Crossbows op?

[Happy Time]

Crossbows have a decent amount of ammunition. They do insane damage and have the highest range for arrows

[electro_dynamo]

shhhhh dont say that too loud

[Carighan]

"Crossbows OP" is what "honorable" archers said when the crossbows came up as a tool.

They allowed anyone, with minimal training, to shoot a high-powered projectile that could puncture armors and kill knights. By comparison a bow needed extensive practice to hit anything and draw reliably, and even then due to the lack of raw punch behind the arrow armor could deflct it quite realistically.

So yeah, they're OP. Or rather they're a straight upgrade from bows, which comes as no surprise.

[Sai]

Onyx Dragons will give them a solid run for their money though but yeah early game there's no reason to have archers

[Halvars]

Originally posted by Fallen Angel:

Onyx Dragons will give them a solid run for their money though but yeah early game there's no reason to have archers

Burning stuff, in sieges

[Monstreek]

Basic crossbow units have very limited amount of ammunition. 18 for heavy crossbowmen. Even if buffed with a general that is not enough. After ammunition is depleted the unit is useless.

There are op cossbows, but they are exlusive to the faction with a monopoly mechanic:
https://c2n.me/41QKI8R

[Darth Alpharius]

Originally posted by Monstreek:

Basic crossbow units have very limited amount of ammunition. 18 for heavy crossbowmen. Even if buffed with a general that is not enough. After ammunition is depleted the unit is useless.

There are op cossbows, but they are exlusive to the faction with a monopoly mechanic:
https://c2n.me/41QKI8R

Strategist can put that ammo count higher

[ChaataiKhan]

Yes

[Monstreek]

Of course they can and i mention that. But base value is still too low. Starting archers unit have 30 ammunition. That is almost twice lower.

Crossbows will have 30 with a strategist at best. While it is fine for some support, it is not enough to heavily rely on.

[Patrick]

I was thinking about this earlier. Here are my thoughts. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The problem with crossbows in Three Kingdoms is that they behave exactly like archers do, without any of the disadvantages crossbows should have. The power of the crossbow comes from the velocity by which the projectile is fired at, which is lost when they do long ranged arching shots. Smaller projectiles may be fired at a much higher velocity, but lose in power much quicker than heavier projectiles, such as arrows. In Medieval 2, crossbows needed to have a direct line of sight to the target, which is missing right now. They should have a direct line of sight in order to fire imo.

[Kinja]

I mean arguably crossbows were OP irl as well. A bow takes many years of practice to shoot well and actually be useful in war. Especially with the later models of crossbow you can basically put one in the hands of almost anyone and they can take down a fully armored warrior. I don't really see the problem with them outclassing bows here as well.

I also think that at least until towers get nerfed archers are still very useful in early game because they can burn them down pretty easily with fire arrows and take minimal losses when using loose formation(even less when you have a general that buff ranged defense). I haven't really experimented with the higher end archers yet tho.

[Monstreek]

Originally posted by Patrick:

I was thinking about this earlier. Here are my thoughts. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The problem with crossbows in Three Kingdoms is that they behave exactly like archers do, without any of the disadvantages crossbows should have. The power of the crossbow comes from the velocity by which the projectile is fired at, which is lost when they do long ranged arching shots. Smaller projectiles may be fired at a much higher velocity, but lose in power much quicker than heavier projectiles, such as arrows. In Medieval 2, crossbows needed to have a direct line of sight to the target, which is missing right now. They should have a direct line of sight in order to fire imo.

Agree, but not only that. Crossbows take a lot of time to reload compared to archer fire rate. Check that screenshot i posted. 60 rpm crossbows lol

[Gentlest Giant]

Are they really worth using early game? I just stick to archers due to the very much higher ammunition count. I almost always run out of ammo with archers, so I figure crossbows are not cut for the job, unless the armour piercing is relevant to what I'm facing.

[Darth Alpharius]

Archers- Flaming Arrows=Debuffs
Crossbows- Armour Peircing=Damage
Trebuchet- Fire Shot=Damage and Debuff
Repeating Crossbow- Suppression=Damage and Debuff.

[archonsod]

Originally posted by Patrick:

I
The problem with crossbows in Three Kingdoms is that they behave exactly like archers do, without any of the disadvantages crossbows should have. The power of the crossbow comes from the velocity by which the projectile is fired at, which is lost when they do long ranged arching shots.

Pretty much all non-gunpowder ranged weapons are just a battery for the strength of the man using it - you 'store' power by stretching back the bowstring, which is released at the same instant when loosed. Until you get to mechanical loading aids the crossbow doesn't really change that equation much; since the string is held on a lever once drawn rather than by the man firing it you can increase the draw somewhat, but it still needs to be low enough that it can be drawn back by hand and since the crossbow tends to use a shorter projectile it's more likely that an increase would simply 'make up the difference' between it and an equivalent bow than increase it's power over what could be achieved with a bow. The firing mechanism is largely moot at this point in time to begin with though - ideally you'd fire both in a parabolic arc which means the only force acting on the projectile at the point it hits the target is gravity.

As far as the game is concerned the main differences would probably come from the men using the weapon rather than the weapon itself. It could be argued crossbows should be cheaper and less accurate simply because they were normally in the hands of levies. Archers on the other hand would be slightly more accurate while being slightly more expensive since they would be more likely to lean towards the professional military classes. IIRC archers are already slightly better in melee than crossbowmen.

[Monstreek]

Originally posted by archonsod:

IIRC archers are already slightly better in melee than crossbowmen.

You recall it wrong. They are exactly the same except crossbowmen have higher armor and heavy crossbowmen have 1% more melee evasion.