Guns vs Bows........serious changes need to be made

[reallybigjohnson]

as many people have posted bows are significantly better DPS dealers than guns.  for normal troops this makes sense however only the absolutely best bows like longbows could penetrate plate armor.  this needs to be addressed in this game with a damage threshold similar to fallout new vegas (the first two fallout games had this as well).

many people have posted that they can clean house easily with a bow and while i havent built an archery character yet for this game if its similar to warband then i agree that its more difficult to get alot of kills with fire arms.  i end up using my lance all the time.  which is odd because historically in this time period cavalry was pretty much obsolete with the exception of a few units like dragoons etc.  artillery and infantry ruled the day.

 

[Archonsod]

Pike and shot ruled the day, not artillery

It's fine. Technically the bow is still a superior weapon than the musket. Where the musket wins is that anyone can learn to use one in an hour, whereas to be an effective archer requires years of training.

And lancers remained a core of an army until WW1 ...

 

[asterix 2010]

and 25 musketeers are far  more deadly than 50 bowmen

 

[Munx]

Seems fine to me.

Bow might very well be higher dps for the player, but bow also require a little something called power draw, which gun does not.

And as far as Npc battles go, Guns npcs pretty much dominate bow npcs.

Not to mention I've still to meet a archer that does more then 2 dmg trough my armor.

And archon makes a very valid point.

 

[Mavnas]

I still can't see the point using a lance  over a saber. (Except maybe against enemy cavalry.) You can't cut down multiple enemies on each pass through their formations.

 

[Archonsod]

No, but you can guarantee a kill against a specific enemy. Really depends on what you're using your cavalry to do.

Also, against pikemen the extra reach of the lance can be useful.

 

[Shik]

balance would be much better in multiplayer if bows were changed to cutting-type damage in order to reduce effectiveness against armor. As for lance vs sabre - with a fast horse, the lance is very useful for attacking horse archers, and the couched lance is very useful against footmen.

 

[King Harkinian]

I think the problem is mainly that most M&B players are used to using bows rather than guns. After playing a lot of musket mods you really get the hang of them, and I actually like them better than the bows. They have an inherent level of inaccuracy you need to factor in, but once you're used to it you get a "feel" for the hit probability you're going to get. Once you know where you're supposed to aim, you can hit targets pretty reliably, even at long ranges.

 

[Darmoth]

Pike and shot ruled the day, not artillery

It's fine. Technically the bow is still a superior weapon than the musket. Where the musket wins is that anyone can learn to use one in an hour, whereas to be an effective archer requires years of training.

And lancers remained a core of an army until WW1 ...

So... why did lancers go out of style around WW1...? 

 

[PANTERA.]

Pike and shot ruled the day, not artillery

It's fine. Technically the bow is still a superior weapon than the musket. Where the musket wins is that anyone can learn to use one in an hour, whereas to be an effective archer requires years of training.

And lancers remained a core of an army until WW1 ...

So... why did lancers go out of style around WW1...? 

Trench warfare?

 

[King Harkinian]

Pike and shot ruled the day, not artillery

It's fine. Technically the bow is still a superior weapon than the musket. Where the musket wins is that anyone can learn to use one in an hour, whereas to be an effective archer requires years of training.

And lancers remained a core of an army until WW1 ...

So... why did lancers go out of style around WW1...? 

Trench warfare?

Repeater rifles... they were already pretty much useless against infantry firepower in the later part of the 19th century, but machineguns really put an end to them.

 

[PANTERA.]

Pike and shot ruled the day, not artillery

It's fine. Technically the bow is still a superior weapon than the musket. Where the musket wins is that anyone can learn to use one in an hour, whereas to be an effective archer requires years of training.

And lancers remained a core of an army until WW1 ...

So... why did lancers go out of style around WW1...? 

Trench warfare?

Repeater rifles... they were already pretty much useless against infantry firepower in the later part of the 19th century, but machineguns really put an end to them.

The first machine gun was created in 1884.
WW1-1914.

It took them 30 years to figure that out?

Everything I've read about it points to trench warfare being the cause of the cavalry's downfall.


Edit, then again cavalry was still used up intill WW2.

Poland VS Germany.
Lances VS Armored cars.

Poland, very noble, indeed.

That's the story anyways.

 

[Reiksmarshal]

I really don't see the problem, I fight bow armies all day long with my Swedish heavy cav gunners and rarely take a single loss even when out number 2 to 1. Bows are not the problem, its the heads shots with guns that is the really issue for me. Even though I have the most expensive helmet in the game 80K and gives you 62 head protection it really doesn't matter when you are taking a 150+ crit to the head. I just wish if you have a helmet that gives you a 30+ head protection it would make you immune to crits to the head from muskets.   

 

[Proteus]

Pike and shot ruled the day, not artillery

It's fine. Technically the bow is still a superior weapon than the musket. Where the musket wins is that anyone can learn to use one in an hour, whereas to be an effective archer requires years of training.

And lancers remained a core of an army until WW1 ...

So... why did lancers go out of style around WW1...? 

Trench warfare?

Repeater rifles... they were already pretty much useless against infantry firepower in the later part of the 19th century, but machineguns really put an end to them.

The first machine gun was created in 1884.
WW1-1914.

It took them 30 years to figure that out?

Everything I've read about it points to trench warfare being the cause of the cavalry's downfall.


Edit, then again cavalry was still used up intill WW2.

Poland VS Germany.
Lances VS Armored cars.

Poland, very noble, indeed.

That's the story anyways.

A false story however...
even the poles knew in WW 2,
that lance charges of cavalry against tanks (or even modern infantry) are futile.

Instead they used cavalry, like the other major european powers since the 19th/beginning of 20th century,
as a form of mobile infantry.
A cavalry squadron would ride to the intended target, outside of rifle range, then all cavalrymen would dismount and fight as an infantry unit, with rifles, except for one member of the cvavalry squadron who had to stay behind and care for the horses.

The cavalry squadron around which the story with the lances against tanks evolved,
was probably just caught by the tanks while fleeing.

 

[xenoargh]

And lancers remained a core of an army until the Crimean ... no, wait... the Penninsular... no, wait, the Revolutionary... no, wait...

Heh.  Lancers even in this period were more useful as dragoons.  The Polish Hussars are 50 years out of date with the rest of Europe.  And we can't even make them caracole or do the fantasia.

 

[Smissen]

Pike and shot ruled the day, not artillery

It's fine. Technically the bow is still a superior weapon than the musket. Where the musket wins is that anyone can learn to use one in an hour, whereas to be an effective archer requires years of training.

And lancers remained a core of an army until WW1 ...

So... why did lancers go out of style around WW1...? 

Trench warfare?

And machine guns

 

[Archonsod]

So... why did lancers go out of style around WW1...? 

The internal combustion engine rendered the horse obsolete, and the ability to fit machine guns to motorbikes and cars made the lance obsolete.

 

[catking2003]

Pike and shot ruled the day, not artillery

It's fine. Technically the bow is still a superior weapon than the musket. Where the musket wins is that anyone can learn to use one in an hour, whereas to be an effective archer requires years of training.

And lancers remained a core of an army until WW1 ...

So... why did lancers go out of style around WW1...? 

Trench warfare?

Repeater rifles... they were already pretty much useless against infantry firepower in the later part of the 19th century, but machineguns really put an end to them.

The first machine gun was created in 1884.
WW1-1914.

It took them 30 years to figure that out?

Everything I've read about it points to trench warfare being the cause of the cavalry's downfall.


Edit, then again cavalry was still used up intill WW2.

Poland VS Germany.
Lances VS Armored cars.

Poland, very noble, indeed.

That's the story anyways.

A false story however...
even the poles knew in WW 2,
that lance charges of cavalry against tanks (or even modern infantry) are futile.

Instead they used cavalry, like the other major european powers since the 19th/beginning of 20th century,
as a form of mobile infantry.
A cavalry squadron would ride to the intended target, outside of rifle range, then all cavalrymen would dismount and fight as an infantry unit, with rifles, except for one member of the cvavalry squadron who had to stay behind and care for the horses.

The cavalry squadron around which the story with the lances against tanks evolved,
was probably just caught by the tanks while fleeing.

one version says that they attack tanks to cover retreat of other units

 

[PANTERA.]

A false story however...
even the poles knew in WW 2,
that lance charges of cavalry against tanks (or even modern infantry) are futile.

Instead they used cavalry, like the other major european powers since the 19th/beginning of 20th century,
as a form of mobile infantry.
A cavalry squadron would ride to the intended target, outside of rifle range, then all cavalrymen would dismount and fight as an infantry unit, with rifles, except for one member of the cvavalry squadron who had to stay behind and care for the horses.

The cavalry squadron around which the story with the lances against tanks evolved,
was probably just caught by the tanks while fleeing.

Yeah I read it was most likely a myth, but still a good myth of good vs evil( ) no doubt.

 

[Temuzu]

The Poles did manage to do one succesful cavarly attack against the Germans in WW2. Managed to ambush a unit of German infantry while they were resting IIRC.