Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

So, something that has always bothered me. Crossbows are armor piercing, while Longbows are not.

Don't get me wrong. I have never been in a crossbow or a longbow fight, but the Battle of Crecy was won by longbowmen zinging the French Knights to death, right?

Crossbowmen were generally poorly trained troops who could crank a handle, and shoot quickly without much training. Longbowmen were highly trained veterans, who could shoot with amazing force. I believe the longbow hit with much more force than the the crossbow.

So, why are Longbows not armor piercing?

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I've wondered that as well.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that a properly trained Welsh or English longbowman could achieve a greater rate of fire than a continental crossbowman or arbalestier(?). I'm not sure if that was comparing against cranequin(?)-style crossbows or ones that used a lever (goat's foot?) to tension.

One difference is that you can aim a crossbow. My understanding is that longbowmen involved their entire bodies in drawing their bows, and so it was difficult to aim. So, they had to make up the difference with greater range and rate of fire.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

i've actually done some light research on this topic as i prepare to add these items, alongside firearms, into the Fourth Age project.

Longbows:
less force
higher rate of fire
years of training required

crossbow:
more force
lower rate of fire
weeks of training required

firearms:
terrible aim
dangerous
cheap
little to no training required. the weapons had such poor accuracy there was actually no point in training marksmenship. all soldiers needed to know how to do was to prepare the weapon to fire and to move in the correct formations.

i've read that firearms were actually cheaper than crossbows, which is the another reason they were used, other wise they were worse in every capacity (except for low train time).

the ammunition required for the weapons was another reason firearms were used.

longbows:
fletching requires skill and is expensive. it may take weeks to produce a bundle of war worthy arrows.

crossbows:
bolts require less skill and less money

firearms:
shot required little skill and could be made quickly for very little money. soldiers could actually produce their own shot in the field if necessary.

lastly, their were environmental factors.

longbows:
wind could easily cause stray arrows

crossbow:
with more force, wind was less of a factor

firearms:
wind had relatively little effect on firearm shot. additionally, the accuracy of the weapon itself was so poor a little straying didn't matter at all. additionally, all the smoke would foul cavalry charges a little. however, in the rain the weapons were little more than clubs.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

A couple of points on crossbows as well. Much like modern guns, crossbows didn't require the extensive training that longbows did to fire. You could give anyone a crossbow, and show them how to load it. Beyond the ability to turn a crank, or stretch the initial string, the force of the weapon was completely independent of the wielder's own strength. Obviously they still have to aim the thing, but the mechanics beyond that are very simple.

It was also my understanding that the mud in the field made it very, very difficult for the knights on foot to do any fighting. Since the bottom of their feet were basically broad plates of metal, they would squish down into the mud, and then when the knights when to lift their feet out of it, there would be a huge amount of suction keeping them in place. The longbow men had much different foot wear (I can't remember exactly what) that was /much/ better suited for fighting in the muddy field that they were fighting on.

Jazzepi

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Another factor favouring firearms over bows/crossbows was the quantity of ammunition a solider could carry.

Transporting 50 arrows takes a lot more space than transporting 50 bullets and gunpoder.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I agree with the OP.
Imo longbows should be armor piercing but much more expensive than crossbowmen.

Another thing that I find funny about missile troops is that slingers are mostly represented as inferior to archers.
Slings are superior to most bows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_(...epresentations

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I'm not convinced about the slingers really. That wiki has obviously been made by someone fond about sling (as will the wiki's of all weapons probably) but to me.. I look at it practically.

In midevil times shepards had slings in wide use, IF they where so much better overall (better range etc) then they would never have started using the more expensive arrows.

I think the main point of it is that sling bullets aren't AP..

In dominions it's sad there is only regular, AP (50%) and AN (100%) ... a % of AP (0-100) would probably be better as a value for weapons.

Blunt weapons (maces and slings etc) would then have like 5-10% AP,
swords 10-20% AP
piercing arrows 50%
crossbows 65 %

and magic weapons sometimes 100%.

(Omni if you are still in here, plz think about this as an extra stat too weaponry for your game in addtion to dmg/att/def

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Some slingers do have shields (i.e Marverni ones), which give them edge over archers.

Besides, I beileve slingers are much cheaper and thus useful in skirmish against bowmen. They are very effective in beating independent missile cavalries if deployed carefully.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Slings are better than early, poor-quality bows used in Biblical times and during the early Roman empire. I'm not sure when bows evolved to the point where arrows had longer range than sling bullets, but Mongol recurve bows and English longbows both had better range. Those would be Longbows and Composite Bows in dominions terms.

Aezeal's guess about sling bullets not being armor-piercing also comes pretty close. The blunt trauma sling can deal is amazing, and armor doesn't help that much unless it is padded well. I think medieval armor had more protective layers of cloth and/or leather than e.g. Greek hoplites used.

I used to practice slinging and read about them quite a bit. Funny story: when I was doing my military service, we had to do a 60 km march across the woods doing all kinds of stupid stuff along the way. The first task we had to do was two-fold: to replace a person's backbag with one we made from natural materials and stuff we had with us; and to make a sling. I had my sling with me, of course, and got to shine for a moment. Unfortunately, I lost the sling later during the march, I guess it fell into a swamp when we were taking a "shortcut".

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Didn't hoplites wear armor mostly made from linen? Although that point may be true.
Which would still leave short bows (which are the majority of bows in dominions IIRC).

Hmm, that depends what you mean by overall.
Longbows and crossbow were better than early firearms and were still replaced by them.
The sling might be more effective and less expensive to make than a shortbow, but it requires far more training to use effectively. Well, anyone can shoot a shortbow but with a sling you always risk shooting yourself in the head. :D
Also bows/crossbows should be superior when fighting in tight formations or medieval castles.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I thought that the big difference between crossbow and longbow was range?
A crossbow tended to be frontline, you shot at big things close up, they hit with lots of force and the troop only needed to be able to hit the broad side of a barn (which happened to be charging him).
Longbows shot from far back, high arches, rained down upon the enemy. As the enemy drew closer they tended to shoot directly and needed to hit man sized targets.

Slings were just a non-magical shards spell. A rain of stones whose affects were less about damage and more about the raining down and minor wounds on morale. I handt considered the "hitting yourself on the head" thing. Yes slings might have fallen out of favor with the use of tight formations. The same timing and reasoning as quarterstaffs giving way to pikes, swinging swords giving way to stabbing ones, etc.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

A couple of points (and excuse my spelling)

A. One of the reasons Shepards continued to use Slings even after Bows where more or less the Weapon of choice amonst the Armies of the time, is that shepards had to be prepared to fight off wild animals ALL the time. They had no time to run over and pick up thier bow, find the arrows and THEN get off a shot. By then the Wolf already was gone with the meal.

Shepards didn't just use slings when in formation shooting at a target that was coming for the most part straight at them.

Another reason is Shepards had a tendency to use thier Slings on the run,
while chasing or fighting off predators.

There is one version of David and Goliath that says that David started RUNNING at Goliath when he used his sling. The Reason, because he was used to chasing predators and was more accurate while moving.

2. I saw a documentary about the battle at Agincourt that pitted a Longbow of the day agianst the best armour that the French Knights would have used in that battle.

The results whre startling...Until very close, FEW of the arrows could pierce the Armour.

What turnd the battle was that the Archers where massed at the bridge and the Knights tried to go around the bridge.

Unfortunetly, It has been rainng for 2 days and the knight got bogged down letting the archers fire at close range.

Even this didn't win the battle (though it certainly had an impact).

The archers shot the horses which threw the knights to the gound in the deep muck and as they piled upon each other the ones on the bottom suffocated while the ones on the top took fire at close range.

But, It WAS the first battle that Longbows where used and they DID win the day..even if it wasn't like we thought.

Agian, it was a documentary (History International)....I have not done any study on it.

just an opinion.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I'm sorry to say, but I disagree with every point you make here.

Sling bullets were deadly. It's not throwing a rock at someone, but shooting it with enough force to break bones, or to go through your skin into your stomach. I never learned to aim properly, but it isn't hard to fling a stone with enough force to hear it ricochet even four or five times when thrown into a forest. You can't see it, of course, but the thunk-thunk-thunk sound it makes when it hits tree-trunks is quite satisfactory, and I saw small branches falling from where the stone flew. Small in this case being about the thickness of my thumb.

As for quarterstaves being replaced by pikes, well, quarterstaves were not weapons of war. They weren't meant to be, either. Pikes were designed to be used in formations, quarterstaves were not. Neither could be used to replace the other. Not to mention the size difference; short staff was half the length of a pike, or about two-and-half to three meters. There was also a long staff, but I don't think it's called quarterstaff.

Finally, "swinging swords giving way to stabbing" having "the same timing" as slings giving way to shortbows just isn't accurate to my knowledge. I was talking about slings being used in Biblical and in Roman times, and Romans used short thrusting swords but still relied on slingers. Balearic islanders were known as skilled slingers and were often recruited as mercenaries, including in Hannibal's campaign against Rome.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

As I said I still think the main problem with slings was their AP potential is much less, with increasing armor their effectiveness dropped and relative effec of bows improved. I guess that being very precise over a long range with a sling is much more problematic than with a bow and that for new recruits (which IMHO a large number of the troops in big wars where) that meant the effect of arrows was again better (and later for crossbows which might be even better to aim somewhat)

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

The first point is interesting, yet you must have made mistakes about Battle of Agincourt. The battle took place on a narrow grass between two forests, and most of the French knights were dismounted. Some further studies belive the french plate armors were well proved in that battle, just the mud and terrible leadership brought French that defeat.

I guess in game that's more like 100 man-at-arms under the curse of stone from Henry V get slaughtered by 30 longbowmen. (p.s, the longbowmen in game do have good strength for melee.)

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

No problem. I was thinking of an article comparing the "everymans weapons" and "solo hero" imagery to what was claimed as a shift in weaponry for formation use even when it was not as effective. But it was more of a romantisized rennaisance fair type of article than an historical study. It seemed to hold some logic. Since Kristoffer seems to try and hold to both the historical and the romantisized it seemed worth offering up.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

The problem with bows in this context is that you can't leave them strung all the time - you will ruin the bow. It's not a question of keeping the bow close at hand, it's a question of stringing it when you saw a predator.

On top of that, bows and arrows are expensive. Slings and ammunition are cheap.

-Jeff

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Well I think the being cheap part is mostly why shepards used it.
But the fact the army didn't despite that must means slings < bows so dom 3 rocks :D

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

:doh: Slings are better than poor bows, and there are thousands of years of wars fought before bows became better than slings.

Vegetius, a Roman writer in the late 4th century, observed in his famous Epitoma Rei Militaris:
Soldiers, despite their defensive armor, are often more aggravated by the round stones from the sling than by all the arrows of the enemy. Stones kill without mangling the body, and the contusion is mortal without loss of blood.


This article (on slinging.org) has several chosen quotes about the slings' effectiveness. They probably chose the pro-slinging quotes, but at least this particular quote shows that slings could be as or even more effective as bows.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Cretan, and miletan slingers were famous throughout the ancient world.

However it took years to be able to master the staff sling. Even more than longbowman.

Longbowman also had the advantage of indirect fire - ie., that they could fire *over* intervening troops.

But fundamentally, longbowman were simply out produced. I've seen studies that showed the 'muzzle' velocity for longbows and period crossbows of the time - were approximately even - and are still closer than you might think.

but good crossbows were much easier to mass produce than bows.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Longbowmen worked because the kings of England compelled the male population to train with them (I think) one day a week. They couldn't even be fired effectively without extensive development of the right muscles. Longbowmen had a distinctive lopsided shoulder musculature, I believe.

Further studies have shown that a top notch yew longbow with the right arrowhead would be devastating, but most longbows were cheaply produced with a poor arrowhead, and were not optimal for defeating armour, and generally a crossbow bolt had more force than a longbow arrow. By the time of Agincourt, the French armour was generally good enough to block a longbow arrow at range. You're quite right that the time and effort required to produce longbowmen and their weapons made them essentially impractical when gunpowder came along. A useful side effect of longbowmen's training which may have contributed to their effectiveness is that they would have been at least semi-professional troops, where most nations would merely have raw militia from the equivalent class. Longbows were still used up to at least the mid-16th century (e.g. Pinkie Cleugh), until gun technology got good enough to really make them obsolete.

I'm pretty sure that slings have another problem, which is that they require quite a lot of room to fire - you've got to whirl the sling without risk of hitting your neighbours. You can pack conventional bowmen very tightly, which means you can amass more firepower for your unit frontage, which is a huge plus when the intention is to use firepower to do major damage rather than skirmishing harassment.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

On the original question of armor penetration, I think it's really a Terminal Ballistics issue.

Neither the arrow nor bolt would be rotating (like a rifle bullet) so the longer arrow would be more subject to yawing & pitching than the bolt. Therefore, upon impact, the arrow would have a significantly higher chance of striking the target "off-center" with respect to the flightpath.

An off-center strike would cause the missile to deflect and/or shatter, significantly decreasing armor penetration...so a short bolt has a much higher chance of reliably penetrating armor.

But since the arrows & bolts have roughly the same kinetic energy, a proper arrow strike would be expected to penetrate armor, when it (rarely) occurs. This is how English Longbows were deployed, if I recall correctly: overcome the low chance of penetration by blotting out the sun with arrows. Something like a half-million arrows were fired at Crecy.

This seems to be well modeled in Dom3, with the DRN randomness.

I personally think a much more egregious oversight is that the Lance is not AP...this thing is the quintessential kinetic penetrator...

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

On the other hand, a Dom3 lance deals out quite enough damage to not need AP. A 25-protec thug without Awe staring at a line of charging cavalry should feel a large amount of trepidation.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Besides lances, morning stars and maces are also very effective to hurt well armored persons since they are delivering stun damage instaed of slash or thrust.

A brainstorm: can we mod these weapons to give them a second effect of fatigue increase? That also hurts the heavy units a lot and those hitted will soon face AP damage just due to their fatigues.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I don't think that would reflect what they did particularly effectively, and could do some really massive things to battle mechanics. Full AP damage would make them insanely powerful, and I doubt that anyone's going to be coding a new "lesser AP" at 10-25%.

What could be done in a mod easily is a damage increase for weapons like battleaxes, warhammers, maces and so on, but even that could be tricky to balance. Although it might go some way to counteracting the fact that these weapons don't really do more damage than a sword and tend to have worse Att/Def values as well.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

If you start giving stuff like lances and longbows the AP tag, you're eroding the point of the tag in the first place, which is to differentiate weapons. Lances are not niche anti armour weapons in dom3, they are simply high damage weapons (which often makes them a good choice vs high prot units). A crossbow is a good choice vs armour, but much less of a good choice vs an unarmoured high hp unit, where you could be using shortbows, longbows, javs etc. It may not be completely realistic, but it makes for better gameplay and is intuitive.

You could mod maces etc to give secondary fatigue damage, but unless you make it something like AP rather than AN fatige damage and have a lowish value on it, they're going to be far too good against thugs etc. I don't want to see 20 peasants with clubs phasing a 28 prot cyclops just because they can't afford swords.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Actually giving maces dmg 7 and AP might work to an extent. They'd be like the melee versons of crossbows - less good vs light prot guys, better against high prot guys. The fact they have worse att and def makes sense, since they are deployed against high prot encumbered guys, or heavy cav (who have good def but who shouldn't be taken out by mace armed foot troops anyway, really).

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Well I'm not getting it, maces aren't armour piercing in any way right? (IRL I mean) so why would THEY get AP and not something that could actually penetrate armour even on specific weak points.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

What do you mean by "dmg 7"? Damage 7, no-str or the sum of strength and weapon damage being 7? I've changed hammers, but not maces/clubs, to be dmg -4 and armor-piercing. Details below.

Maces are mostly used by the monkeys of all castes: Atavi, Vanara, Bandar, Kala-Mukha and leaders. Villains and Burgmeister Guards also use maces. They are pretty rare, but armor-piercing doesn't work with these units. Increased damage would be all right, I think.


Since the discussion changed into weapon balance, would you guys be interested in testing out this little mod I've been making? See attachment.

It started out as giving all magical spears #lance bonus, but I've been slowly adding into it and now it changes most mundane weapons. Most of it doesn't really make a difference, but Hammers (but not maces or clubs) are armor-piercing. They are used by VERY few units, which include few nationals (MA Ulm), Claymen and... Siege Golems! :shock: Haven't changed the golems yet, don't know if I should...

Other notable changes: +1 att to most spears, mauls, glaives, mauls and such have higher damage, many weapons cost less resources, axes got more precise.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Lances aren't quite as potent as you'd think. I ran some tests, reported in this post, which showed that a Heavy Cavalry's Lance deals just 22 damage...certainly better than a spear, but nothing a 25-prot thug should really fear.

Even chain-mail infantry survive a Heavy Cav's Lance more often than not (17 prot).

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

no i suppose they arn't piercing in the way we typically think of it, but it is the type of damage they do, blunt force trauma, that made them more effective than cutting weapons against armor.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Thanks for all the replies. This has, of course, gone way off post, but in a good way. I like all the lances and slingers talk.

Still. Nothing posted has deterred me from thinking that longbows should be AP.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Actually, arrows (and bolts) are rotating. That's the reason you put the little feathers on the end of an arrow (usually 3 feathers for an arrow, 2 for an bolt). The feathers are slightly curved to give the projectile a spin in flight. This spin stabilize the flight.


As for armor-penetration, different arrow tips are used even today for different purpose. There exist hunting arrow tips (three or two razor-sharp bladed to cause flesh wounds), "sport" tips (cone) to penetrate (not too much) a target and blunt tips for bird hunting (stun rather then kill).

I have once seen historical special designed "armor-penetrating" arrows... those things had practically a pyramidal-shaped steel needle on it's top. Certainly not cheap or easy to produce.

Possible solution for Dom3 regarding armor-piercing longbowmen:


Create a new unit type "Elite Longbowmen" with armor-piercing longbows. Damage still lower than a crossbow but AP. Good stats, but more resource and gold cost than a "normal" longbowmen.


Off-topic fact:
bowmen used to urinate on the arrows to cause infected wounds.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Fair enough. I've not run tests, but I've had cavalry knock a lot of HP off well-armoured thugs in games I've played: in one game one took 30 damage from 3 cavalry on first contact. Although I appreciate that may be unlucky.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

You mean bodkin-heads? The cruder examples look a bit like a medieval nail with a socket at the base. I'm hardly an expert, but I'd have thought that the various barbed arrowheads would take more time to make.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Yes, sorry, I meant around 3-4 damage or so, as a weapon stat. I was mixed up with strength being 10 and 7 being less or something.

I don't see why hammers with AP make more sense than maces? Why doesn't ap on a mace make sense on a markata or hoburg?

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I can't imagine Markata (they don't use maces), Hoburgs or the monkeys in general as something that thugs and heavily-armored, mounted knights should be especially afraid of. On the other hand, low-strength Hoburgs couldn't hit through armor even if their weapons were armor-piercing.

Finally, I don't want to make Lanka's Kala-mukha have armor-piercing weapons.

Thanks for asking about the hammers, since after you asked I read more about them and found out armor-piercing doesn't fit them at all.
I thought the spike at the other end of a war hammer was like a pick-axe, meant to push through the armor, but according to Wikipedia it was for hooking the opponent's leg, neck, weapon or such. It also didn't penetrate armor as such, but "transmitted an impact through even the thickest helmet". I've seen videos of a longer "poll-axe" being used in such a manner, and it looks great. Unfortunately you can't model tripping in Dominions.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

You are right. So bodkin arrows should cost less resource and do less damage than "normal" arrows, but bodkin arrows should be armor-piercing.

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

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I think the reflection of AP on weapons like axes, maces and so on is not that they penetrate the armour per se, but that armour could much less effective at stopping the damage from them compared to a sword. Armour was generally about stopping penetrative damage from thrusts (eg. spears, swords) and slashing (swords). Weapons like maces and warhammers were designed to apply a lot of force into a very concentrated area. Even if the armour wasn't penetrated (in the case of plate armour probably leaving a huge dent), the blow could pulverise bone and flesh under it.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

well I don't think that is AP, that is just high damage since on an unarmoured person it would do much more damage too. (I'm not sure a well padded armour would give the wearer that much problems from a blow of a mace)

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Chainmail might very effectively stop a sword slash - if the sword doesn't penetrate the links, it's effectiveness is greatly reduced - whereas a mace might crush whatever is below the mail. However, against an unarmoured target where the mace would still do lots of damage, the sword would cut a huge gash in the target. As the mace's relative effectiveness increases with more armour, it's more grounds to make it AP than higher damage. Although having argued that, I'd rather not see maces/warhammers with AP damage, more an increased damage, simply for game mechanics.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I think it's more complicated than that. To the best of my knowledge, flexible armours (the various sorts of mail) weren't terribly good at stopping maces - even with padding (which was present as standard) a solid hit was likely to break bones. Rigid plate would be good protection, though. Full plate was not supposed even to dent, as dents would normally restrict the user's mobility.

Edit: Ninja'd! Dammit.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

This is not true about the rigid plates. The end of the age of chivalry misnomer though that was.. was a combination of many things - including the fact that plate armor was actually remarkably poor against the kinetic energy transfer of flails, mauls etc.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I think I should have said 'better' rather than 'good'.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Getting back to the OP's question, I wondered the same thing when I started playing the game. I figured both crossbows and longbows should be AP weapons. It appears, however, from information supplied in this thread, that if the idea is to represent RL weapons, neither should be AP. There doesn't seem to be any reason why one should be AP and the other not, unless it is for gaming reasons, and not simulation reasons. And since Dominions makes no pretence of being a simulation, that's probably all the reason needed.

I like the discussion of "blunt force trauma" and "kinetic energy transfer" and the like. I wonder what the reaction of your typical mediaeval knight would have been. Not only would he not understand the terms, he'd probably burn you at the stake for using them. Despite the efficacity or otherwise of various maces, hammers, flails, and ilk for defeating armor and causing damage to your opponent, all of these weapons remained pretty much auxiliary to the sword, whether the latter was more efficient or not. Should some of these weapons be AP and some not? Don't we first of all have to know what the designers intend by making weapons AP before we can answer that question?

Knights didn't fight knights if they could avoid it. A "good day" for your typical mounted thug, pace the chansons and their ilk, was to ride down and trample a bunch of hapless peasants, not engage in Irish Standdown with an opponent as well-armored and armed as yourself. This is why the pike caused such an uproar when it was first employed -- because for the first time, those hapless peasants could defeat the flower of chivalry. Yet I notice in the discussion above about weapons effectiveness, nobody talks about the pike, although it evolved into the standard battle arm for centuries. Should pikes be AP?

As for missile weapons, I see the progression this way: slings were good, cheap weapons that were effective at short ranges, but (as another poster points out) couldn't be used in masses and required a good bit of experience to be used effectively. Shortbows needed less experience, but were consequently not much more effective, if a bit longer-ranged. Longbowmen needed quite a lot of training, the weapon itself was expensive, but in mass it was very effective and long-ranged, so long as you had trained longbowmen. I recall one article I read somewhere-or-other (possibly S&T magazine) that speculates that a side effect of the Great Plague was to wipe out the pool of trained longbowmen for England and thus lose the Hundred Year's War for them. You can believe that one or not as you like. Crossbows didn't require as much training and were nearly as effective as longbows, which explains their vogue in the latter Middle Ages. Both kinds of bows were very good infantry killers, too, a fact that became more important as armies became more and more dominated by pikemen. What used to puzzle me was the vogue of gunpowder weapons once they were invented. Despite being expensive and unreliable, they became more and more popular as time went on. An arquebush or musket is no simpler to use than a crossbow (in fact, the latter is much simpler, not to mention tremendously more accurate), so why did firearms replace bows? Could it be that they were AP, and bows and crossbows not? A .75 cal bullet will punch through any armor without much problem, I should think. (Nevertheless, Benjamin Franklin proposed that the American army be armed with longbows, not muskets, since the former were not only much more accurate but had a much greater rate of fire. He ignored the fact that it is a lot easier to shoot a musket than a longbow)

Well, I suppose I've rambled enough here. Ultimately, I think there is only one real answer to the OP's question: crossbows are AP and longbows are not, because the designers wanted it that way.

-- Mal

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

The Black Death was around the beginning of the 100 Years' War, 1350, it wasn't a major influence on the final result around 1450. Ultimately, England lost simply because it was a far less wealthy and populous nation than France - it couldn't replace the casualties or pay for the endless conflict.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Geez guys:

A sling has 25 range and does 9 damage with -1 to attack.

A shortbow has 30 range with 10 damage.

A longbow has 40 range with 13 damage.

A crossbow has 35 range with 10 AP damage.

Duhhhhhhh!

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Renojustin: most crossbows also have +1 precision IIRC.

That reminds me how my cousin and his friend were arguing about if a medieval person would have known what to do with a crossbow if he hadn't seen one before. Everyone would know what a bow is, one of them argued, but crossbows would be more rare and an average peasant wouldn't know what to do with it. His argument was countered by the following statement: "Crossbows are Simple in 3rd edition". :D :rolleyes:


Any way, while we are speaking of game stats, I like Conceptual Balance bows. Crude Short Bows are about equal, normal short bows are slightly more accurate, and more advanced bows/crossbows are better.
Speaking of mods, about a year ago Sombre helped me make a mod that gave all slingers a weapon that deals -2 damage, plus strength. It also increases the range to slightly over a short bow's range, but that's overkill, really. Strength of Giants boosting slingers' damage would be enough to give them a niche use. Would anyone be interested in seeing that mod updated?
Yet another mod-related thought: I should add a site with elite slingers to the magic site mod.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Does no one here recall our short foray into AP longbows some time ago? Everyone clammored for it like this and then we modded it into CB or something and everyone hated it.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

As I understand it, what causes the seeming discrepancy of crossbows being armor piercing while longbows are not while having longer range, is the fact that the crossbow bolts are heavier. The heaviness of crossbow bolts reduces their ability to stay aloft but at the same time gives them a greater impact, hence their ability to pierce armor. Longbows could indeed pierce armor, but they were also greatly helped at Agincourt by being fired from a higher elevation, so the extra drop lent them velocity.