About Crossbows, and why no Archer should use them.

[Arafails]

Reload time. Oh my. Regnum doesn't have a "super ultra amazingly slow" weapon speed, but they'd need one for cross bows.

Accuracy. Think of long bows as full length rifles and short bows as carbines. A Crossbow is a sawn-off shotgun. It probably won't hit its target, and it could hit anything. Even standing directly behind it could get you killed.

It's just not a weapon for professionals. See above, but more accurately, it served the same purpose in war as a side firearm does today. A first resort weapon for when you really don't want an actual fight.

All that said, crossbows would be applicable, but to the warrior class. I think this would be a fair trade: Give archers daggers for close-quarter combat, and warriors crossbows to even the odds 1v1 with an archer.

Cheers.

[backe]

Originally Posted by Arafails

All that said, crossbows would be applicable, but to the warrior class. I think this would be a fair trade: Give archers daggers for close-quarter combat, and warriors crossbows to even the odds 1v1 with an archer.

Cheers.

I'd prefer that they just fix positioning and give warriors a more defined role in RvR (other than door-bashing).

[Kyrottimus]

Originally Posted by backe

I'd prefer that they just fix positioning and give warriors a more defined role in RvR (other than door-bashing).

+1. What Backe said...

[blood-raven]

correction from historic part here: crossbows where very accurate, and very versatile, u could aim them standing, lying on the ground or in eny position what so ever, also crossbowmen put there large shields called 'pavise' infront off them so they where protected from arrows.

the down site of a crossbow is indeed his reloadtime it took about 2-5minutes between firing, there where some improvements made but since gunpowder was invented these where a bit obsolete, a guy said ones (dno his name) when a contest was held between a crossbow and a handbow, a pigeon and a fazant was trown in to the air, the crossbow hitted the pigeon but the hand bow hitted the pigeon and the fazant.

BUT you had the repeating crossbow, invented by the chinese, the 'cho ko nu' had a magazine with arrows so you just could keep firing.

don't think crossbows where ussless, the where VERY ussfull indeed, even a untrained peasant could kill a life long waring knight in a matter of minutes.
the pope even forbid this weapon for this very reason.

also it destringed very slowly so when it rained the whole army needed to stop and let the crossbowmen do there thing, handbows on the other hand where very easy to destring so it didn't lose time for the army. a clash between crossbows and longbows was won by longbows for this reason, at agincourt, king philip of france was so eager to attack the english that he din't gave the melaneese crossbowmen the time to destring there bows so when they fouth there bows where just useless since it was all wet, there arrows din't even reach the english lines.

today the crossbow is still used in modern armies but now to fire roaps and hooks or even countermeasures. in china it's even used by the police because it won't let explosives explode.

srr for my crapy english

regards

[Arafails]

I do apologise; my comments on the accuracy were somewhat hyperbole. However, the hand-drawn bow remains more accurate.

At Agincourt the warped bows were only one factor. From the same war, consider the battles of Crécy and Poitiers, also. Sure, there was tactical advantages, but you can't argue that as a weapon of war hand drawn bows were in any way inferior to crossbows. Assuming of course that the person with the weapon is a trained archer, anyway.

@backe and Kyro, I agree. This isn't really a suggestion I just want the crossbow fanboys who keep saying "give marksmen the promised crossbows" to actual think for a bit what they're asking for - a soldier's weapon.

[blood-raven]

your right about that, but that's the big advantage of a crossbow it is a real no brain weapon, the english had superiour archers deu to the fact that the banned all sports on sunday's exept archery so the archers where elite archers cause only the best of the marksmen tournaments could join the army. the french tried the weapon to but 'it was a gift from god to the english'.

back on topic: i do agree to you when u want to give warriors crossbows, and archers daggers, since the basic equipment of (let's say the english archers) was a longbow, helmet (later full armor), arows, a hamer and a arm stript shield (a small round one). we could use knights with crossbows as a kind of pavise crossbowmen, the tactical advantages would be very high since crossbows are very effective against all kind of armor, and hunters would think differently when seeing a knight or barb when they have a heavy crossbow on there back

the down site is that marksman would become more and more useless because knights are highly armoured and would do lot's of ranged dmg, so what is the valeu of a marks then? and since i am a marks i don't want that to happen since knights are somewhat the natural enemy of a marksman it would now be completly imposible to defeat them, so in the end i say 'no' to crossbows, it would make a fine adjective but not for warriors.

regards