Crossbows

[D Pliss]

Has anyone else missed crossbows in A4. Sadly I just noticed my third time trying {not beating} the game and currently in mertis.

Or is a crossbow a empire weapon. {though it's on A1 and A2} or did jeff just not want to make sweet graphics for it. like ALL other A4 items. Main reason I play actually. to stare at the demonslayer all day. Good use of time!

[Nioca]

Yes, I too missed crossbows. Of course, Longbows were a good replacement, as was the Heartstriker Bow.

[Alorael at Large]

Without arrows and bolts, ranged weapons that aren't themselves ammunition are all interchangeable. There wouldn't be a difference between bows and crossbows anyway, except possibly in AP, so it doesn't matter.

 

—Alorael, who wonders if luxury products made from exotic cavewood from Avernum are strong sellers among the Empire's rich and bored. Sure, cavewood bows might be bad for serious use, but they make good conversation pieces, and you can always claim that you took it from the body of the Worm who killed your father.

[Ephesos]

I've always wondered if a well-made cavewood bow can best a surface bow. I think that Craftmaster Shrine could assemble something pretty impressive.

 

Yeah... crossbows were fun.

[Randomizer]

Surface bows were always better than cavewood bows. That's why the first thing you do when you encounter Empire archers is kill them for their weapon.

 

I think crossbows disappeared to simplify the weapon system.

[Fort]

Crossbows were always meant to be superior to a bow of comparable quality. Bows are plenty strong enough already, so crossbows would need a major handicap in order to keep them balanced in gameplay. Either that or the bows would have to be replaced with identical crossbows to preserve continuity.

[Slariton]

Crossbows aren't necessarily superior, they are just used in a different way, generally faster and easier in combat.

[Kelandon]

Quote:

Originally written by Glory of Glorycles:
Crossbows aren't necessarily superior, they are just used in a different way, generally faster and easier in combat.

He meant in Avernum, not in real life. Crossbows always do more damage than comparable bows in Avernum, so they're superior in that sense.

[Alorael at Large]

Crossbows were originally inferior. They had less range, less power, and less accuracy than a longbow in the hands of a skilled archer, and after the first shot is fired a crossbow has a much longer reload time. The advantage is that crossbows are point and shoot weapons. Any idiot can kill someone with one, which is probably why the Church feared idiots with crossbows.

 

—Alorael, who isn't really sure when the hand crossbow overtook the longbow in power or even if the distinction was useful. Longbows could punch through armor, and dead is dead no matter how impressive the hole is.

[Slariton]

Interesting topic. Wikipedia says:

 

"In the later years of the crossbow it had enough kinetic energy to penetrate any chainmail and most plate armor hit squarely: some reached a draw force of nearly 350 lbf (1600 N), compared to the 60-180lbf (300-900 N) draw force for a longbow. Moreover, crossbows could be kept cocked and ready to shoot for some time with little effort, allowing crossbowmen to aim better and lessen the reaction time to fire compared to a bowman. Because archers could not keep their powerful bows pulled for long periods of time they aimed by pulling their bows a bit to put the bow in a strung stance, and they pulled the bow to the full pull length just right before they wanted to release the arrow."

 

"They almost completely superseded hand bows in many European armies in the twelfth century for a number of reasons. Although an expertly handled longbow had greater range, equal accuracy and faster rate of fire than an average crossbow, the value of the crossbow came in its simplicity: it could be used effectively after a week of training, while a comparable single-shot skill with a longbow could take years of practice. The invention of pushlever and ratchet drawing mechanisms enabled the use of crossbows on horseback."

 

And this sounds neat:

 

"Crossbowmen among the Flemish citizens in the army of Richard Lionheart, and others, had two servants, two crossbows and a pavise shield to protect the men. One of the servants had the task of reloading the weapons, while the second subordinate would carry and hold the pavise (the archer himself also wore protective armor). Such a three-man team could fire 8 shots per minute, compared to a single crossbowman's 3 shots per minute."

 

This is also cool: Cho-Ko-Nu

[Aran]

A4 Bows are already effectively all Adlerauge (minus the insane damage) with their infinite ammo.

 

Which is in line with the only way to make it challenging being basically to play it Creator-style, with a singleton in Torment.

 

---

 

Given that, I guess adding crossbows would be overkill, quite literally.

[Nioca]

Quote:

Originally written by Glory of Glorycles:
"In the later years of the crossbow it had enough kinetic energy to penetrate any chainmail and most plate armor hit squarely..."

One thing of note is that a 5-year-old with a toothpick could pierce chainmail. It wasn't nearly as durable as most people think. And that pretty much says all I have to say on this topic.

[Alorael at Large]

A toothpick can penetrate chainmail easily because it slips through the holes. A sword, I suppose, can pierce chainmail by having a lot of force behind it. I imagine that mail really worked best at deflecting slashes and stopping glancing blows.

 

—Alorael, who still thinks that smashing holes in plate armor was a big deal. Archers were the tank killers of pre-firearm warfare. They were pretty cheap, too.

[Fort]

Don't diss chainmail because you think it was ineffective. Diss it because it was heavy and expensive.

[Nioca]

Why can't it be because it was expensive, heavy, AND ineffective?

[Alorael at Large]

Where's TM when you need him? Alas!

 

—Alorael, who maybe should be worried about why certain TM-only comments sprang immediately to mind.

[Fort]

What evidence do you have that it was that ineffective? Of course it could not withstand a full on stab, but it could stop all glancing blows and slashes. Also, could a five-year-old pierce chainmail with a knife? I don't have any direct evidence for that, but I'd seriously doubt it considering that I've taken a few token stabs at modern renditions of chainmail.

[Nioca]

Why would you need TM here?

 

EDIT: A modern rendition of what chainmail used to be like is not the same as a real suit of old-fashioned chainmail. It could stand up to swords fairly well. But if someone came at you with a spear, bow, or crossbow, you wouldn't last long.

[Ephesos]

Quote:

Originally written by Ghouloca:
Why would you need TM here?

As Alorael said, sometimes you get these TM-like comments into your head. Somebody has to actually say them, or the pressure eventually builds up and we all explode.

[Nioca]

Quote:

Originally written by Ephesos:

Quote:

Originally written by Ghouloca:
Why would you need TM here?

As Alorael said, sometimes you get these TM-like comments into your head. Somebody has to actually say them, or the pressure eventually builds up and we all explode.

Tell me when that is about to happen, so I can place myself behind something nice and sturdy.

[Dikiyoba]

What good will that do? Ephesos said "we all explode." That means you too, Nioca.

 

Dikiyoba.

[Alorael at Large]

Quote:

Originally written by Ghouloca:
Why can't it be because it was expensive, heavy, AND ineffective?

What would TM say?

—Alorael, who is not terribly familiar with the mechanics of chainmail. He'd like to think that those wearing it would have avoided it if it were as ineffective as you think. It certainly wasn't comfortable enough for casual wear!

[John S]

Quote:

Originally written by Remember the Alorael:

Quote:

Originally written by Ghouloca:
Why can't it be because it was expensive, heavy, AND ineffective?

What would TM say?

Just for posterity:

Alorael's mother is expensive, heavy, and ineffective.

God forbid there should be a single generation that doesn't know who TM is, because they'll be blindsided. But just in case...

[Delicious Vlish]

I've worn chainmail made from fireplace mesh.

 

Chainmail over padded leather was actually good armor. Better than plate in some ways, more mobility.

 

People seem to forget that there was other inventions that made plate obsolete, other than crossbows and guns.

 

Reinforced maces.

 

Lucern hammers.

 

Pollaxes.

 

Footman's hammer with pick and point. The handle doubled as a crowbar, for peeling a knight out of his armor, and on top of the hammer head was a good foot long spike for stabbing after you softened him up a bit.

 

Flanged maces with armor piercing flanges.

 

War bars. (A crude length of iron with a knob at one end, and a crow bar hook at the other. A rather crude club, but was highly effective in the crusades.)

 

All of these made plate mail worthless, or worse, a liability. A crushing blow with a heavy hammer would crimp and deform even the best made gothic plates. A man could be trained to render a knight completely helpless in a few blows. Even heavy shields did nothing to stop furious hammer blows, pavices, round shields, all would crumple and your arm would break.

[Enraged Slith]

Quote:

People seem to forget that there was other inventions that made plate obsolete, other than crossbows and guns.

Let's not forget how many knights were killed by tripping and falling facefirst into seemingly innocent puddles of water. Armor was pretty damn heavy.

[Fort]

Um, roll over?

 

Anyway, even if chainmail was not the most effective armor in the world, I'm sure you'd rather wear it in a combat setting than having only leather. And you really shouldn't let the spear come in direct contact with your chest or stomach either.

[Alorael at Large]

Armor wasn't actually that heavy and the weight was distributed well. Armored men were no more interested in dying of immobility than anyone else.

 

Besides, with a large enough visor and a shallow enough puddle you could keep your mouth clear of the water even when stuck face-down in the mud.

 

—Alorael, who imagines that knights probably could and did suffer nasty bruises from falling over, though. Getting wet would just be one more indignity.

[Fort]

I doubt there are any real records of knights drowning in puddles besides the sickened and drunk ones. After all, I couldn't possibly conceive of someone being effective in a fight to the death if they could not get back up after tripping over.

 

Sadly, though, very young toddlers sometimes drown to death after slipping into shallow puddles because they're arms are not strong enough to perform a push-up. It's a rare but tragic way to die.