Realism

[Truka]

As far as I know, a single shot by an (English) Lonbow-marksman could hit a 50 kg steel plate armour of a knight through, some others, like shortbows, didn't have this power (as well as some crossbows, which weren't able to hit a chainmail through). So it would depend of the weapon of the troops and the armour of the men, who are attacked, which damage a weapon does, when a man is hit. So probably it would add more realistics to the game, if this would be noticed (it could probably be diced, if a weak weapon will kill a soldier).

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Truka
As far as I know, a single shot by an (English) Lonbow-marksman could hit a 50 kg steel plate armour of a knight through, some others, like shortbows, didn't have this power (as well as some crossbows, which weren't able to hit a chainmail through). So it would depend of the weapon of the troops and the armour of the men, who are attacked, which damage a weapon does, when a man is hit. So probably it would add more realistics to the game, if this would be noticed (it could probably be diced, if a weak weapon will kill a soldier).

I would like if roll-the-dice was used or somehting like this: archers hit probability:

2/3 of a chance for a hit
1/3 of a chance for a miss

[Jarlabanke]

In a program about bowmen and longbows I've seen on Discovery ( yes, I know, it's not the most reliable source of information there is) they actually came to the conclusion that a longbow wouldn't be all that certain to puncture a full plate, or rather a piece of metal shaped as if it had been a part of one. Make of it what you want, but do consider that there's a reason why people changed to guns and why armor since then played and increasingly small part in warfare.

[greywulf]

The change to guns was not because of the longbow's inability to puncture armour. When a thousand longbowmen fire a thousands arrows with a bow that can have a 60-80lbs draw, there is very little that can stand up to it, despite what discovery channel might saw. When you look at the devastation longbows dealt on the fields of France to fully plated French knights, there's no doubt that, with the right arrow heads, they could drop a man.

Longbows were not phased out until firearms became reliable on the battlefield. By that time, firearms had become so basic to operate that you could take almost anyone off the streets, give him a gun, and he could shoot it. A longbow required a great deal of upper body strength and training before you became good enough to hit something. It was simply more practical and less time consuming to train your men for a short while to fire a gun then to spend years learning archery.

Dice rolls would be a neat addition but that has the potential to be a very complicated system. As units gain more experience, they would have greater accuracy. Regardless, like Jorghan says, there has to be some kind of accuracy metre.

[Henrik]

Originally posted by greywulf
The change to guns was not because of the longbow's inability to puncture armour. When a thousand longbowmen fire a thousands arrows with a bow that can have a 60-80lbs draw, there is very little that can stand up to it, despite what discovery channel might saw. When you look at the devastation longbows dealt on the fields of France to fully plated French knights, there's no doubt that, with the right arrow heads, they could drop a man.


I've found a webpage where they have done an experiment to determin the penetration of an arrow fired from a longbow - however this longbow was only have the length of the real deal
Link to a longbow (http://www.medieval.co.nz/archery/arrowexp.htm)

Dice rolls would be a neat addition but that has the potential to be a very complicated system. As units gain more experience, they would have greater accuracy. Regardless, like Jorghan says, there has to be some kind of accuracy metre.

This thread (http://forum.sunflowers.de/showthread.php?s=&threadid=279&highlight=unit+AND+experience) is about unit experiences - i could also imagine that the units accuracy would be better when they got more experienced - infact i'll expect it !

[greywulf]

Interesting Henrik, but longbowmen used "bodkin" arrow heads against heavy armour, very long and thin which could easily penetrate armour http://www.stjoan-center.com/Album/part27.html

The arrow used in the demonstration you show is not designed to penetrate armour. In fact, the field head is used for nothing other then target practice, penetrating a weak surface easily and being able to pull it out with little difficulty. The bodkin head punched through metal easily, though yes it's true that it could glance off armour if hit at the wrong angle. That didn't matter so much though if there were 1,000 arrows falling around you.

And arrows were fired in archs to bring the full weight of a plummeting metal head down on a person. It combines the force of gravity, the strength of the pull, and the weight of the arrow head. That's why firing from a wall is much easier and more powerful then firing from the ground. Firing from point blank is fine for target practice, but an armoured knight had to be hit from a distance so that demonstration is not very realistic.

[Henrik]

Originally posted by greywulf
And arrows were fired in archs to bring the full weight of a plummeting metal head down on a person. It combines the force of gravity, the strength of the pull, and the weight of the arrow head. That's why firing from a wall is much easier and more powerful then firing from the ground. Firing from point blank is fine for target practice, but an armoured knight had to be hit from a distance so that demonstration is not very realistic.

I'll have disagree with you, I think that it gives an idea of how powerful these bows were - though i must admit that i do find it a bit strange that they didn't used a "Bodkin" Longbow arrow (http://www.longbow42.giointernet.co.uk/page6.htm) to conduct the "experiment".

btw, during my search for longbows and arrows i found a site where a guy is showing how he makes a bow and arrows (http://www.solartracker.com/archery/arrows_and_such.html) - it's quite interesting :)

[Angryminer]

I hope a KoH-bowman will not try to shoot "at the seventh soldier in the third row from the right" who's standing down the hill but "that bunch of guys down the hill". He shoots, the arrow flies a wide arch, and perhaps it will hit somebody down there or it doesn't hit, because the arrow hits a place where there is no soldier.

In AoK 10 Longbowmen were able to kill a running worker behind a forrest with one shot, because at least 5 of them hit, because their dice measured that they would hit.

But archers should only be effective if their enemies are standing side-by-side and there are a lot of them.
(No one can tell me that you can aim at a single person at such distances...)

Angryminer

[Jarlabanke]

I still belive it's a valid question though, why use armor if it's ineffective?

[Angryminer]

Armor lowers the possibility to be hit.
A sword might hit your breast, but you won't be dead if you're wearing a breast-plate (depends on the sword/strenght of the blow etc. etc.).
Oh, and in medieval times archers weren't usually equiped with bodkin-arrows. Would have been way too expesive.

Angryminer

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Angryminer
Armor lowers the possibility to be hit.
A sword might hit your breast, but you won't be dead if you're wearing a breast-plate (depends on the sword/strenght of the blow etc. etc.).
Oh, and in medieval times archers weren't usually equiped with bodkin-arrows. Would have been way too expesive.

Angryminer

That can't be all true - as i recall, lots of the archers at the battle of argincourt were actually equiped with bodkin arrows, this was some of reasons to why it the battle went like it did ( i'm aware that a major factor was the battlefield itself and the surrounding area )

[Jarlabanke]

If not for there being no bows or arrows, why did heavy cavalary (and a bit later also armoured infantry) dissapear in Renaissance warfare?

[Angryminer]

Switzerland was the first country were soldiers began to cut horse's legs of instead of fighting the knight sitting on it...

That was VERY effective.

Angryminer

[Vytis]

If not for there being no bows or arrows, why did heavy cavalary (and a bit later also armoured infantry) dissapear in Renaissance warfare?
Guns.

[Henrik]

yeahh, Vytis - one word says it all ;) - like the introduction of guns in Europe ended the "traditional" knight, the same happened in Japan ie. the downfall of the samurai and the proud warrior traditions was also because of firearms, which was brought in by the portoguise.

[Elewyn]

but the end of knights ruling european battlefields ended just before massive usage of guns, in the age of longbows, during 100years war. Of course, "guns were already known during 100years war, but very few of them cannot influence whole war.

Agincourt, Poitiers and Crécy were won by bowman. And those 3 battles were great defeats of knightly cavalry. Of course, as greywulf said, when the time of guns came, it was easier to train army for guns than for bows, and they became massive-used weapon during 15th and 16th century. But 3 things that defeated knights were flamish pikemen, english longbowmen and Swiss halberdiers. Just after them guns came into "normal warlife".

[greywulf]

Originally posted by Vytis

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If not for there being no bows or arrows, why did heavy cavalary (and a bit later also armoured infantry) dissapear in Renaissance warfare?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Guns.
Actually, heavy cavalry was not fully phased out until World War 1.

And in response to bodkin arrows being expensive and not widely used, that's not entirely true. Good commanders outfitted their rear archers with bodkin heads regularily while the forward lines of archers used something like broadheads. It's not that bodkins were more expensive, often they contained less metal then a broadhead arrow, but that broadheads were more useful as a general purpose arrow (I could explain why but that's not what we are discussing). It was more practical to equip archers with more broadheads then bodkins, so a good commander would have smaller groups fire off bodkins to eliminate heavy armour while the majority fired off broadheads to soften up the enemy foot and horse.

And the downfall of bushido, the samurai way of life, had as much to do with economics and political maneuvering at the time as guns did.

[Jorghan]

Originally posted by Angryminer
Switzerland was the first country were soldiers began to cut horse's legs of instead of fighting the knight sitting on it...

That was VERY effective.

Angryminer

Cheating!

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Jorghan
Cheating!

AND !..................:D

[The Judge]

I hope that we do see an excessive amount of realism in combat. Only Shogun: Total War has ever come close in my opinion.

But there is one thing that I hope to see... Some regions had very how shall we say ... odd ... weaponry.

For example the Francisca .. a unique Frankish throwing axe
or the Goedendag .. a Flemish great mace of sort.

I know they already have a lot of units, but I'd really like to see the odd regional weapons that turned the tide of many medieval battles in the game.