Archers too weak

Field of Glory II is a turn-based tactical game set during the Rise of Rome from 280 BC to 25 BC.
leonardus68
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 11:43 am

Archers too weak

Post by leonardus68 » Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:50 pm

Hi,
Always wondered why those damn archers can't shoot behind frontal enemy; for slingers I understand, but historical facts tell us that archers usually target enemy behind a forward clash.

zakblood
Most Active User 2017
Most Active User 2017
Posts: 15414
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:44 pm

Re: Archers too weak

Post by zakblood » Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:57 pm

it's been asked more than a few times, and quite often by me

always gets a reply, but it seems for many reasons, it's not going to happen

while the catapults and missile throwing siege weapons can, using the same items, darts or large arrows etc
The generals of the day were counselled to deploy his infantry archers in the front line

Code: Select all

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/ancient-history/archers-roman-army.html
How the Romans Used Archers
Archers were used differently depending upon the commander and the situation.

Under Caesar, they were largely a defensive tool, screening the rest of the army from cavalry attacks or protecting the flanks.

Vespasian turned them into a more independent and decisive feature of combat. They withstood the onslaught of Jewish troops on one occasion and seized a hill from which to provide covering fire on another. During the street fighting in Jerusalem under Titus, they held the ends of streets, cutting down opponents with hails of arrows.
One key tactic was to place the archers behind the legionaries. From there, they launched indirect bombardments that disrupted formations and weakened the enemy before the main attack. This was a recurring theme of their role however they were deployed. Battles were not won or lost by volleys of arrows, but they could set the legions up for victory.

Distance was always a limiting factor. At its longest range, a Roman composite bow could reach 165-230m, depending upon the quality of the bow and the archer. The range at which they were most effective as a weapon was 50-150m. Even at these distances, what mattered was not individual accuracy so much as the ability to land a large volley of arrows on a large body of troops.

sIg3b
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 2:43 pm

Re: Archers too weak

Post by sIg3b » Mon Aug 05, 2019 6:20 pm

Archers are not weak per se, but Combined Arms (fire & melee units working close together) is not exactly encouraged by the system.

MVP7
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 724
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Archers too weak

Post by MVP7 » Mon Aug 05, 2019 8:31 pm

I wouldn't call any archers in the game weak although some lists with virtually nothing but massed archers for infantry are very hard to play.

There are already mixed units like Sparabara and Skutatoi that can shoot from "behind" friendly infantry. Late Roman infantry also has defensive POA bonus from their 20% archers used in the manner described in zak's quote.

It's pretty questionable how many armies would be capable of using archers for indirect barrage fire on level ground at completely obstructed targets. Hunters would be mainly familiar with aimed shooting, more suitable for skirmishing. Massed archers are often levied men with little formal drilling and training that would be vital for barrage style shooting.

It could be reasonable for some well drilled massed archers to be able to shoot over friendly units with reduced damage but even then there are some technical issues. They shouldn't really be able to aim at just any target in their range as they are effectively shooting blind. Limiting the angle of fire is is pretty messy on square grid so maybe the range could be reduced by one square... In any case it would be pretty complicated piece of code for pretty limited tactical effect for very limited number of units.

mgardner
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 5:14 pm

Re: Archers too weak

Post by mgardner » Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:00 pm

I like to take advantage of the fact that archers can shoot through a gap in the line and set up like this:

Code: Select all

[I]   [I]   [I]   [I]
[I][A][I][A][I][A]
The archers A are protected from being charged as long as either of the infantry I in front them are facing forward and not in melee. When the enemy gets close enough, the infantry in the rear step in front of the archers:

Code: Select all

[I][I][I][I][I][I][I]
   [A]   [A]   [A]
Granted they are probably only going to get a couple of shots off before melee is joined, but afterwards they can act as reserve and provide some protection against flanking.

jomni
Sengoku Jidai
Sengoku Jidai
Posts: 1376
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:20 am

Re: Archers too weak

Post by jomni » Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:37 am

Yes. shooting through gaps is a way to use the archers.

Another way is to find some elevation. Back row archers are placed higher than melee foot in front of them.

The game seems to have this design philosophy where the actual “shooting form the back” tactic is implemented through mixed units. Factions that have these units are the ones who historically employed the “shooting from the back”.

Also there’s this thing about the 20% bows that “can’t shoot”. It’s has been argued that the faction that uses this tactic only shot defensively at close range (impact effect).

Blastom1016
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:34 am

Re: Archers too weak

Post by Blastom1016 » Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:37 am

Compare to skirmishers, massive archer:
1. Has nearly double fire power at long range.
2. Definitely counters skirmishers, as no close-to-melee penalty from them.
3. Can charge and flank heavy units.
4. Have a decent chance to defect light horse charges.

5. Doesn't have a much better fire power at close range, due to close-to-melee penalty, unless shooting from flanks.
6. More resilient on rough terrain, though they as resilient as skirmishers on plain.

7. Cannot evade. Cannot pass through other units.
8. Harder to maneuver than light.

Generally, I think, skirmishers are still better choices, as they are much more easier to preserve and much easier to move to the other spot after one wing is engaged.

I'm thinking about use massive archers as flanking units. So they can move and shoot without close-to-melee penalty and make flank charges.

BornGinger
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:18 pm

Re: Archers too weak

Post by BornGinger » Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:44 am

Just wait for the later medieval module which probably will give us the Battle of Agincourt. English longbow archers against French knights. I don't think those archers will be viewed as too weak.

Scartabelli
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:23 pm

Re: Archers too weak

Post by Scartabelli » Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:02 pm

BornGinger wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:44 am
Just wait for the later medieval module which probably will give us the Battle of Agincourt. English longbow archers against French knights. I don't think those archers will be viewed as too weak.
If the devs will try to go the "realistic" route I bet a lot of people will complain that they are too weak, simply because most people believe that longbowmen were some kind of killing machines while they really weren't.

MVP7
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 724
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Archers too weak

Post by MVP7 » Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:30 pm

Scartabelli wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:02 pm
BornGinger wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:44 am
Just wait for the later medieval module which probably will give us the Battle of Agincourt. English longbow archers against French knights. I don't think those archers will be viewed as too weak.
If the devs will try to go the "realistic" route I bet a lot of people will complain that they are too weak, simply because most people believe that longbowmen were some kind of killing machines while they really weren't.
In my opinion the most realistic way of depicting longbows could be high veterancy for regular 'bow' armed units rather than armor piercing weapon type, but considering the Britishness of the dev team, I suspect the longbows will be quite powerful :).

One thing I think is worth considering is adding a general "strong bow" weapon type rather than "longbow" specifically:

If longbows are better than regular 'bows' then surely Mongol bows must also be superior to the regular 'bow'. "Longbow" is not inherently a stronger weapon (although it is easier to manufacture and maintain) when compared to the likes of Mongol composite bow, and a good recurve composite bow definitely has the potential to be better and even stronger weapon than a self bow. It's the atypically large amount of archery training that allowed the Welsh/English to use the cumbersome and heavy longbow effectively (while the rest of Europe was increasingly relying on the easy-to-use crossbow). Mongol warriors would surely be at least as well trained in Archery as the British.

Sadly it's a bit hard to find English language studies about various nomad bows while there's no shortage of studies and stories about English longbow. Ultimately longbow is not the most powerful bow, it's just the most powerful bow that can be made with the simplest bow making technique.

MikeC_81
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 730
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Archers too weak

Post by MikeC_81 » Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:52 pm

The record is pretty clear on the English Longbow in the Hundred's Years war during open battle. Whenever they have a chance to pre-position defensive works and can entice an opponent to attack, their record is nearly flawless and their effect was as good as advertised. There are written accounts that their arrows, when fired in a flat trajectory at reasonably close ranges, can defeat mail and puncture visors of men-at-arms and knights and in concert with dismounted infantry could take on all comers. Whenever they are forced out defensive works or caught unprepared, they usually stand little chance in the open, especially against well-armoured cavalry with little ability to cause casualties to attackers to let alone stop them.

The eastern tradition of mounted archery can be divided into two camps. Horse archers from native to and recruited from the population of sedentary civilizations and 'true' nomad warriors from the Eastern and Central steppes north of China and Transoxiana. The latter are constantly seen to be hired by the sedentary population very early in recorded history and occasionally overrun the civilizations and set up dynasties (ie the Arsacids and the Yuan). The record on eastern mounted archery is more mixed. We know that they used shorter compound and recurve style bows which are definitely mechanically more efficient than the English (or Welsh) Longbow. The top of the line, traditionally constructed mounted bow can match the Longbow's kinetic energy output with less draw weight. However, it is only the use of complicated manufacturing of bone, sinew, and horn bows that are truly capable of giving a mounted archer the ability to launch missiles with the same kinetic force that a Longbowman can (assuming that they fire an arrow of similar weight). This is primarily due to the fact that a foot archer can use the strength of his entire body to span the bow to compensate for the lack of mechanical efficiency. How often mounted archers were equipped with these top of the line bows, and to what proportion were thus armed with these extremely expensive and time-consuming to make bows is questionable.

We do have sources which clearly indicate that the Crusaders could deal with harassment by Islamic mounted archery simply by marching their infantry on the outside to form a protective perimeter while the cavalry waits within the moving formation should the Arabs move too close. It is obvious that the arrows did not make a significant impact on the footman as there are accounts of Crusader infantry dressed in heavy mail marching unbothered with arrows sticking out of their gambeson. At the same time, we know that top of the line compound bows can generate the same power as a top-end Longbow with less draw weight and Mongol campaigns in Europe and the Near East do not seem to be bothered at all by heavily armoured opponents.

What to make of this? It is conceivable that large portions of mounted archers, especially from sedentary civilizations simply never had large numbers of high-performance bows capable of producing the type of penetration required to defeat heavy armour or had the lifetime of training on the saddleback that the Proto-Iranian and Turkic nomads had. There is certainly no definitive answer to this question as bows generally do not survive such long periods for us to study and limited iconography and records do not contain nearly enough details on specifics. All that we know is that sometimes mounted archery was insanely effective to the point of wiping out armies. Other times it was rather lacklustre to the point of irrelevance other than skirmishing.
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/

Scartabelli
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:23 pm

Re: Archers too weak

Post by Scartabelli » Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:23 am

The record is pretty clear on the English Longbow in the Hundred's Years war during open battle. Whenever they have a chance to pre-position defensive works and can entice an opponent to attack, their record is nearly flawless and their effect was as good as advertised.
But the question is, what exactly is advertised? And how depict that in the game? The truth is that English longbowmen were deployed and used in a very specific manner against very specific enemies. When deployed against the French they relied on field fortifications and protection from friendly men-at-arms and dismounted knights.
There are written accounts that their arrows, when fired in a flat trajectory at reasonably close ranges, can defeat mail and puncture visors of men-at-arms and knights

So from a short distance, it could defeat armour but only when striking the weak spots like thin visors or mail without plates on top. Let's not forget that during the opening French cavalry charge during the Battle of Agincourt way more Frenchmen were captured than killed (it seems). Many historians, like John Keegan, argue that the main role of longbowmen in that battle was wounding and killing horses while the French were unable to cross the field fortifications.
What to make of this? It is conceivable that large portions of mounted archers, especially from sedentary civilizations simply never had large numbers of high-performance bows (...) or had the lifetime of training on the saddleback that the Proto-Iranian and Turkic nomads had.
With tons of exceptions starting with Ottomans and ending on Poles who only transitioned from predominantly using crossbows (both on foot and on horseback) to using bows in XV century and with tremendous results as evident by their shenanigans during the XVI and XVII centuries.
high-performance bows capable of producing the type of penetration required to defeat heavy armour
The only way a bow (arrow) can defeat plate armour (or coat of plates even) is to hit an unprotected spot or very specifying weak spot. On top of that, there is also a problem of shields and the fact that contrary to popular believe chainmail and other types of flexible armour offer quite good protection against arrows too.

The key factor is HOW foot or mounted archers are used and how they are supported. Finally, archers were never the sole component of the army. Mounted archers depending on their training and equipment could perform a multitude of different roles, skirmish, suppress, flank or even charge head-on. The training, organization and military doctrine of both sides are far more important than the quality of bows.

Latro
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 224
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:05 pm

Re: Archers too weak

Post by Latro » Sun Aug 18, 2019 4:43 am

It may be worth noting that the key to the success of the steppe archers over sedentary armies was not just the bow.
The fact that the overly large majority of their armies was cavalry is at least as important. Not to mention that they had heavy cavalry themselves.
Most sedentary armies, which usually had large numbers of infantry, fell prey to the tactic of the feigned retreat, where their cavalry got seperated from the infantry and were defeated piecemeal. The Mongols espescialy where masters at dividing up armies and outflanking them, something only possible because they could move at insane speed due to being on horseback.

Whether or not every horse archer had a bow powerful enough to penetrate heavy armour is of lesser importance than being able to isolate the opposing cavalry, whittle down their horses and then charge with your heavy cavalry.
The remaining infantry does not stand a chance, no matter how heavily armoured.

MikeC_81
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 730
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Archers too weak

Post by MikeC_81 » Sun Aug 18, 2019 6:29 am

Scartabelli wrote:
Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:23 am
But the question is, what exactly is advertised? And how depict that in the game? The truth is that English longbowmen were deployed and used in a very specific manner against very specific enemies. When deployed against the French they relied on field fortifications and protection from friendly men-at-arms and dismounted knights.

So from a short distance, it could defeat armour but only when striking the weak spots like thin visors or mail without plates on top. Let's not forget that during the opening French cavalry charge during the Battle of Agincourt way more Frenchmen were captured than killed (it seems). Many historians, like John Keegan, argue that the main role of longbowmen in that battle was wounding and killing horses while the French were unable to cross the field fortifications.

It was advertised as a unique weapon common only to English armies that gave them a significant tactical edge and was the primary driver of battlefield success for them when given a chance to deploy and defend a static position. This is not even disputable. You might dispute *how* the Longbow earned the victories for the English in tactics and formation with accompanying infantry, or the minutiae what they shot at to stop the French cavalry, but that is not relevant to the overall picture that the Longbow occupies a unique place in Western Military History and was brutally effective.

English Longbows could defeat riveted mail of common quality at 80 yards or under assuming proper poundage of the bow firing the correct ammunition. High quality late 15th-century plate as worn by some French cavalry (ie at Verneuil) was a different story but even as late as Agincourt very few foot soldiers had access to plate and the majority of the infantry would have worn mail at places like Crecy and Poitiers.
The key factor is HOW foot or mounted archers are used and how they are supported. Finally, archers were never the sole component of the army. Mounted archers depending on their training and equipment could perform a multitude of different roles, skirmish, suppress, flank or even charge head-on. The training, organization and military doctrine of both sides are far more important than the quality of bows.
Yes of course but the discussion was specifically surrounding the efficacy of bows and your particular comment was that if the devs made them "realistic" then people would complain that they were "too weak" (your words) or that they weren't killing machines (your words). The implication being that the English success during the Hundred Year's War wasn't significantly driven by the fact that the English had and employed the Longbow extensively. Which no one reputably argues.

The paragraphs on mounted archery was a response to MVP's query about whether Mongol bows were better than regular bows and not directed to you. Though it is instructive to look at the Arab mounted archery being relatively ineffective both on an individual level with Crusader infantry in mail armour neutralizing Arab mounted archery as well as a tactical level where you did not have Crusader armies being swarmed and overrun by mounted archers repeatedly when their Mongol contemporaries were doing the same to civilization after civilization on their march to dominance. Proficiency in tactics certainly played a major factor, but weapon tech also played a role.
Latro wrote:
Sun Aug 18, 2019 4:43 am
Most sedentary armies, which usually had large numbers of infantry, fell prey to the tactic of the feigned retreat, where their cavalry got seperated from the infantry and were defeated piecemeal. The Mongols espescialy where masters at dividing up armies and outflanking them, something only possible because they could move at insane speed due to being on horseback.
The Romans and Byzantines drew up tactical treatises on exactly how an infantry army should deal with nomadic horse archers once they were brought to battle (see Arrian and the Battle Array Against the Alans for example). The Chinese Qin and Han dynasties were on multiple occasions forced to send primarily infantry based armies into the steppes to deal the Xiongnu nomads whenever the system of the 5 baits broke down and peace could not be negotiated. They were not always successful but a 10 year campaign by the Han broke the Xiongnu confederation of tribes and nomadic power for the next several centuries. The feat was repeated again by the Tang dynasty gneral Li Jing against the early Guk Turks which used remarkably similar tactics to the Romans.
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/

Scartabelli
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:23 pm

Re: Archers too weak

Post by Scartabelli » Sun Aug 18, 2019 9:43 am

English Longbows could defeat riveted mail of common quality at 80 yards or under assuming proper poundage of the bow firing the correct ammunition.
You are assuming quite a lot of things here. What is a "common" quality of chainmail? What is proper poundage? How can we assume that longbows could defeat mail from 80 yards if there was no standardization and bows had different poundage? Shouldn't that mean that different bows even in the same army could defeat riveted mail from different distances? What was the "correct" ammunition? There were not only different types but they also varied in methods and quality of production and resources. Finally, what does it meant to "defeat" riveted mail? Puncture it in any way? Or maybe it should also go through gambeson? Then again the thickness of padded armor would vary quite a bit. First, we should define those terms and set the margin of error. But most importantly do you have any sources to support such claims? Preferably scientific tests.
It was advertised as a unique weapon common only to English armies that gave them a significant tactical edge and was the primary driver of battlefield success for them when given a chance to deploy and defend a static position. This is not even disputable.
You are focusing too much on the English and not enough on their enemies that this tactic was used on. If we talk about the French we have to take into consideration some important facts. Like the fact that for most of the war French command was making every possible mistake making the job so much easier for English. Like charging uphill or through mud, lack of cooperation and for a long time refusing to adapt.

But most importantly the method the French have developed towards the end of 100 years war to beat English archers was just amazingly simple. Dismount, head's down, hunch up o minimize the gaps in the armor and walk slowly towards the English lines. Est voila! The English are beaten.
High quality late 15th-century plate as worn by some French cavalry (ie at Verneuil) was a different story but even as late as Agincourt very few foot soldiers had access to plate and the majority of the infantry would have worn mail at places like Crecy and Poitiers.
It's not just about the late plate armor. I'm still yet to see longbow defeating simple XIV century coat of plates in any test even if made of very low carbon steel/iron. Honestly, I wouldn't be scared to take a shot from a longbow in my coat of plates which are worn and damaged.
Yes of course but the discussion was specifically surrounding the efficacy of bows and your particular comment was that if the devs made them "realistic" then people would complain that they were "too weak" (your words) or that they weren't killing machines (your words). The implication being that the English success during the Hundred Year's War wasn't significantly driven by the fact that the English had and employed the Longbow extensively.


I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying that the English weren't winning because of their longbows. I' saying that those longbows were effective because they were deployed in a very specific manner that is hard to represent in the game. It would be probably possible to add some special features for longbowmen to inflict harder cohesion tests for the enemy but that won't fully represent the issue. Moreover, many people will expect that English longbowmen should inflict heavy casualties which is the easiest way to weaken and route the enemy in Fields of Glory, the problem is that the casualties inflicted by bows in for example 100 years war weren't that big. In fact, IMO longbowmen shouldn't inflict higher casualties than massed archers currently available in the game which creates a problem, because as you definitely noticed some players already consider regular archers to be underpowered.

MVP7
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 724
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Archers too weak

Post by MVP7 » Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:04 am

Without getting too much into how a good longbow folded over a thousand times can cut through solid steel, if you make longbowmen a superior massed 'bow' unit with 50% swordsmen, you will get very authentic results when shooting and charging mounted knights in rough/swamp-tile as happened at Agincourt. A special longbow weapon type is a game-mechanic overkill (even if it's unavoidable).

The most important thing to keep in mind when discussing the lonbows is that English speaking world is Anglocentric and hence naturally biased. In discussion Mongols, Turks, Huns and other eastern nomads get easily bunched up into a single concept while English and Welsh longbowmen stand out as distinct unicorns of great importance. Longbow is pointed out as a source of English success during 100 years war, a war that took 100 years to fight in just France and ended in English loss. Meanwhile the main weapon of Mongols, who carved out an empire spanning through Asia in half the time, gets a grudging acknowledgement of probably being pretty good. The longbow generally face much less skepticism than many other alleged "super weapons" of ancient and medieval times.

I'm not aiming this specifically at you Mike, I'm just trying to point out the subconscious bias that I think overemphasizes the effectiveness of longbow in the context of larger world, even if it did play a major role in West European history. The reason I keep bringing up the Mongols specifically is that there's at least some (if not great) information available about them for in English language and because they achieved quantifiable success with the bow (and horse) as their main weapon. Without a doubt they took the bow as a weapon system to its limits much like the English.

---

Here are some quotes from internet articles about Mongol archery that gives at least something to compare the Mongol bow to English longbow as weapon systems. Sadly there are no proper easily verifiable sources for almost any of the info. No doubt there is also some exaggeration, myth and bias in the original sources just as is the case with longbow.

About the bow and arrow types from http://www.historyoffighting.com/mongolian-archery.php
Each warrior would carry two bows, one for long range shooting and one for fighting at close range. The bows were made from ten different materials...
They manufactured several different types of arrow, the composition of which depended on their purpose of use and would often carry two or more quivers with them into war or on hunting expeditions, with each quiver carrying different types of arrow. The most powerful arrows were capable of piercing thick armour and their tips were metal and could measure 15 cm long and 3.5 cm wide. They also designed some intended for short range, long range, double tipped and arrows designed to be lit on fire.

There are also many stories about the (almost certainly exaggerated) skill of Mongol archers.

From https://www.warriorsandlegends.com/mong ... l-archers/
A story from a chronical known as the Blue Sutra from the Mongolian Yuan Dynasty (1271 - 1368) in China, demonstrates just how prolific the Mongol warriors were with a bow.

Genghis’s progress was barred one day by Magnagt, ruler of the Merkits, who stated;

“Even though you are viewed as the son of the heavens, I am still not convinced about the abilities of your soldiers. If any one of them hits with a single arrow a small red flag from a distance of 100 num (one num equals the length of a bowstring, which is almost 1.5 metres), I will become your ally and friend – if not, we will be enemies”.

On hearing Magnagt’s challenge Taitsuu, one of the Khan’s generals, laughed and stated; “You offer us the warrior’s standard exercise.” He then ordered one of his men, Chuu Mergen, to comply with the challenge who, according to the Blue Sutra, hardly needed to aim.

Another of the Mongol marksmen, Khavt Khasar, then stepped forward proclaiming; “It’s no challenge to hit a motionless target” then raised his bow and with a single arrow pierced the neck of a drake flying passed. As the slain bird hit the ground, he hit it with another arrow.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_bow#Range
An inscription thought to be from 1226 was found on a stone stele in Nerchinsk, Siberia. It may have said: "While Chinggis Khan was holding an assembly of Mongolian dignitaries, after his conquest of Sartaul (East Turkestan), [Chinggis's nephew] Esungge shot a target at 335 alds (536m, 586.177 yd)."

From http://www.atarn.org/mongolian/mn_nat_a ... senger.htm
The Italian traveller, Plano Carpini, remarked in his notes that the Mongols found archery most enjoyable:

"They all, young and old alike, shoot superbly. From early childhood children are provided with bows according to their height and are taught to shoot," he wrote.

So if the longbow is great enough to deserve a better than "regular" bow category in Fog2, what about the Mongol bow? What about other bows in various times and places? Is this can of worms really something that should be opened?

MikeC_81
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 730
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Archers too weak

Post by MikeC_81 » Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:22 pm

Without getting too much into how a good longbow folded over a thousand times can cut through solid steel, if you make longbowmen a superior massed 'bow' unit with 50% swordsmen, you will get very authentic results when shooting and charging mounted knights in rough/swamp-tile as happened at Agincourt. A special longbow weapon type is a game-mechanic overkill (even if it's unavoidable).[/quote]

I don't necessarily disagree but we do have things like "Impact Foot" which really isn't all that different from "Light Spear" in the grand scheme of things. You could say that the Romans should have just been rated as Superior and Elite Light Spear units yet the game gives a separate game mechanic specifically for them due to flavour reasons. Largely on the grounds that Romans and Germanic Warbands who utilized this type of tactic where they link the hurling of missile weapons followed up with a charge was unique and effective enough in history to warrant in inclusion.

Certainly, the Longbow does fall into the same category of unique outliers in my opinion.
MVP7 wrote:
Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:04 am
The most important thing to keep in mind when discussing the lonbows is that English speaking world is Anglocentric and hence naturally biased. In discussion Mongols, Turks, Huns and other eastern nomads get easily bunched up into a single concept while English and Welsh longbowmen stand out as distinct unicorns of great importance. Longbow is pointed out as a source of English success during 100 years war, a war that took 100 years to fight in just France and ended in English loss. Meanwhile the main weapon of Mongols, who carved out an empire spanning through Asia in half the time, gets a grudging acknowledgement of probably being pretty good. The longbow generally face much less skepticism than many other alleged "super weapons" of ancient and medieval times.
I have no clue who is saying that top-end Mongol bows were only "pretty good". Anyone who is versed in archery today understands the mechanics of how a bow works understand that the English Longbow was simply the best bow you could make out of a single piece of wood. Mechanically and technologically, the top end composite recurve bows of that era would make the Longbow look like stone-age technology but were a lot harder to make. The question is why there is the disparity where eastern archery is sometimes recorded in historical sources as "meh" against heavily armoured infantry and at other times was the scourge of God.

There could be many explanations for this from ammunition type and weight to maybe the fact that not everyone who was a Horse Archer carried this time of powerful composite recurves. We know even the Mongols used simple wooden recurves for hunting.
MVP7 wrote:
Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:04 am
So if the longbow is great enough to deserve a better than "regular" bow category in Fog2, what about the Mongol bow? What about other bows in various times and places? Is this can of worms really something that should be opened?
This could be a case for creating armoured piercing bow-mounted cavalry units for elite Turks and Mongol units whenever they get their treatment in FoG2. That as always is a developer's call as to how much differentiation is required before they are willing to create a new unit type for them.
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/

MikeC_81
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 730
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Archers too weak

Post by MikeC_81 » Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:55 pm

English Longbows could defeat riveted mail of common quality at 80 yards or under assuming proper poundage of the bow firing the correct ammunition.
You are assuming quite a lot of things here. What is a "common" quality of chainmail? What is proper poundage? How can we assume that longbows could defeat mail from 80 yards if there was no standardization and bows had different poundage? Shouldn't that mean that different bows even in the same army could defeat riveted mail from different distances? What was the "correct" ammunition? There were not only different types but they also varied in methods and quality of production and resources. Finally, what does it meant to "defeat" riveted mail? Puncture it in any way? Or maybe it should also go through gambeson? Then again the thickness of padded armor would vary quite a bit. First, we should define those terms and set the margin of error. But most importantly do you have any sources to support such claims? Preferably scientific tests.
You are stuck in minutae yet again. We don't care about the specifics, we care about the overall representation. Medieval accounts of the Longbow are common enough. They all speak of it being highly effective at killing and wounding. We know that arrowfire alone was more than capable of turning back attacks large and small. If you want to disagree with them, that is your prerogative.
Scartabelli wrote:
Sun Aug 18, 2019 9:43 am
It was advertised as a unique weapon common only to English armies that gave them a significant tactical edge and was the primary driver of battlefield success for them when given a chance to deploy and defend a static position. This is not even disputable.
You are focusing too much on the English and not enough on their enemies that this tactic was used on. If we talk about the French we have to take into consideration some important facts. Like the fact that for most of the war French command was making every possible mistake making the job so much easier for English. Like charging uphill or through mud, lack of cooperation and for a long time refusing to adapt.

But most importantly the method the French have developed towards the end of 100 years war to beat English archers was just amazingly simple. Dismount, head's down, hunch up o minimize the gaps in the armor and walk slowly towards the English lines. Est voila! The English are beaten.
Emphasis mine

You are just plainly *making stuff up* now. Formigny was fought in 1450 at end of the war and the initial French cavalry and dismounted infantry attack on the English defensive positions failed. *Just like Crecy, Poiters, and Agincourt*. The English counter-attacked, seized the French cannon and were caught in the open by a flanking force of French cavalry without the benefit of defensive works and were put to flight. This pattern is consistent throughout the entirety of the Hundred Years War. Anytime Longbowmen had the chance to set up defensive works and could plant roots, they were impossible to dislodge. Anytime they got caught in the open without the presence of defensive works at places like Patay, Verneuil, and Formigny, they were massacred.

You do not have records of formations of archers of any other region in Europe performing these same feats outside the English.
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/

MVP7
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 724
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Archers too weak

Post by MVP7 » Sun Aug 18, 2019 3:14 pm

Well my point was basically that (since special weapon type for longbow is unavoidable) it would make more sense to have a generic armour piercing "strong bow" type rather than longbow specifically. It's having an exclusive weapon class just for English longbow while leaving everyone else with regular bow that I have an issue with.

With current mechanics, longbow's armour negation would be extremely powerful. Gameplay-wise it doesn't make sense that weapon deals equal damage to unarmoured and fully armoured unit. Historically it also doesn't make sense as reaction to such weapons has almost always been to use more armour, which is this case would have no effect. It was only the rise of gunpowder that rendered armour truly pointless (for a while anyway).

I hope the armour and armour penetration in general will be adjusted before longbows, heavy weapons and crossbows become more prominent in the army lists.

Gaznak
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2019 8:29 pm

Re: Archers too weak

Post by Gaznak » Sun Aug 18, 2019 4:28 pm

Longbows are in the game files right now if you want to take a look. They are equivalent to regular bows when shooting at up to protected, and better than reg bows when shooting at armored and above. They are outshot by crossbows when targeting heavy armor, but better in all other circumstances.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II”