Slitherine

why do LB get + against armor but not xbow?

vercingetorix wrote:why do LB get + against armor but not xbow?

The English Longbow fires a projectile called a "katana". Katanae are bladed weapons which instantly chop anything in half, regardless of its physical properties. You could be an armored warrior, a rhinoceros, a giant robot, a mountain, whatever... katanae chop you right in half. True fact.

The main difference between longbows and crossbows is the rate of shooting. Longbows can shoot a lot more arrows for every crossbow bolt. I assume that is why you find that longbows get no penalisation against anybody...but they do cost one point more.

I have a Late Medieval Swedish Army under construction, and have not yet fought a battle. My MF Crossbows are also Swordsmen and are integrated into battle groups with HF Billmen. So a BG is 4 bases of MF Crossbow and 4 bases of MF Crossbow.

I have read the above posts with interest, but I did not see any info on how to use these integrated battlegroups that form the core of the Late Medieval Swedish army. Does anyone have any hints on this?

Smackyderm wrote:

vercingetorix wrote:why do LB get + against armor but not xbow?

The English Longbow fires a projectile called a "katana". Katanae are bladed weapons which instantly chop anything in half, regardless of its physical properties. You could be an armored warrior, a rhinoceros, a giant robot, a mountain, whatever... katanae chop you right in half. True fact.

LOL!! Thanks! Made my day!


Re: rate of fire i thought the longbow had a good "burst" at the beginning but in a prolonged "shootout" the x-bow and longbow evened out as the strain to draw the mighty longbow took its toll. Over half an hour or so the amount of projectiles was fairly even I have read. Isn´t that soo?

vercingetorix wrote:why do LB get + against armor but not xbow?

Err, they don't.... OK, they get a + against armoured cavalry in more than one rank but essentially they just get the same POA against armoured troops as they do against protected. Essentially longobw are bow with better armour penetration. Crossbow are longbow with a lower rate of fire.

Probert wrote:I have a Late Medieval Swedish Army under construction, and have not yet fought a battle. My MF Crossbows are also Swordsmen and are integrated into battle groups with HF Billmen. So a BG is 4 bases of MF Crossbow and 4 bases of MF Crossbow.

I have read the above posts with interest, but I did not see any info on how to use these integrated battlegroups that form the core of the Late Medieval Swedish army. Does anyone have any hints on this?

The XBow form a rear rank behind the billmen. This allows them to shoot in a single rank during the shooting phase and allows them to support fire when charged in the Impact phase. In melee they are armored swordsmen, so pretty tough. I think they might use different melee POA than the front rank in some situations since the front rank is armed w/heavy weapon. Since your BGs are undrilled, they will be difficult to manuever so you will want to have as many generals as possible. Try to anchor your flanks on terrain if possible, or use the mounted X-bow to protect your flanks. The hand gunners can defend the anchoring terrain. You also have lots of fortifications available if you want to be defensive. Always buy superior knights. They are worth every penny. I've played a couple games with a Medieval Danish army. I used drilled BGs of select levy, superior Knights and mounted Xbow. No pikes, mercenaries, or general levy. Virtually the same as a Swedish army, just a little smaller. It did pretty good against a Low Countries army.
Have fun!

More through luck than judgement my Med. Danes finished 4th at Cold Wars this year, I found that the Kn are indeed worth every penny.

I found the trick with the HW/XB is to try and hold the enemy up whilst the Kn do the damage. The real problem with supporting Xb is that against any foot they need a 6 to hit when support shooting in impact.

"This allows them to shoot in a single rank during the shooting phase"

how -- they are only in the rear rank?[/quote]

They are the first shooting rank so get 1 dice per base

oh -- that makes them worth a lot more than I thought they were.

jlopez wrote:The main difference between longbows and crossbows is the rate of shooting. Longbows can shoot a lot more arrows for every crossbow bolt. I assume that is why you find that longbows get no penalisation against anybody...but they do cost one point more.

Aye, but its not quite as bad as you might think. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g-0-RK3cjk

This is of course from the medieval Europeon framework - in the Orient and especially in China it WAS the common weapon of nearly all troops, not just "highly trained specialists". And as for fire - over 30 sec it is true - but over 30 minutes or more I believe the longbowman will tire out a lot faster, and that fatigue will also effect his accuracy as well as speed. I think the availabilty of ammunition will also play a part. And as for range - the Chinese crossbow also had a range comparable to the longbow.

Draka wrote:This is of course from the medieval Europeon framework - in the Orient and especially in China it WAS the common weapon of nearly all troops, not just "highly trained specialists". And as for fire - over 30 sec it is true - but over 30 minutes or more I believe the longbowman will tire out a lot faster, and that fatigue will also effect his accuracy as well as speed. I think the availabilty of ammunition will also play a part. And as for range - the Chinese crossbow also had a range comparable to the longbow.

I think there's also evidence from the later warring states period for lighter repeating crossbows as well - I presume that these wouldn't have the range and penetration of the 'standard' crossbow, but would make up for it with rate of fire. I don't know how you'd model this in FoG - perhaps class them as bows (if you were to bother classing them at all)?

As for rate of fire over a 30 minute period I think what you say sounds sensible. However, the crossbows wouldn't be able to inflict such a devastating barrage in a 30 second period, and it might be this that gives the longbow/bow a better effect against say, unarmoured infantry. If you saw 200 of your comrades fall over a period of 30 seconds, you'd probably feel more inclined to run away than if you saw 200 fall over 30 minutes.

Re the XBow

it WAS the common weapon of nearly all troops, not just "highly trained specialists".

This is because the Xbow needed less training

The rate of fire of the regular crossbow with a belt hook has been severely underestimated by armchair historians. On average, I think the rate of fire of the crossbow is at least half that of the bow, possibly more, heavily depending, of course, on the strength of the bowman/crossbowman. A rather silly video link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g-0-RK3cjk&NR=1 (there is plenty to criticise here, of course, among others the weak longbow and short draw lengths he uses, but it illustrated that the old "longbows get off 8 shots for each crossbow shot" doesn't really apply). Personally, I get off 5 or 6 shots with a steel-lathe crossbow in a minute, and perhaps double that with my 90lbs.

It makes me wonder why we gave up these super weapons. IIRC Napoleonic rate of fire was 3 rounds per minute, WW2 bolt action rifle 5 rnds per minute and modern semi-automatic rifle 10 rounds per minute at deliberate rate of fire.

philqw78 wrote:It makes me wonder why we gave up these super weapons. IIRC Napoleonic rate of fire was 3 rounds per minute, WW2 bolt action rifle 5 rnds per minute and modern semi-automatic rifle 10 rounds per minute at deliberate rate of fire.

You have to remember that the guys in the video are firing without battlefield stress, at some real easy-to-hit targets, without real imposed time constraints, and with (at least for the bow) relatively weak weapons. That being said, George Washington asked the same question.
Parade-ground prussian infantry during the 18th century could get off 7-8 shots a minute, as I recall it, and the stopping power of the musket ball is impressive. Not to mention the fact that you can carry a lot more ammunition for the musket.

Modern (post-musket) rifled firearms also have some real accuracy and range advantages...

Modern (post-musket) rifled firearms also have some real accuracy and range advantages

That depends on who is pulling the trigger

I read somewhere that two of the big advantages of firearms were:

a) Easy to train people to use it
b) Ammunition was much, much, much cheaper than either longbows or crossbows.

I suspect that our longbow armed force just couldn't shoot very long. At 8 rounds a minute times 5,000 archers that is 40,000 arrows per minute. I was reading the Osprey book on the Moors and the author quotes the state armories at Cordoba and Medinha al-Zahra as producing 20,000 arrows per month. So our 5k longbowmen shoot off two months of production every minute at maximum rate of fire...

So those 5k longbowmen carrying 40 arrows each (200,000 arrows) is something like a years arrow production (granted from the 11th century Moorish arsenals, but it is the only number I have at hand).