Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Marlowe]

You can't load a crossbow prone.

For the record, medieval crossbowmen would operate in pairs, one loading while the other fired.

[Jetman123]

Or in lines (and bowmen would actually do this too) with the first line firing, ducking, reloading, the second line firing over the heads of the first (ducked) line, ducking, reloading, and the third line firing over the heads of the second (ducked) line, ducking, reloading, and so on. This would keep up a constant barrage of fire.

[Jake]

As I understand it, crossbows and longbows coexisted quite well for many years because their weaknesses were balanced by each other's strengths. Longbows have better range and can be fired faster, crossbows have more stopping power and better pinpoint accuracy. The game interface and AI don't really allow for it yet, but eventually I'd like to respond to an invasion with a large force of bow-dwarves up in towers to provide suppressing fire whilst a smaller, more intensively-drilled force of crossbow-dwarves pick off squad leaders and other high-value targets from atop the walls or intermixed with a force of spear- or even pike-dwarves to receive the charge.

[bluea]

Dwarves are short.

Short bows don't have the same range as long bows. (Even when you turn around and increase the pull of the bow. You can do the same increase on the crossbow too.)

I don't think I want my dwarves carrying little step-stools to use longer bows.

[Micro102]

i just stick with a type of honor system. crossbow dwarves can only wear leather and cant hold sheilds for me.

[Tormy]

As I understand it, crossbows and longbows coexisted quite well for many years because their weaknesses were balanced by each other's strengths. Longbows have better range and can be fired faster, crossbows have more stopping power and better pinpoint accuracy.

Yep, exactly. Basically longbows were used as an "opening weapon" in the battles. Long range / fast reload = good choice to kill some enemies before the battle begins. X-Bows were used at close/medium range. This is why X-Bowmen had medium armors equipped quite often.

[Jetman123]

I actually want to see those in the game as a really advanced, possibly mounted crossbow. The regular crossbow should have atrocious reload times.

Cough Ballistae Cough.

And how about that fancy Repeating Crossbow thing, it has speed, a slight spread, and sucky pierce damage, it only killed because of the use of use of poison.

Then the Heavy Crossbows, only the big guys can launch volleys of this thing ( you need to be prone... nerfa-nerf ) .

Didn't notice this post before now, my bad.

That's what I was talking about, the repeating crossbow. I know there are ballistae. I just want to see a mounted repeating crossbow.

[Efun]

Also, dont forget composite bows... their design makes this small but just as powerful as a longbow, the material and curvature of the bow makes it hella strong 

[Tormy]

Also, dont forget composite bows... their design makes this small but just as powerful as a longbow, the material and curvature of the bow makes it hella strong 

Composite bows would be an excellent weapon for mounted archers. 

[Marlowe]

Longbows, as far as I can remember, were pretty much exclusive to England and to English mercenaries. Because Longbows take YEARS to make and learn how to use there was very any question of the longbow and crossbow actually competing. I don't recall a lot of crossbow use in England though.

Out of interest, English also didn't tend to use Pikes, which by the end of the 15th century had become almost the default infantry weapon. The obvious reason? Pikes are most effective against cavalry. Cavalry in England was already pretty much nerfed by all the damn longbows (I can think of only two mounted charges in the entire War of the Roses. One died in a hail of arrows, the other led to that "a horse! a horse! my kingdom for a..." scenario), so the English used bladed polearms which are more effective against foot.

I'm starting to wonder if crossbows perhaps have a bad press in the English-speaking world. The major appearance of crossbows in English history are the Normans at Hastings (pattering away for hours at people with no way of closing or shooting back) and the Genoese mercs at Crecy (massacred by longbows before they even got in range). The fact that crossbowmen were not only common, but were almost the only regular infantry regularly employed for a good chunk of the middle ages suggests they were reasonably effective.

[Jake]

Out of interest, English also didn't tend to use Pikes, which by the end of the 15th century had become almost the default infantry weapon. The obvious reason? Pikes are most effective against cavalry. Cavalry in England was already pretty much nerfed by all the damn longbows ... so the English used bladed polearms which are more effective against foot.

I think you're referring to halberds, though I've seen historical reenactment demos of the more conventional variety of pike dating from the English Civil War, sometimes paired with arquebussiers or musketeers against whom cavalry was still some use. And crossbows must have seen some use, as longbows were both an absolute bugger to aim without years of practice and less than brilliant against plate-mail; from what I understand of the physics, crossbows are better-suited to firing on a flat trajectory, and therefore have a greatly reduced probability of striking at a glancing angle and bouncing off.

[(name here)]

To people saying that longbows are less useful than crossbows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

Also, the reason why crossbows were used often is that they beat every bow that doesn't fall apart in the rain or require difficult to obtain wood. also, you could seriously get a competent crossbowman in a very short time frame.

It did take years to get good with the longbow. but the English invested those years.

Though actually, irregardless of the actual relative effectiveness of the two weapons, the dwarves should use crossbows because they cannot use longbows. that is because they are not tall enough.

[Marlowe]

Out of interest, English also didn't tend to use Pikes, which by the end of the 15th century had become almost the default infantry weapon. The obvious reason? Pikes are most effective against cavalry. Cavalry in England was already pretty much nerfed by all the damn longbows ... so the English used bladed polearms which are more effective against foot.

I think you're referring to halberds, though I've seen historical reenactment demos of the more conventional variety of pike dating from the English Civil War, sometimes paired with arquebussiers or musketeers against whom cavalry was still some use. And crossbows must have seen some use, as longbows were both an absolute bugger to aim without years of practice and less than brilliant against plate-mail; from what I understand of the physics, crossbows are better-suited to firing on a flat trajectory, and therefore have a greatly reduced probability of striking at a glancing angle and bouncing off.

The English weapon is a Bill or Billhook, not a halberd.

The English Civil War is not in the medieval period, and is out of the frame of reference by about 140 years or so.

Owing to a little law called levy and maintainance, longbow practice was compulsary for many English for centuries, and most English nobles were REQUIRED to maintain longbowmen. As for "less than brilliant against platemail"....

[forsaken1111]

Didn't notice this post before now, my bad.

That's what I was talking about, the repeating crossbow. I know there are ballistae. I just want to see a mounted repeating crossbow.

New type of construction: Mounted repeating crossbow. Takes 1 crossbow, 2 mechanisms. Must be loaded with 25 bolts and can then be fired out through fortifications.

That would rock.

[Marlowe]

To people saying that longbows are less useful than crossbows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

Unfortunately, that's not a great example to use. The writer of the article apparently subscribes to the revisionist "The French were beaten by the mud and the weight of their armour and not the arrows" theory.

This theory, as far as I can see, messed up on at least three counts.

1, It doesn't explain the deadliness of the longbows in other battles when they were used.
2, It doesn't explain how English and German knights can apparently fight dismounted without losing horribly, but French ones can't.
3, It doesn't take into account the observed power of modern-day replica longbows.