Regarding Archers

[Lord Bryggan]

Here's a reliable source- my personal opinion.  While in the past my personal opinions seemed to have been wrong, but it turned out the universe was wrong. 

I was just wondering how long could a person stand with their arm stretched out holding a bow?  After a few minutes it would really, really ache (the old school punishment of standing in front of the class with your arms extended- I remember the pain ).  I could imagine several minutes of intense firing as the enemy charges, then slow down and relax, remembering to stretch and ease those aching muscles.  That does sort of seem to happen in M&B, though my archers tend to aim with bows taut for about 30 seconds, then lower bow briefly, then once again aim with bow without firing until finally they get a clear shot.

 

[tommylaw]

Here's a reliable source- my personal opinion.  While in the past my personal opinions seemed to have been wrong, but it turned out the universe was wrong. 

Ha! How brazen.

 

[ghettomedic]

Archers alone are not enough I think they must be used as back up auxilliary troops never use
as primary troops at least I don't read my post new on tactics 101 Im new to the forum by the way not new the game playing for a year.

 

[Mk3390]

In the game I thinks archers are underplayed. The only good ones bieng the khergits.  If you think about it, in real life a well placed arrow will kill, whereas in game you have to sacrifice either speed or power.

 

[Lord Burgess1]

In the game I thinks archers are underplayed. The only good ones bieng the khergits. 

Vaegir Marksmen as well.

 

[Archie]

I think the relevant part from the Wikipedia article is in bold:

""With the heaviest bows (a modern warbow archer) does not like to try for more than six a minute""

Doesn't say that archers couldn't fire faster, just that it would be very tiring.

And with no stamina in M&B there's nothing preventing continuous maximum rate of fire...

 

[kingofnoobia]

In the game I thinks archers are underplayed. The only good ones bieng the khergits.  If you think about it, in real life a well placed arrow will kill, whereas in game you have to sacrifice either speed or power.

In the game you have to sacrifice neither, an arrow to the leg with my warbow (power draw only 6) usually does over 40 damage against lightly armoured foes, often even more. Guys in heavy armour usually don't survive more than three arrows. An arrow in the neck or head will kill, yes, too bad that aimed shots like that can only be done at very close range. At this range the footmen protect their faces with their shields. At long range (in real life), archers fire volleys without aiming for a specific target, 'well placed arrows' only occur by chance there.

Anyway, once up close, a sword is, and should be, more lethal.

I think the relevant part from the Wikipedia article is in bold:

""With the heaviest bows (a modern warbow archer) does not like to try for more than six a minute""

Doesn't say that archers couldn't fire faster, just that it would be very tiring.

And with no stamina in M&B there's nothing preventing continuous maximum rate of fire...

Read my entire post:

[quote author=kingofnoobia]
Agreed that it would really vary, and when a force of horsemen is charging at archers, they will probably try to get as many shots off in a short time. But when they are firing from long to medium range, they would fire calmly methinks.
[/quote]

I did not assume they couldn't fire any faster, they just wouldn't unless it would be really necessary. Which is why we should decrease the average rate of fire of archers slightly if there is not going to be a stamina system (and I'm not really in favor of a stamina system). Even in perilous situations, I do not believe archers to be capable of firing an arrow every two seconds the way it is in MnB. The current speed is too high in whatever way you look at it.

 

[Ruthven]

Eh, whenever I use my recurve bow, I can shoot my three arrows faster than most people take to shoot one and get another on the string, but I'm still the best in my division. Taking more time with a modern compound bow is the best thing to do, because they're insanely accurate. But with a normal self bow or longbow, the longer you hold the arrow there the more it strains your limbs, and if you're shooting 20-40+ arrows, it's best to just put the arrow on the string, and try and aim while you're still drawing the bow up to your face, then give yourself not even a second when it gets there to release.

 

[kingofnoobia]

Eh, whenever I use my recurve bow, I can shoot my three arrows faster than most people take to shoot one and get another on the string, but I'm still the best in my division. Taking more time with a modern compound bow is the best thing to do, because they're insanely accurate. But with a normal self bow or longbow, the longer you hold the arrow there the more it strains your limbs, and if you're shooting 20-40+ arrows, it's best to just put the arrow on the string, and try and aim while you're still drawing the bow up to your face, then give yourself not even a second when it gets there to release.

That only refers to your actions once your arrow is nocked. Users of heavy medieval bows would probably do as you say, but they would take some time in between the shots to allow them to fire for a longer time (battles usually taking several hours, they don't want to be tired after half an hour of shooting).

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Crossbows use all sorts of nifty mechanisms to keep the bolt in place before firing, but that simply won't work with any hand-drawn bow.

But you can have two hands on the bow as you move around, keeping the arrow in place. Since nocking the arrow is the longest part of the process, it'd make sense to move around with one nocked.

 

[Lord Bryggan]

Archers alone are not enough I think they must be used as back up auxilliary troops never use
as primary troops at least I don't read my post new on tactics 101 Im new to the forum by the way not new the game playing for a year.

With an equally mixed Vaegir army I get my archers to flank the enemy once they are engaged with my foot (cavalry is still wheeling around taking out their cavalry or lagging archers).  That's a lot of arrows in the back of the hostile infantry, and they never, ever hit my own troops.

 

[Mk3390]

In the game I thinks archers are underplayed. The only good ones bieng the khergits.  If you think about it, in real life a well placed arrow will kill, whereas in game you have to sacrifice either speed or power.

In the game you have to sacrifice neither, an arrow to the leg with my warbow (power draw only 6) usually does over 40 damage against lightly armoured foes, often even more. Guys in heavy armour usually don't survive more than three arrows.
Anyway, once up close, a sword is, and should be, more lethal.

Well, your warbow takes long to notch and shoot. Which it does massive damage yes or you could use a nomad or khergit bow where you would have to shoot 3+ arrows. As for being underplayed, I think they are because an arrow pierces through armor whereas up close a sword swing will not cut through (all this depending on different factors).

 

[Night Ninja]

The effectiveness of arrows against armour is highly exaggerated. The combination of gambeson (or a thick fabric cover), mail and arming garment protects the user extremely well.

There are numerous accounts of mailed knights being struck by loads of arrows and continuing to fight as though nothing had happened. This is only mail, mind you, lamellar can be even more of a pain in the ass to get through.

 

[Mk3390]

Yea, I agree but the effects of a sword swing would be even less, even padded leather would be enough to stop an unskilled attack yet an arrow has a higher chance of pierce( I agree that it would deter it heavily). And yes an arrow would do little against heavy plate but the only thing that would is a blunt weapon. In game none of it works this way. All I'm saying is a sword is overpowered when it shouldn't be or the bow and arrow should be made stronger.

 

[Agent707]

In real life, an archer's rate of fire varies considerably based on who the archer is, how strong they are (for the relevant muscles, at least), how much training they have had, what they are doing at the time (are they aiming carefully or just spamming), etc. The computer isn't very smart when it comes to that sort of thing.

This is really all that needs said in this thread.