My complainment! ABOUT RANGED-RAGE! Redone 2nd post with proposals.

[longbow93]

Dumb? He asked to provide sources about the fact that they could easily hit at 200 meters, I gave him so stfu. I am not saying that ingame archers shall be able to do that, it's just him whining all the way out cause he don't get that, of course, if he is alone against 3 archers he will be buttraped and he need the other classes help to win.

And yeah, there are proofs that they were able to shoot their arrow when the 4th-6th was still flying ( Depending from range )

 

[MaHuD]

... n the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron cuirasses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal.[17]

  -->    So the Nibelungenlied proves the existance of dragons? 

*walloftextcopypastefromwikipedia* Owned.

seriously? 

Just think about it: Any bow is just as strong as the guy who uses it.

\

Oh believe me, those longbow archers were strong....

 

[AWdeV]

Yes, but they weren't using rocket-propelled arrows. I really really disbelieve that story about a single arrow piercing armour, leg, saddle and horse. Exaggeration in the same vein as dane axes cleaving horses, that is.

 

[FrisianDude]

The arrow might, at relatively close range, have pierced the armour and then wounded the leg, but it would not have pierced armour and leg. Not to mention that it would then very much not pierce a sturdy leather saddle nor would it then drive through the thick horse-skin and kill the animal.

 

[longbow93]

Yes, but they weren't using rocket-propelled arrows. I really really disbelieve that story about a single arrow piercing armour, leg, saddle and horse. Exaggeration in the same vein as dane axes cleaving horses, that is.

Yeah, the most important people in the history camp are **** and do not know what they are talking about... Lol?

 

[FrisianDude]

'lol' once again you prove you are as thick as a donkey's ass and with similar **** coming from you.

 

[AWdeV]

Oh, go kick some more, you git. You're seriously suggesting longbows habitually hit targets over 200 meters range with such force that they'd actually nail fully armoured knights to their dead and dying horses? Really? Why would anyone in the history of ever even bother going through all that cost? Why didn't everyone simply use longbows if they were so powerful? After all, infantry and cavalry alike would be wholly superfluous with all that power.

 

[Meister_Eder]

Medieval reports are often not factual reports, trying to depict incidents exactly or as objective as possible. It's also doubtable that Gerald witnessed the incident himself.
But whether the arrow could penetrate leg, saddle and horse or not, what the author obviously wants to tell, is that he considered the longbow to be an extremely strong weapon.

 

[longbow93]

Oh, go kick some more, you git. You're seriously suggesting longbows habitually hit targets over 200 meters range with such force that they'd actually nail fully armoured knights to their dead and dying horses? Really? Why would anyone in the history of ever even bother going through all that cost? Why didn't everyone simply use longbows if they were so powerful? After all, infantry and cavalry alike would be wholly superfluous with all that power.

If you'd carefully read, instead of just trying to act smart, you would notice it is not written from 200 meters.

Toh! I carefully read and found:
Strickland and Hardy suggest that "even at a range of 240 yards heavy war arrows shot from bows of poundages in the mid- to upper range possessed by the Mary Rose bows would have been capable of killing or severely wounding men equipped with armour of wrought iron. Higher-quality armour of steel would have given considerably greater protection, which accords well with the experience of Oxford's men against the elite French vanguard at Poitiers in 1356, and des Ursin's statement that the French knights of the first ranks at Agincourt, which included some of the most important (and thus best-equipped) nobles, remained comparatively unhurt by the English arrows."[22]

And, very strange, it says what I explained ya.

 

[Archonsod]

Cav is very fast and uses shields, its way harder to aim for its head :/

Nah, you just dodge the lance and then shoot the silly bugger in the back of the head when he rides past. Unless he's smart, in which case he'll notice he failed to kill the archer and start zig zagging or at least change direction. Although saying that intelligence is something I associate with the horses more than the riders, particularly on the siege servers.

If you take a throwing weapon, archers cant shoot at you very accurately as they can't stand still or they will be hit by throwing stuff.

Depends on the distance. Thrown weapons are horribly inaccurate at anything beyond short range. Lost count of the amount of times I've stood shooting into a Nord advance while the silly buggers decorated the wall behind me with throwing axes.

Why didn't everyone simply use longbows if they were so powerful? After all, infantry and cavalry alike would be wholly superfluous with all that power.

Same reason they didn't just equip everyone with their own personal cannon. You can't usually ask an invader if they'd mind coming back in six years when everyone's been equipped and trained. We were just lucky the war with the French lasted a bit over a century.

 

[FrisianDude]

Giving everyone his own cannon would not make for a very good army. Reloads would be incredibly slow, for one matter, plus if a few horsemen walk around their area of fire they can make mince of them before they can actually react.

 

[MaHuD]

Cav is very fast and uses shields, its way harder to aim for its head :/

Nah, you just dodge the lance and then shoot the silly bugger in the back of the head when he rides past. Unless he's smart, in which case he'll notice he failed to kill the archer and start zig zagging or at least change direction. Although saying that intelligence is something I associate with the horses more than the riders, particularly on the siege servers.

I was talking about a historical point of view, not warband.

If you take a throwing weapon, archers cant shoot at you very accurately as they can't stand still or they will be hit by throwing stuff.

Depends on the distance. Thrown weapons are horribly inaccurate at anything beyond short range. Lost count of the amount of times I've stood shooting into a Nord advance while the silly buggers decorated the wall behind me with throwing axes.

Ofc, they need to actually time their throwing and dont start throwing miles away.
Also its VERY easy to dodge arrows from a longer range, just a small gap you need to cover after it gets harder to get to the throwing part.

 

[AWdeV]

*snip*

You're first talking about lack of range. Then about insane accuracy. THEN about far too powerful arrows. I condensed them in one post. Sue me.

Why didn't everyone simply use longbows if they were so powerful? After all, infantry and cavalry alike would be wholly superfluous with all that power.

Same reason they didn't just equip everyone with their own personal cannon. You can't usually ask an invader if they'd mind coming back in six years when everyone's been equipped and trained. We were just lucky the war with the French lasted a bit over a century.

Not what I meant though. I didn't mean a single period or a single country. I mean the entirety of military history. If a relatively simple and wide-spread bow is so powerful, then it wouldn't make much sense to even bother with all that armour business in the first place. People wouldn't bother with anything much beside bows. Fact that they DID implies to me that longbows didn't often nail riders to their horses, didn't hit heads over great distances and didn't blow the crenellations off of a castle wall or whatever more one could think of.

 

[crazyboy11]

shields /thread

one of the primary functions of a shield aside from stopping the long sharp or pointy thing in the other guys hand killing you was to stop the short pointy thing fired from some strung up bendy wood making the living of your life much more challenging.

 

[Wurzelmann]

shields /thread

The only problem is that shields in warband get destroyed by projectiles. An old round shield takes only a few bullet-arrows to burst into pieces.

 

[Archonsod]

If a relatively simple and wide-spread bow is so powerful, then it wouldn't make much sense to even bother with all that armour business in the first place. People wouldn't bother with anything much beside bows.

Yep, precisely why we disbanded all our conventional armies when we invented the nuke   Looking for sense in military history is a hiding to nothing. Common sense says you don't march men towards machine gun nests, common sense says you don't take on tanks with cavalry. If the military had ever discovered common sense we'd probably have wiped ourselves out by now.

The only problem is that shields in warband get destroyed by projectiles. An old round shield takes only a few bullet-arrows to burst into pieces.

Buy a better shield. The top quality shields can take a good seven to ten arrows.

 

[looy]

Yep, precisely why we disbanded all our conventional armies when we invented the nuke   Looking for sense in military history is a hiding to nothing. Common sense says you don't march men towards machine gun nests, common sense says you don't take on tanks with cavalry. If the military had ever discovered common sense we'd probably have wiped ourselves out by now.

But entire medieval armies weren't completely and utterly destroyed by fully automatic sniper bows. All those examples (except nukes, you can't fight a war with nukes without killing yourself in the process ) where when a newer technology/tactic completely and utterly destroyed an outdated one. If longbows where so awesome, then every medieval faction that didn't use them would have been annihilated.

 

[Wurzelmann]

Buy a better shield. The top quality shields can take a good seven to ten arrows.

That's what I wanted to say: A large piece of wood, specially designed for defensive purposes gets blown into tiny pieces only by a dozen of arrows? 

 

[MaHuD]

Huscarl shields takes like what 30 - 40 arrows?
oh and did I mention it protects the whole body from the front?

 

[Meneldur]

Huscarl shields are the great exception/ strongest ingame shields? 
yes and rohdokian  tower shields even parts of the head ? 

So you seem to wanna tell us that  whenever we play any other factions inf. then Rhodok or Nord we have to accept that our shields are not covering our whole front and get crushed be ! dozen of arrows.

And this is again  part of your BAD ASS REALISM which excludes even the Weather problem projectils of that time surely had.
Also that makes the game an ego-shooter which has nothing in common  with real medieval battles! 
THE LONGBOW crashed the french army of knights at Crecy and we all know that but this was the beginning of the End of the time period in which medieval warfare ( you know knights and stuff^^) was used.

from MaHuD:
I was talking about a historical point of view, not warband.

ahh  thanks.