Crossbows

[mikekh]

I'm unsure of how crossbows fit in to the FoG system. Historically they were quite widely used and so , in some way or another, must have been effective. Perhaps I'm missing something but crossbows seem to be quite poor in FoG - especially as most crossbow BGs don't have any melee capability.

Of course it could just be that crossbows were used because they were easy to use - compared to a longbow - and a days practice may well have made a soldier a competent user. And this ease of use is more 'strategic' - think training new recruits - and not easily factored in to a tactical game.

Thanks

Mike

[Intothevalley]

In the limited number of games I've played with MF crossbows, they have proved quite useful against mounted. However, against any enemy foot they are lined up against they've been hopeless - they seem to just have a big target painted on their forehead with 'get your attrition points here' written underneath. The trick I suppose is to make sure they are well supported and in terrain where possible (and hope the enemy don't have MF close combat troops). It's difficult to manoeuvre away from danger with them if they're in the front line. I was thinking about having small groups behind the main battle line where they can be kept out of danger, provide rear support, and perhaps get themselves into a position to threaten enemy mounted. I'm still trying to work it out, but I'm sure a Damascus moment will come.

[vercingetorix]

I agree with mike -- crossbows seem to be quite useless

[ethan]

I agree with mike -- crossbows seem to be quite useless

There is an comment around somewhere to the effect that LF xbows are pretty effective against Kn, I think this might be worth exploring further...

Kn could have a very hard time catching them and I can see Kn getting swarmed by them on a flank. A 4 block of Sup knights is 112AP and two 32AP (so 64AP total) blocks of 8 LF xbows might give them a pretty hard time, if they can mass on them.

[daveallen]

At first glance I thought Crossbows weren't much good and resented having to take six in my Medieval German army but after a couple of games I realised how useful they really are. Mine are drilled so even better.

Uses for Crossbows:

shooting heavy mounted - Knights and Cataphracts in small groups really regret getting anywhere near Crossbows.

shooting mounted skirmishers - if you're outnumbered in mounted skirmishers (as armies with Cbs usually are) the Cbs can scare off the opposition LH on one flank whilst you concentrate your LH elsewhere.

providing Rear Suppoprt to other BGs, sometimes at the same time as performing the above functions.

Standing behind HF in the same BG and doing the first two above.

destroying Pike blocks - this might not be immediately obvious but my Cbs routed two Pike blocks (one Swiss) in melee and held another for three bounds until the end of the last game, okay, it might have had something to do with the subsequent charges by Kn into the Pikes' flanks, or I could just have been lucky

Dave Allen

[fredrik]

I love my MF crossbows. I have a BG of 8 of them and they nearly always earn their place in the list. They will die to Kn and HF but they will tear up light horse and cavalry like there's no tomorrow. I use mine together with a 4-base LF handgunner unit to make sure that the cohesion tests on the target will hurt extra.

Flanks are good places to be for MF shooters in general, away from enemy main line combat troops. Try to get a large patch of uneven or rough terrain placed fairly central and they should be able to support the main struggle more effectively.

I also have a 6-base MF hth combat unit that I can bring up to support them if the opposition fields MF troops going after the crossbows in the rough or put the hurt on enemy MF shooters. Works well.

[DontFearDaReaper]

I just witnessed some late Medieval Spanish crossbows beat the snot out of some French Burgundian Ordinance Bowmen (I think they were longbowmen but I won't swear to it). Of course the Xbows outnumbered the bows 1.5 to 1

[Smackyderm]

I just witnessed some late Medieval Spanish crossbows beat the snot out of some French Burgundian Ordinance Bowmen (I think they were longbowmen but I won't swear to it). Of course the Xbows outnumbered the bows 1.5 to 1

Oh yes, they were longbowmen. But the numerical advantage only came because the other half of the longbowmen were off playing cat-and-mouse with our LH. Por Dios y la patria y el rey!

Smackyderm, Succomandante de Los Crossbows

[hammy]

The BG of 4 drilled crossbow in my Santa Hermandad army has always been of good use.

Crossbow are no worse than bow against the vast majority of mounted, the same against armoured foot, better against heavily armoured foot and only worse against protected or weaker MF/HF and skirmishers. All this for 1 point less.

Ideally an army wants a mix of crossbow and bow but unless you are going to have all longbow there is a definite place for crossbow in an army.

[jlopez]

I used to refer to MF Xbow as the walking dead so just to prove the point I took Medieval Portugese with 1 BGs of 4 drilled and 2 BGs of 8 MF undrilled, protected average Xbow. That was in addition to 2 BGs of 8 MF undrilled, protected average Xbow.

Cunningly, I deployed the BGs of 8 bases last so I was always made sure they weren't facing anything too nasty. To my surprise they all survived all four games. Even better they put a huge amount of pressure on the flanks where they often swept away all mounted opposition through sheer volume of fire. The odd time I had to send a BG of knights in support to deal with something nasty but otherwise they managed nicely on their own.

The drilled MF were useful in rear support of two BGs of HF and managed to take the odd shot at unwary enemy. More usefully, while the HF entertained the enemy they often found space to move in column past the enemy flank and turn 90 degrees to face the enemy flank...

One thing I learnt was it's always worth paying the extra point for drilled status. I rarely had enough generals to manoeuvre the BGs when close to the enemy which made it difficult to concentrate fire.

LF Xbow I've faced often and found quite ineffective. My own poor LF always seem to beat them. LF or Cv with Xbow on the other hand are quite handy.

Julian

[vercingetorix]

Wow -- it seems like you guys have really figured out the best ways to use xbow -- i'll have to try it in my french army

[babyshark]

Wow -- it seems like you guys have really figured out the best ways to use xbow -- i'll have to try it in my french army

I have come to the conclusion that one or two BGs of X-bow is just a target, but that enough BGs might be able to accomplish something through sheer volume of fire. Julian's post seems to bear that out.

Marc

[jlopez]

Wow -- it seems like you guys have really figured out the best ways to use xbow -- i'll have to try it in my french army

I have come to the conclusion that one or two BGs of X-bow is just a target, but that enough BGs might be able to accomplish something through sheer volume of fire. Julian's post seems to bear that out.

Marc

Actually, I reckon one BG on each flank with the appropriate support is enough to give you a decisive advantage against skirmishers and the odd cavalry. My Portugese army had an excessive amount of MF and I wouldn't take that many again unless they were also swordsmen (ie. English longbowmen). Part of my success was down to players not expecting that many MF (they went down in the last deployment group and I usually won the initiative) and finding it difficult to cope with the novelty. I doubt I'll have it that easy again.

Julian

[Intothevalley]

Crossbow are no worse than bow against the vast majority of mounted, the same against armoured foot, better against heavily armoured foot and only worse against protected or weaker MF/HF and skirmishers. All this for 1 point less.

I thought crossbows were the same cost as bows - or am I missing something (I hope I am!)?

[hammy]

Crossbow are no worse than bow against the vast majority of mounted, the same against armoured foot, better against heavily armoured foot and only worse against protected or weaker MF/HF and skirmishers. All this for 1 point less.

I thought crossbows were the same cost as bows - or am I missing something (I hope I am!)?

Doh! That is me remebering a long distant beta version

Even at the same cost as bow crossbow are good in the right place.

They are only weaker than bow against foot skirmishers and protected and worse foot and are better vs heavily armoured troops and elephants, not a bad trade off IMO. As most people seem to prefer armoured foot then really speaking they are only worse against LF and they are more than capable of beating them in hand to hand.

[bigdamnhero]

Im confused here. having played Mike earlier this week, my xbow were crud - and i didnt even roll bad. I guess what im missing here somehow, is the punching power of these weapons. They dont get any POA's at all do they? I would have thought that against heavily armoured KN etc, they would be on at least a +. Im aware that there will be factors such as a low firing rate involved in the thought process......

[jlopez]

Im confused here. having played Mike earlier this week, my xbow were crud - and i didnt even roll bad. I guess what im missing here somehow, is the punching power of these weapons. They dont get any POA's at all do they? I would have thought that against heavily armoured KN etc, they would be on at least a +. Im aware that there will be factors such as a low firing rate involved in the thought process......

Unsupported Xbow are not going to last long. The key is to put them somewhere where they can shoot at little risk to themselves and have powerful units close enough to support them in case your opponent redeploys his heavies against them. Being drilled also helps a lot in getting away from sticky situations.

As a rule I deploy shooty MF on the flanks as that is the place with the least infantry (negative POA against protected foot) and the most cav and LH. It is also the place where you can manoeuvre the most, offensively and defensively. If you put them in the centre they usually face things they don't want to fight and if you pull them out of the line you leave a big ugly hole in it and to make things worse your MF probably won't get to shoot for the rest of the game while they manoeuvre to the flanks.

In your particular case, when faced with knights, all you can do is get some rear support and a general to help out with the cohesion test. If you get lucky, you can stay steady and get him to break off after melee to get another shot in before he charges back in. However, it's best not to get in that situation in the first place as you are on --POA on impact and in melee!

[CrazyHarborc]

I have been using the Later Crusades Starter army. The two crossbow BGs are holding their own. They are meant to shoot, shoot, shoot.

I do try to deploy them near a heavy foot BG. That causes my opponents to be concerned that I just may flank impact their chargers.

My opponents are pushing a cav heavy starter army of Sejluk(spelling??) Turks. After reading a couple of the posts, I am glad my crossbows are not charged by knights or heavy foot

[hammy]

Im confused here. having played Mike earlier this week, my xbow were crud - and i didnt even roll bad. I guess what im missing here somehow, is the punching power of these weapons. They dont get any POA's at all do they? I would have thought that against heavily armoured KN etc, they would be on at least a +. Im aware that there will be factors such as a low firing rate involved in the thought process......

The idea is that bow shoot more missiles but with less penetration. As a result crossbow are better than bow where hitting power matters so Heavily armoured troops and elephants are worse off than against bow.

Giving crossbow a + against heavy armour makes no sense at all. Why should they be better against armoured targets than unarmoured?

In the early development crossbows got less dice but better POAs, this just didn't work as it was often impossible for crossbows to force a test. The eventual rule is a tiny simplification as there is an argument that unprotected foot should be more vulnerable to crossbow but that is probably not worth the complication.

[philqw78]

against heavily armoured KN etc, they would be on at least a +.

Compared to bows they are