Crossbows appear to be generally inferior in most respects.
Why is this?
I'd have thought that at least they've have had some sort of effect that negated good armour!
Crossbows
Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
How come?ShrubMiK wrote:They do
- POA vs. Unprotected MF/HF
- POA vs. Armoured foot
- POA vs. any other foot
Doesn't look much use vs. armour to me.
I'm just curious as to why they seem to be so shabby...
I'd have expected to see them '0 POA' vs. foot and '+/++ POA' vs. armoured horse.
Instead they seem generally to be '- POA' vs. foot and '0 POA' vs. armoured horse.
Seems odd thats all...
Yes, i suspected the ROF may have been a factor, and i agree volume of fire for bows is roughly 2:1 over xbows (8 xbow bolts per minute is still pretty good though), but my point is we found it odd that they don't perform better against armoured opponents.
Longbows appear to be the 'uber-weapon' for ranged fire in FOG even agaist armour which seems a bit odd given that xbows had the advantage in terms of armour penetration. Even the mighty Welsh longbow struggled to pierce full plate at over 20 yards.
Seems a bit odd that's all.
OK, so who takes crossbows in their armies as a choice?
What role do you use them for?
How do you find they perform?
Longbows appear to be the 'uber-weapon' for ranged fire in FOG even agaist armour which seems a bit odd given that xbows had the advantage in terms of armour penetration. Even the mighty Welsh longbow struggled to pierce full plate at over 20 yards.
Seems a bit odd that's all.
OK, so who takes crossbows in their armies as a choice?
What role do you use them for?
How do you find they perform?
Well, 8 xbow bolts a minute is a bit optimistic for their rate of fire, but of course, that depends on the type of crossbow being fired. It still compares poorly to the 14 or 15 bows a minute that can be put into the sky. Crossbows were and always will be a liability when your opponent is shooting back.Luddite wrote:Yes, i suspected the ROF may have been a factor, and i agree volume of fire for bows is roughly 2:1 over xbows (8 xbow bolts per minute is still pretty good though), but my point is we found it odd that they don't perform better against armoured opponents.
Longbows appear to be the 'uber-weapon' for ranged fire in FOG even agaist armour which seems a bit odd given that xbows had the advantage in terms of armour penetration. Even the mighty Welsh longbow struggled to pierce full plate at over 20 yards.
Seems a bit odd that's all.
OK, so who takes crossbows in their armies as a choice?
What role do you use them for?
How do you find they perform?
Where Crossbows come into their own is against armoured mounted, which is reflected in the rules.
Chinese armies use Crossbow as a choice (albeit they don't have another choice) and I have found them highly effective against Knights and Cataphracts. Especially Light Foot Crossbow shooting at Knights.
Evaluator of Supremacy
Not really.dave_r wrote: Well, 8 xbow bolts a minute is a bit optimistic for their rate of fire,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g-0-RK3cjk
You try and get 8 shots off in a minute with a windlass crossbow. About one a minute would be more realistic. Of course if you had quoted my entire sentence instead of taking it out of context then that would have been apparent.Luddite wrote:Not really.dave_r wrote: Well, 8 xbow bolts a minute is a bit optimistic for their rate of fire,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g-0-RK3cjk
Even so the Longbow got twice the rate of fire out compared to the Crossbow.
Evaluator of Supremacy
Your entire sentence was not in question, hence no need to quote it, i merely pointed to an example of a common battlefield crossbow where 8 shots a minute is entirely possible.dave_r wrote: You try and get 8 shots off in a minute with a windlass crossbow. About one a minute would be more realistic. Of course if you had quoted my entire sentence instead of taking it out of context then that would have been apparent.
Even so the Longbow got twice the rate of fire out compared to the Crossbow.
The belt & claw (inc. goats foot and gaffle types) spanned crossbow fired roughly 50% of the shots of a typical bow, but with far greater punch. This type seems to have been the typical type used at a battle weapon during the Mid to Late Middle Ages.
Hand-spanned crossbows fired faster, approximtely 60% of the speed of a bow, but were much weaker and with shorter range. This type is likely to be the most common type used throughout most armies from most periods.
Example of reconstruction trial here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HagCuGXJgUs
The heavy steel crossbows that required windlass spanning, although suggested as battlefield weapons, were probably more typically siege weapons rarely used in the field. Indeed, there's some debate among modern scholars as to wether the windlass was used at all before the 16thC. The chaps over at the Pitt Rivers museum mention this, however i think it's clear that came into use in Europe in around the 14thC. Given their size, and the fact that could have draw weights of about 5000lbs with a range of 500yards with perhaps 1-2 shots per minute, personally in FOG terms i think they fit more as light artillery!
However, while an interesting debate, i still think my initial confusion stands.
I can't see how the xbow as defined by the rules, reflects its benefits and historical battlefield role - primarily why its doesn't provide superior perform against armoured troops?
Or if they do, and i'm missing where it does, what am i missing?
We've had the experience of crossbowmen being almost completely ineffective against armoured cavalry and knights, ...which seemed a bit odd to say the least...especially when compared to the effect of longbowmen, which i suspect are being rather overplayed by the rules.
Its really not a problem - we accept the rules for what they are foibles and all (no ruleset if perfect after all), but i'm just wondering why xbows have been designed to work they way they do?
I'm also keen to hear people's experiences of using them ont he field. What are they good at? Where do they suffer? How do you deploy or use them (front line? Relegated to support?)?
Received wisdom i suppose.dave_r wrote:Why do you think that Crossbows were particularly effective against Armoured troops - when did they ever stop a mounted charge?
Most of the armies that used them thought that they were most effective in sieges.
No usable bows survive from the middle ages (whereas usable crossbows do) so its very difficult to conduct realistic comparisons, but we can infer from other events that the crossbow was especially effective against armour (or at least perceived to be by the actual warriors of the time).
Why? Armour was the often the preserve of the nobility and well-paid professionals/mercenaries. The nobility also made the laws.
Article 51 of the Magna Carta specifically mentions to the expulsion of crossbowmen from Britain (with other types of troops), and of course the famous (but contested) banning of the use of crossbows on Christians by Pope Innocent II.
It would seem those with armour were keen to make laws to ban the use of crossbow by those without armour.
This i suppose could be called out for conjecture - but its certainly as i say received wisdom that crossbows were more effective at piercing armour.
Coupled with the provable capacity of crossbows to draw far geater weights, and therefore impart far greater kinetic energy than even the feared Welsh longbow, it would seem perfectly sensible to assume this received wisdom has basis in fact.
As to wether the crossbow ever stopped a mounted charge, i'll counter with 'when did bows'? Even the most famous clashes of Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt didn't actually stop the French charge, just decimated it on the way in. Certainly at Agincourt, the French knights got through to the English lines and engaged the men-at-arms in melee.
It wasn't until the development of combined pike and crossbow tactics on the continent, alongside the rise of gunpowder weapons that the mounted knight was finally 'stopped' (forcing the mounted knight to dismount and fight).
But...while an interesting discourse, i'm still keen to understand why FOG seems to have downplayed the armour penetrating capacity of crossbows, while to some extent overplayed the effectiveness of longbows.
If anyone has any insight into that, or indeed wether my initial perceptions are wrong and in your experience xbows DO sort out armoured opponents, i'd love to hear your expert opinions.
As you allude to, the problem with perceived wisdom is that often it is the case when you go and check, it simply doesn't add up.
The probably reason Crossbows were banned (in my opinion only of course) is that they were too easy to use. Any idiot can pick up a Crossbow, look down it and fire. Because it fires a flat trajectory it is much easier to aim. Hence it was the favoured weapon of the Mercenary. Bows were used by yeomanry who were unstintingly loyal. Once the war was over they were back in the fields.
Having a bunch of Crossbowm was like having a tank parked on your lawn.
Anyway, Crossbowmen are very effective against Armoured opponents.
The probably reason Crossbows were banned (in my opinion only of course
) is that they were too easy to use. Any idiot can pick up a Crossbow, look down it and fire. Because it fires a flat trajectory it is much easier to aim. Hence it was the favoured weapon of the Mercenary. Bows were used by yeomanry who were unstintingly loyal. Once the war was over they were back in the fields.Having a bunch of Crossbowm was like having a tank parked on your lawn.
Anyway, Crossbowmen are very effective against Armoured opponents.
Evaluator of Supremacy
Really? How?dave_r wrote:Anyway, Crossbowmen are very effective against Armoured opponents.
As i've said, and the reason for this thread is - my experience so far has been to the contrary.
I don't see it in the factors (as quoted above), and when 4 rounds of shooting by 2 BGs of foot xbow (each 6 bases) fails even to touch a BG of 4 armoured cavalry, we were left scratching our heads...
Thats XBOW MF - 8 dice per turn shooting at single rank armourd cavalry, with 0 POA (hit on 4).
Now admittedly the cohesion and death tests were good which held the cavalry in place, but 0 POA? For massed xbows shooting at armoured cavalry?
Why only 0 POA when longbows get + POA?
Why do the longbows shoot better at armoured cavalry than crossbows with (arguably) historical precedence for better armour penetration capacity?
That's the crux of my question.
I mean against Protected cavalry for example, even SLINGS get better POA than xbows!! Slings?!
Right. So in one game your opponent threw really good dice and now you want to change the rules because of it?
Eight dice against a BG of four cavalry should result in four hits - that is a 50/50 (give or take) chance of disrupting and a 33% chance of losing a base. Over four rounds, they should be a base down and disrupted.
If this didn't happen then dice rolls weren't in your favour. That isn't a good reason to change the rules.
Eight dice against a BG of four cavalry should result in four hits - that is a 50/50 (give or take) chance of disrupting and a 33% chance of losing a base. Over four rounds, they should be a base down and disrupted.
If this didn't happen then dice rolls weren't in your favour. That isn't a good reason to change the rules.
Evaluator of Supremacy
-
kevinj
- Major-General - Tiger I
- Posts: 2379
- Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
- Location: Derbyshire, UK
My summary of crossbows is:
Against Heavily Armoured troops they are as good as anything else (and better than most)
Against Armoured troops they are as good as Bows, Slings etc with the increased penetration compensating for the lower rate of fire.
Against Unprotected/Protected troops they are less effective due to the lower rate of fire, whilst the increased penetration does not help.
I think from a top-down perspective that's a realistic interpretation of their historical performance.
Against Heavily Armoured troops they are as good as anything else (and better than most)
Against Armoured troops they are as good as Bows, Slings etc with the increased penetration compensating for the lower rate of fire.
Against Unprotected/Protected troops they are less effective due to the lower rate of fire, whilst the increased penetration does not help.
I think from a top-down perspective that's a realistic interpretation of their historical performance.
-
grahambriggs
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
- Posts: 3066
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am
The little reading I've done in this area suggests that, outside of Britain, there was something of a race between armour and crossbow power. The increase in armour meaning that bolts needed more power and therefore crossbows needed slower loading mechanisms to allow the user to get the stored energy into the device.
I imagine the earlier, quicker crossbows would have been better against unarmoured men - rate of shooting - but would have been ineffective against plate armour.
That 'arms race' is not replicated in the rules. However, crossbows are better than bows against heavily armoured targets, and generally good against mounted (or at least as good as bows are mostly).
Generally there aren't enough heavily armoured enemy around in the game to make crossbows a good bet, but they are handy in the right spot.
I imagine the earlier, quicker crossbows would have been better against unarmoured men - rate of shooting - but would have been ineffective against plate armour.
That 'arms race' is not replicated in the rules. However, crossbows are better than bows against heavily armoured targets, and generally good against mounted (or at least as good as bows are mostly).
Generally there aren't enough heavily armoured enemy around in the game to make crossbows a good bet, but they are handy in the right spot.
I have wondered previously if there should be two types of crossbows in the rules, i.e. in much the same way there are two sorts of bows.
But then again, maybe the effect of the quicker, less punchy crossbows is similar enough to (short) bows to just count them as such for game classification purposes?
I think overall the alleged deadliness of crossbows against heavily armoured opponents should not be overdone. There were plenty of crossbowmen around at the time, but they don't seem to have been regarded as a super troop, knights wer still considered the battle winners; longbows burst on the scene and for a while are regarded by the knightly classes with far more loating than crossbows, and appear to have a significant impact on the outcome of a number of battles; then we see continental armies imitating the English and introducing large numbers of longbows - presumably at the expense of crossbows.
And during this period, armour was continuing to improve - I think I am right in saying that longbows had a far less deadly effect on the French men-at-arms at Agincourt than at Crecy, penetrating less and therefore killing fewer outright, although obviously still having the capability to do injury and affect morale. Yet this didn't prompt a shift back to crossbows.
But then again, maybe the effect of the quicker, less punchy crossbows is similar enough to (short) bows to just count them as such for game classification purposes?
I think overall the alleged deadliness of crossbows against heavily armoured opponents should not be overdone. There were plenty of crossbowmen around at the time, but they don't seem to have been regarded as a super troop, knights wer still considered the battle winners; longbows burst on the scene and for a while are regarded by the knightly classes with far more loating than crossbows, and appear to have a significant impact on the outcome of a number of battles; then we see continental armies imitating the English and introducing large numbers of longbows - presumably at the expense of crossbows.
And during this period, armour was continuing to improve - I think I am right in saying that longbows had a far less deadly effect on the French men-at-arms at Agincourt than at Crecy, penetrating less and therefore killing fewer outright, although obviously still having the capability to do injury and affect morale. Yet this didn't prompt a shift back to crossbows.
-
grahambriggs
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
- Posts: 3066
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am
At Crecy the MAA were mounted, at Agincourt mostly on foot, so not the best comparison as the horses would have had little protection. However, armour at Agincourt would have been much more complete plate.ShrubMiK wrote: And during this period, armour was continuing to improve - I think I am right in saying that longbows had a far less deadly effect on the French men-at-arms at Agincourt than at Crecy, penetrating less and therefore killing fewer outright, although obviously still having the capability to do injury and affect morale. Yet this didn't prompt a shift back to crossbows.