Gaming Perspective: Archery - coming to you from the land of M&B

[Digu21]

I am against one arrow or bolt killing horses, but as someone said that archers should be ineffective vs armour.. For gameplay reasons not, archers should be effective.. But indirect hits should either bounce off or deal less damage. However the stun part should be either reduced or another idea instead of it..

[Kator Viridian]

I have one piece of evidence that pretty much destroys the longbows effectiveness.

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

English longbows do NOTHING to the heavy mounted italian mercenaries, considering this is like ... 50 years prior and this armour already exists, I think armour in England would of caught up by then.

Also note; No horses died in the making of this battle.

[ProjectAngel]

Gerald of Wales commented on the power of the Welsh longbow in the 12th century:

In the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron cuirasses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal.

I dare say a longbow will be able to pierce a horse's skull, assuming it's a fairly close ranged shot and the horse is not protected by armour. A crossbow bolt would do it quite possibly WITH armour included.

That said I would vote against insta-killing horses for gameplay reasons.

I'm sorry but I still don't believe an arrow would penetrate a horses skull. Fair enough, you sourced one story of an arrow penetrating various objects before killing a horse, (from the story I am assuming the arrow went into the horses midriff,) although the accuracy of what this person wrote can not be verified. However, what I quoted shows that a modern tool used specifically to smash through the skulls of animals from extreme close range is actually ineffective against the horses skull.

I guess the only way we will ever know is to do a field test... Got a spare horse?

[Digu21]

Indeed it is large evidence that the longbows effectiveness was bad vs armour.. But because this is a game, Gameplay > Realism. So in mulitplayer it should be good and balanced..

[Beowulf1990]

I'm sorry but I still don't believe an arrow would penetrate a horses skull. Fair enough, you sourced one story of an arrow penetrating various objects before killing a horse, (from the story I am assuming the arrow went into the horses midriff,) although the accuracy of what this person wrote can not be verified. However, what I quoted shows that a modern tool used specifically to smash through the skulls of animals from extreme close range is actually ineffective against the horses skull.

I guess the only way we will ever know is to do a field test... Got a spare horse?

We use the same tool to kill pigs, it's actually not all that powerful. Get it wrong slightly and you just maim. (parents raise pigs)

The longbow would make short work of flesh at any rate an a shaft in the midrif or the heart etc. could kill a horse outright even if it couldn't pierce a skull (which I still think it could). But gameplay prohibits one-shot kills anyway, so it's a bit of a moot point.

@Kator
Absolutely right on steel plate, at any range besides point blank it would not be effective at penetrating at all. Mail it could do.

But I must admit I'm confused why you'd quote that battle as an argument against English archers. The archers in that battle were taken unprepared by charging heavy cavalry on hard terrain, the single worst possible situation for any archer, no matter the power of their bows. Not to mention that the English won a crushing victory!

[ProjectAngel]

We use the same tool to kill pigs, it's actually not all that powerful.

This is what I am trying to highlight though, here in the UK they don't use the same tool to kill horses as they do other livestock such as cattle because the horses skull is too thick. They use a different method and in some cases don't even bother trying, (they just string the horse up and bleed them out.) Also, those tools are designed to crush the skull and damage the brain so I'm going to have to disagree with you saying they aren't all that powerful.

I do however agree that if it was hit in the torso then chances are it would be a kill shot. If not instantly then it would certainly cause irreparable internal damage.

This is just a game though so one hit kills on cavalry would be pretty lame.

[Salahudin]

The lowest 'tier' of horses surviving an arrow/bolt to the head with a direct shot from medium range of a ranged unit in this game is just silly. And I don't care about reality at this stage. I'm talking from a specific gameplay perspective. A horse is a fast moving target and hitting its head at close range while its moving should have a huge reward.
Horses are fast, but vulnerable to arrows. More so than their riders sometimes if they are wearing plate+maille. You have to separate yourself from the realm of reality sometimes to address balance issues.

Whether its skull is thick or not thick isn't really the argument here.
We all know that in the right conditions, Longbowmen will decimate Knights, that is their horses... Agincourt anyone?

The whole point of the op was to try and push for a nice balanced sweet spot. You want to reward archers for pulling hard shots, but you also want to make it useless at one point.
Notice how I stress on close range, things like one shot to kill the horse and if you miss, you're essentially dead.

But we don't know much about the archery mechanic here.
So we'll have to wait and see.

[Beowulf1990]

This is what I am trying to highlight though, here in the UK they don't use the same tool to kill horses as they do other livestock such as cattle because the horses skull is too thick. They use a different method and in some cases don't even bother trying, (they just string the horse up and bleed them out.) Also, those tools are designed to crush the skull and damage the brain so I'm going to have to disagree with you saying they aren't all that powerful.

I do however agree that if it was hit in the torso then chances are it would be a kill shot. If not instantly then it would certainly cause irreparable internal damage.

This is just a game though so one hit kills on cavalry would be pretty lame.

I know from personal experience it is much easier to use a "nailgun", that kills them outright. That other device doen't actually pierce the skull, like you said it tries to shatter through. An arrow, with a bodkin head on it, will fare much better, like the nail from the nailgun.

But really, those tools could be made a lot more powerful if we wanted too, but they suffice for cattle and pigs. It's not really an argument that they're not overpowered enough to also break a horse's skull, for which it was never designed.

/just arguing for the point of it now

[Robin.]

You guys have neglected one additional factor to horses of the era...

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gc...of-the/719264?

The animations are custom, but the models are in game models and it's recorded in the actual game engine.

[ProjectAngel]

The whole point of the op was to try and push for a nice balanced sweet spot. You want to reward archers for pulling hard shots, but you also want to make it useless at one point.
Notice how I stress on close range, things like one shot to kill the horse and if you miss, you're essentially dead.

I can totally see what you are getting at and in the case of anything like throwing axes or javalins I agree. I just feel that a headshot on a horse is far too easy for an archer to pull off, the closer the easier in my opinion, and will be a total game breaker for cavalry.

You guys have neglected one additional factor to horses of the era...

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gc...of-the/719264?

The animations are custom, but the models are in game models and it's recorded in the actual game engine.

Not all horses are going to be armoured up to the teeth though surely?

[Robin.]

Not all horses are going to be armoured up to the teeth though surely?

Of course not. But it hadn't been mentioned, (or I missed it being mentioned).

[Salahudin]

Well, I was hoping it would be obvious that if the horse had plate armor on its head, the arrow would bounce off/not do too much damage.
I was referring to a light horse that didnt have head armor.

[Kator Viridian]

@Kator
Absolutely right on steel plate, at any range besides point blank it would not be effective at penetrating at all. Mail it could do.

But I must admit I'm confused why you'd quote that battle as an argument against English archers. The archers in that battle were taken unprepared by charging heavy cavalry on hard terrain, the single worst possible situation for any archer, no matter the power of their bows. Not to mention that the English won a crushing victory!

It was a crushing victory fo the English but the armour was tested, proven and very effective, imagine releasing just one volley of arrows, that would kill the knights of its time ... which it did to the french who didn't have the armour. If the italians/lombardians had rolled up the flank of the English would of suffered a catastrophic loss, but they went right the way through the line and as all good mercenaries do "Booty for all!" and went for the baggage train leaving the English to close lines again and fight the french.

The armour basically made the Italian knights porcupines, still riding tall as if bugger all had happened, that scared the hell out of the English, your main weapon, useless. It was probably one of the many nails in the coffin for the English and Welsh longbows alike (even though there is little difference between the 2 because it comes down to pulling weights not the style of bow).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnPcyGjYZmc
About 2 mins in ... using none hardened steel, so the italian mercenaries would of been using the hardened steel ... which blunt the arrows so they would not penetrate far enough to kill a man.

EDIT:
Just found the Vernuil test;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk

[Beowulf1990]

I actually agree with you Kator, I'm just saying that a battle where the archers barely got a shot off and where the English won is not the best example

Steel plate defeats arrows, absolutely.

[zenarion]

How does steel armor react to crossbow bolts?
And will there be crossbows?

[xGhost4000x]

I'm not so sure...

It is possible that good ole' Gerald was over-exaggeration.

Of course at the same time it is also possible that arrows could penetrate the skull of a horse...

So I guess unless we have the tools some tv shows use to test weapons we will likely not know.

[Kator Viridian]

How does steel armor react to crossbow bolts?
And will there be crossbows?

Medieval England.

The crossbow is not commonly used as much as other parts of Europe at this time, but its not like you wouldn't find it at all.

But i'd expect similar results, the crossbow may be more effective at 20m killing zone though.

[Beowulf1990]

Well a crossbow was known to be better at defeating armour, but I'm not sure how it fares against steel plate. It should be more effective than a bow, but can it actually pierce a chestplate at say, 20 meters?

[ProjectAngel]

Well a crossbow was known to be better at defeating armour, but I'm not sure how it fares against steel plate. It should be more effective than a bow, but can it actually pierce a chestplate at say, 20 meters?

At one point the Pope banned the use of crossbows against Christians because of their effectiveness against armour. However, that was a few hundered years before the War of the Roses. By the 15th century believe armour was winning the tech race against bows.

[Kator Viridian]

Well a crossbow was known to be better at defeating armour, but I'm not sure how it fares against steel plate. It should be more effective than a bow, but can it actually pierce a chestplate at say, 20 meters?

The long bow could punch into it as seen with a 150 pound draw weight, which well ... I used to have a 30 pound bow and I know some guys who used bows that were about 50-60 pounds and they were powerful in their own right (although using bullet ended arrows). The 150 would punch into it but would be so bluntened it just wouldn't pierce the undermail or padding underneath, would leave a nasty bruise or wind the hell out of you, but 20+ meters it seems the arrows just bounced off the hardened plate.

I'd hate to be on the receiving end of that arrow anyway it would scare the life out of you ... especially if you had little confidence in your armourer, otherwise you were a dead man.

Crossbows I don't know much about really, i'd guess a high powered one in the middle ages would punch through at 30 meters and probably wouldn't kill someone in much the same way and reasoning (the bolt is bluntened). But as project said ... Armour was definatly ahead in the arms race.