fire, indirect fire area denial weapon, in a way a crossbow never could be.
While Bob Charron is correct that very few armies would have large components of 'naked' men (unarmoured, in late medieval parlance), even a well armoured infantryman would not be completely armoured - most infantrymen would be wearing jack and mail, or brigandine, and a helmet. The believers in the myth won't like this, but there is every indication that these armours, worn in combination, would render the wearer likely to be proof, or nearly proof to archery on the areas covered. Unfortunately for the average infantryman, he could still be **** down in the unarmoured face, the thigh, the calf, the arm - a yard long arrow through a mans arm or leg is most likely to render them completely out of a fight, and if they did not bleed to death, or they were not cracked open like over-ripe melons by the victors with everything from mallets to maces and bills, they were highly likely to be killed by infection - puncture wounds being particularly unforgiving of anything but the most rigerous sanitation, and septicimia causing 100 % mortality before the early 20th century (just imageine dying of gas gangrene in a ****hole of a hovel, after having a yard long arrow taken out of you - isn't that a delightful thought).
The point being, that an army of archers could convievably reap down typical infantrymen like a happy Boche machinegunner on the first day at the Somme 1916 - concievably, an army of bowmen could inflict 80% casualties on a typical medieval army without ever killing a fully armoured man. Some of the fully armoured chaps would go down because they had their visors lifted, or a lucky shot hit them where the armour was not, or ditto to an occularum penetration, ect.
The warbow was a highly effective weapon - largely because it enabled the English to employ an entire class of people armed that few if any continental powers could match - because the English could trust an armed yeomanry, and no European Monarch had any compatable weapon or class of people to match. It enabled the English to field far larger armies than they could have had they been forced to rely solely on the aristocracy and mercenaries. Just by being reasonably effective, it was an equalizer on the battlefield. Please note that the great battles won of the longbow were principly defensive fights from prepared positions, and the times the English were forced to fight in other circumstances, the battles tended to go badly for them.
This will probably be my last reply on this post - one can never convince the true believers in the Zen of the archer-mystic.
All I can say is that scholars of arms and armour believe 2 basic truths.
1. armour never imparted complete invulnerability to the wearer
2. complete suits of armour of quality of any era were likely to be the nearest thing to proof against most archery of the day - such suits never being a commonplace. -end-
source- chef de chambre: http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=27695&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=35&sid=16ce5ffa115c6f19c1c0bf256eab05eb
Just my two cents I hope youll carry on and not be discouraged by whining about balance (which allways equals to I wanna kill 10 knights with unreal tournament multikill headshots in 10 second or me wanna be viking able to screw 20 horsemen armoured head to toe naked with me uberaxe) There is no problem with balance maybe make heavy horsemen 10x more expensive than infantry to make them valuable. I can still kill 40 knights with 80 or so halberdiers and 120 halberdiers with 50 longbowmen before they reach me so I dont see a problem here.
