Longbow Men

[Spatula]

Pavises can easily kill them, and they struggle in actual combat, expect sherwood but we don't speak of the legend.

[Inardesco]

You do realise that Pavise Crossbows have 1; shields and 2; crossbows.

Any decent crossbow unit will obliterate an archer unit simply due to the raw damage being higher from the crossbows than any archer unit.

[Ruinae Retroque Rursus]

Originally posted by Inardesco:

Any decent crossbow unit will obliterate any unit simply due to them being OP.

FTFY

Seriously though, Pavise Crossbowmen are insanely powerful, doing very well at ranged in open, melee, even resisting cav charges...
... ironically they're not always that great in sieges unless you're attacking. Take control of the walls then fire inwards into the plaza.

Crossbows are powerful enough for murdering units (those merc crossbows are well worth the price), and if they have a shield on that means they're also really hard to kill.

So why are Longbowmen good?
a) more spammable
b) higher morale than peasants
c) sharpened stakes, best used in sieges behind the gates for maximum damage
d) fire arrows - almost never worth using

[Dutchgamer1982]

Yes pavise crossbowman are insanely good.
but not the first pick in all situations.

Lets take how I play england shall we?

I early game there is only 2 ranged units available to me, mercenary crossbowman and longbowman (and perhaps a few militia archers, but those I not even consider)

What do my armies contain? Well about this :
*1 general
*5 mercenary crossbowman
*5 mercenary spearman
*9 mailed knights

So yes I prefer crossbowman over longbowman, lets put them head to head :
*crossbowman does 9 damage per shot at 120 range, while longbowman does 6 damage per shot at 160 range, both damage is armor piercing so no difference there.

*longbowman does 7 armor piercing melee damage, where crossbowman does only 6 normal melee damage.

*crossbowman has 8 armor, longbowman has only 4.

-> clearly the longbowman is a much better unit for attacking walled city's, with 160 range one can fire at units at the walls without being fired back at by the wall-towers, and they are better suited to take the walls, should you want that.
-> likewise the longbowman is a better unit when defending a city for that same reason, range.
-> I also note that longbowman can fire flaming arrows that can panic units and can fire betterin an arch, where crosbowman require a direct line of fore.

I early game the walls are still small, so crossbowman are better, but clearly longbowman have their place.

But how about early midgame? When those walls get bigger but pavise crossbowman are not yet available, how do armies look than? lets look at my default army composition than shall we?

* 3 billman/swordman (cannot always be certain of acces to swordman in this period, few large enough city's for that)
* 6 mailed knights/feudal knights (again I will use feudal when availeble but citadels where I can train or repair them are often far from the frontlines)
* 5 yeoman archers (common availble, and retinue not yet available)
* 5 mercenary spearman

*in midgame the common longbowman get replaced for the yeoman.
-the yeoman has 8 ranged damage (still less than the crossbowman)
-but it's melee attack is 9 and piercing!
-and it's defence is 5, so slighly less crappy.

Longbowman were already better for attacking and defending city's, and yeoman are even better. Yeoman are strong enough with that 9 attack to take the walls together with some billman cannonfodder, and than fire down on whatever stands there, while my knights ride down the gate that the spearman just broke.

In the open field yeoman's higher range even makes it a better pick. That longer range makes holding the high ground even better, fire panics units, and that higher attack damage makes them even halve decent fighting should they get under attack

But than gunpowder and pavise crossbowman happens:

Yes this changes the play, pavice crossbowman are MUCH better than normal ones.
*yes they have the same 12 attack power, but their range goes up to 160, canceling out the most important advantage longbowman had over them.
*and their defence gets almost doubled to 14
*sadly their melee attack stays a regulair, non-piercing 6.

Meanwhile england gets acces to retenue longbowman, and they too are a different beast.
*they keep their 8 attack and 160 range, making crossbows still do 50% more damage while not compensating anymore with extra range
*but their armor gets a MASSIVE boost, it is now 14, equal to the pavise crossbowman
*meanwhile their melee weapon gets boostsed to 11, but sadly the armor piercing part is removed.

In late game my armies contain both mercenary pavice crossbowman AND retinue longbowman, depending on situation, but generally more retinue.

They just became to different.
-mercenary pavise crossbowman are the best archers, but retinue longbowman are much more versitile.

*on top of the retinue archers not being dependant on firing in a straight line and able to fire flame arrmows as I pointed out all to often :

having 11 attack power vs 6... means the retinue longbowman are still much better in actual melee battles, especially now they have gotten 14 armor. Making them much better in both defending and keeping walls.

*yes the pavice crossbowman will kill a few units more when manning the walls, but once their are ladders or towers against the walls, those yeomans will be essentially backup swordman pretty able to keep them off, even if the enemy sends armored swordman (their best pick) up those ladders, the yeoman will most likely suffer merely 2:1 losses, where the pavise crossbowman would be decimated.

*so you can place ONLY retinue archers on walls, where pavise crossbowman always need some melee backup, canceling out that damage difference.

*in the field yes archers are not ment to get into combat, and I presume a skilled commander does prevent that, and with 14 defense both will suffer equal losses should they get assaulted...

*however what if ammo runs out? with 11 attack it is totally feasable using those retinue archers as sworman to hunt town light infantry.. while all pavise crossbowman can do is sit on their behinds once ammo runs out.

So yes the pavise has it's usefullness but retinue archers are much better.
-if your civ that you play LACKS anything resembling a retinue archer than you most likely use pavise crossbowman much more.

[Dutchgamer1982]

that does not mean I am of the opinioun the pavise crossbowman should be nerved
to having only 140 range

While retinue longbowman should have that 11 attack damage of theirs made armor piercing.

And the sherwood archers given their rarity should be given a massive boost :

1st problem to adres :
*sherwood archers can only be trained from master or HQ woodsman guild.
*sherwood archers regrow slow, 0.2 per turn from master, 0.4 per turn from HQ
*only england can have woodsman guild, so only one city in the world can have them
->
changes
*all civilizations can build woodsman guild
(normal level still gives +1 experience to locally produced archers units, and master +1 experience local and +1 experience empire wide)
*basic level woodsman guild gets for england 0.2 per turn production of sherwood archers and a max stack of 2.
*master level woodsman guild get's it's growth increased to 0.3 per turn, and it's max stack increased to 4
*woodsman HQ, gets it's growth increased to 0.5 per turn, and it's max stack stays at 6.

(this makes them still harder to get than all templar-units, that get 0.3-0.5-0.7 growth per turn and 2-4-6 for stacks)

Added to this the stats for sherwood archers should be improved to better reflect their awesomeness :
-their range should be made 200 (accurancy was robin hoods trademark after all)
-their ammo should be increase from 30 to 40
-their 18 defense, but 0 armor is perfect, robin hood was agile, not heavy armored
-their 16 sword damage (without piercing) is fine. it befits the robin hood character.

So making the sherwood archers a little better available, a little more range and a little more ammo.

that should balance things out better.

[Spatula]

I would rather use mer crossbow instead of anytype of longbow for it's range and damage and the OP AP

[DerRitter]

longbows can also fire over units (crossbows can do it too, but I find it to be far less accurate)

[Inardesco]

It depends very much on the situation what I prefer. A nation like France that has access to both crossbows (Aventuriers) and archers (Scots Guard) or Venice (Pavise Crossbow Militia and Venetian Archers) is more versatile than a nation that only has access either crossbows or archers.

Personally, I always like to have a bit of both. Crossbows are the raw power whereas the archers are the more subtle power and sometimes the sublte is more important than the raw and vice versa.

[Spatula]

I would rather use pavises due to the great damage and the shield and they got pretty good defence and will hold if you have a carrico stand/great cross or a general near by. Sherwood longbow men are good as well but not perfect.

[Dutchgamer1982]

Originally posted by Found a name :):

I would rather use pavises due to the great damage and the shield and they got pretty good defence and will hold if you have a carrico stand/great cross or a general near by. Sherwood longbow men are good as well but not perfect.

are you kidding? sherwood longbow are MUCH better in every regard.

sherwood archers :
13 ranged piercing attack (+1)
firing range 160 (0)
defence 18 (+4)
melee weapon : sword, 16 damage (+10)
units in a team : 45 (-45)
morale : 11 (+8)
upkeep cost : -250 (-125)

pavise crossbowman
12 raanged piercing attack (-1)
firing range 160 (0)
defence 14 (-4)
melee weapon : weak sword, 6 damage (-10)
units in a team : 90 (+45)
morale : 3 (-8)
upeep cost : -125 (+125)

sherwood archers are tougher, do more damage per shot, and being longbowman deliver that damage much more accurate.
and that massive better morale means they will NEVER rout, unlike thouse pavises.
add to that the considerable better secondairy weapon and much improved defence.

the only thing the pavise has counting for it is double the man for halve the upkeep.
but I prefer quality over more cannon fodder... of my 45 sherwoods 40+ will walk out of the battle, while you be lucky to keep a single pavise crossbowman alive.

[Ruinae Retroque Rursus]

Originally posted by Dutchgamer1982:

Originally posted by Found a name :):

I would rather use pavises due to the great damage and the shield and they got pretty good defence and will hold if you have a carrico stand/great cross or a general near by. Sherwood longbow men are good as well but not perfect.

are you kidding? sherwood longbow are MUCH better in every regard.

That's true, but Sherwood archers are almost impossible to actually get (by the time I got them in Caen as England my frontiers were the Byz), and crossbows are much more spammable (eg Milan's famously spammable Genoese Crossbow Militia).

[Inardesco]

Sherwood archers die just as easily as any other archer unit in a cav charge.

[Dutchgamer1982]

Originally posted by aidenpons:

Originally posted by Dutchgamer1982:

are you kidding? sherwood longbow are MUCH better in every regard.

That's true, but Sherwood archers are almost impossible to actually get (by the time I got them in Caen as England my frontiers were the Byz), and crossbows are much more spammable (eg Milan's famously spammable Genoese Crossbow Militia).

that I agree upon, they made a mistake in designing that woodsman guild.
-only england can have that guild
-only the master and HQ level can train sherwood archers
aka "only 1 town can train them in the world"
and even with the HQ your limited to 0,4 of them per turn.
Don't get me wrong, I do fight in the east with them, but I find myself replacing their ranks with mercenary units as they die off now and than.
On the positive side : they force me to fight more battles manually, rather than clicking "automaticly resolve" to prevent them taking losses;)

If I look currently I have 6 armies with 4 sherwood archers each in them.
took me well over 50 turns to build them, am now training them in my master swordsman HQ, an building an acedamy to improve my culverins.
They have yet to see battle;) but I was planning to send them the the america's;)

I love those 4 elephants though I own.. (far east... it is possible to hire 1 mercenary cannot elephant and 1 mercenary gun elephant.. those things are absolelute awesome..)

most of the 1st stack of cannon elephants died on me.. but I have littlerly 1/22 of them remaining.
And somehow that unit is godlike... I have sieged over 10 city's with it without any other artilery and it still lives.

[Spatula]

Sherwood are good but they are one of the hardest units to get in the game. While you can easily kill them easily with good infantry or pavises. They have no way of defending themselfs while fighting and they have a longbow. Longbows aren't good in this game and that's why most people pefer Crossbow men like PAVISES

[Dutchgamer1982]

Originally posted by Found a name :):

Sherwood are good but they are one of the hardest units to get in the game. While you can easily kill them easily with good infantry or pavises. They have no way of defending themselfs while fighting and they have a longbow. Longbows aren't good in this game and that's why most people pefer Crossbow men like PAVISES

the point I make is that sherwood and longbowman HAVE a way of defending themselves, where pavises have NO way to defend themselves.

HAH, the very reasons long bows ARE better is because they CAN defend themselves :

-sherwoods have a three times better melee weapon, five times the morale and 33% more armor
-retinue have a twice as good melee weapon, double the morale and the same armor

normal longbowman yes are not so mighty. but when you talk a late game unit like pavise, it is only fair to compare them to late game longbowman too.

and if you are so obsessed with raw damage, why not go arquibusteers or something like that? 14 damage, 120 range.. they are essensitally late games crossbowman.

I am telling you, if I bring 3 platoons of sherwood and a general, and you bring 3 platoons of pavise and a general, 60% of my sherwoods and my general will survive, while your force will be butchered.

heck even if we do the same with 3 reinue longbowman + general vs 3 pavise crossbowman + general, you are dead. (retinue are weaker but I get 90 of them, instead of 45 sherwoods)

Your pavises will all rout at the first calvery charge of my general, while mine due high morale will not rout and with their swords will kill most of your general so mine can return and help finish him off.

If you instead keep your general near your pavises to prevent them routing (and you will be hard pressed to succeed in that) my general is not in danger, since your pavises have crappy melee weapons.
And my longbowman with their sharp aim will than assist in finishing off your general, resulting again in mass routing.
If you aim with your pavises at my general in ranged, that will allow my longbowman to charge in on them in melee mode, a battle they easely win.
if you aim your pavises at my longbowman, longbowman will win that fight since your greater numbers just make target practice and damage dealt is irrelevant, since the arows are armor piercing anyway and arrows will once shot kill in such a situation. While your crossbowman with their lesser aim and having a smaller target will find it hard to hit any of my longbowman.
And if I fire firy arrows at your pavises, they will still rout, even with your general nearby battling mine. While you have no such option.

but if I am handed normal longbows, or yeoman longbows, than yes your pavises will most likely win.

[Armchair Civilian]

CA "balanced" archers / crossbowmen a bit TOO effectively imo: frankly, the "best" missile unit of the two is whichever your faction can spam best.
While xbowmen MAY do more damage per volley - and that's a situational thing in my experience - they do have a longer reload time, which counteracts that.
In a mass skirmish between the two, the best either side can hope for is a pyhrric victory - which is why, when i'm facing an enemy using a lot of missile troops, i don't counter them with massed missile fire of my own, but rather throw a lot of tin cans at them as fast as i can ;)
Fortunately the AI is a bit pants at using stakes, and i do put a lot of effort into making my generals as dreaded as possible.