The Useless Longbow

[Lamix]

Dunno if this would help any, you could try a 18/24 archer build(lvl30), you'd be totally usless at anything other then archery, this would give you PD 6 and 173wpf (Only 3spare skillpoints prolly for Ath), not sure it would be worth it, but might make up for the slower speed.

[Elmetiacos]

1 player and 3 horses when I use it. As stated though, I quit using it because the faster fire rate of even a Strong Bow outweighs the damage buff of the Long Bow. Seriously though, if you can only land 1 arrow during a round, you can't aim, or you have no WPF and can't aim.

It's not much to do with aiming; the problem with the Longbow is the target acquisition. Sometimes it's as obvious as them moving behind something or getting into combat by the time you're in a position to shoot. At other times you've been tracking them, because long range shots are about anticipation, and they just totally change direction. The time between deciding who to shoot at and actually loosing the arrow is so long that the Longbow isn't practical to use a lot of the time. This isn't about nerfing or buffing; I'm happy enough using the War Bow, I just can't understand why anyone would ever choose a Longbow when it's such a pain in the neck actually using it.

[Elmetiacos]

1 player and 3 horses when I use it. As stated though, I quit using it because the faster fire rate of even a Strong Bow outweighs the damage buff of the Long Bow. Seriously though, if you can only land 1 arrow during a round, you can't aim, or you have no WPF and can't aim.

I'm not counting horses!

[Mullerian]

Im doing allright with the Longbow tbh, might have been better with the Warbow, its hard to tell. Im using it mainly because i love the extra length, looks pretty awesome.

If they were to buff it id prefer a non speed buff because while speed is nice the warbow already fits the niche of a hard hitting faster bow.

[woody]

Re x-bows vs Longbows.

Draw weight for x-bow much higher BUT only 12 inch draw. Anyone who understands physics will confirm that the length of draw combined with the force of the draw determines determines energy transferred to arrow - longbows 30-34 inches. This determines the speed and hence force of the contact when the arrow/bolt hits.

I will only ever play melee, but think bows are seriously underpowered for higher power draws.

[Seawied]

Here's another way of approaching the longbow problem: why not improve the projectile speed?

The longbow is designed to fulfill a different role than the warbow, and a faster projectile speed would exactly that without making it OP or too similar to the warbow.

[Elmetiacos]

It's already got a faster projectile speed, but further raising it won't have much of an impact; the arrow travelling through the air is a small fraction of the time it takes to pick a target, nock an arrow, draw back the bow and wait for it to fire: I count nearly 4 seconds in total, which is too long a delay for the typical cRPG battlefield where people are constantly rushing this way and that, running behind things and people, raising and lowering shields and entering and leaving melee combat.

[Joxer]

Talking of longbows, shouldn't there be a clan 'english longbowmen' or something? One that goes for historical accuracy and works as a team? I'd happily give up my twice heirloomed strong bow for that. 

[Arrowblood]

if there is a person who makes a longbowmen clan, I would be the first member

[Joxer]

No I would

[Braeden]

I need to start recruiting longbowmen.  They'd make a wonderful compliment to my current platoon of shieldbreakers.

[Dravic]

Solution for "useless" Longbow problem:

+4 to cut dmg. +5 to shot speed. -1 to speed rtng. + make it worth 10k

To not make it OP:

Warbow:

+1 to cut dmg. + 1 to shot speed. +2 to speed rtng. + make it cost 8,5k (almost same as now)

ALL other bows:

+3 to speed rtng. +2 to shot speed. + make it cost +500 gold to each one.

[Mtemtko]

Solution for "useless" Longbow problem:

+4 to cut dmg. +5 to shot speed. -1 to speed rtng. + make it worth 10k

To not make it OP:

Warbow:

+1 to cut dmg. + 1 to shot speed. +2 to speed rtng. + make it cost 8,5k (almost same as now)

ALL other bows:

+3 to speed rtng. +2 to shot speed. + make it cost +500 gold to each one.

Would be able to actually hurt people and make it so goddamn overpowered that everyone would forget what it was like prepatch, so its declined without any question.

[Archaneus]

Sorry if you guys consider this slightly off-topic but I just wanted to address a couple people's points.  Being I am actually trained in history as a discipline and I know a few things about a couple people's comments I thought you might all appreciate a little elucidation.

@Dunecat - Mongol bows were superior in the sense of portability and armor penetration to a longbow, this is very true.  There were some trade-offs involved here, however.  Mongol bows had far inferior range, which makes sense, seeing as they were used in an entirely different manner.  Mongol archers were mounted skirmishers, not long range bombardment.  Mongol archers rode in on their targets, sometimes to just out of melee range, and shot point blank.  The point of the mongol bow was ease of use from horseback, not marksmanship at range.  A longbow was designed for long range shots, the standard battle engagement range being something in the area of 250 yards, well above what a mongol bow could be expected to handle with any kind of accuracy.  Longbows also, while mostly used for general bombardment in formation(in other words, you didn't really aim with a longbow, you lobbed in the direction) were capable of solid accuracy, which leads into the other comment I wanted to address...

@Kafein - What you say is, historically, utter nonsense.  Longbows, and bows in general, actually, were capable of far longer range than any crossbow.  Crossbows were not developed because they were better, but because they were easier.  A bolt was capable of greater armor penetration on average, this was true, but they couldn't do anything approaching the range or accuracy.  Crossbows were imprecise weapons, used primarily by non-archers.  They were easy to load, required no great skill to use, and were an alternative for those without the skill and training of the more traditional archer.  This shifts and gets blurry as you get closer to firearms, but it is generally true.  I also would like to point out, the aiming in the game is rather clunky and imprecise.  Probably heavily due to lag and hit box detection errors, but still.  I don't know if you've spent much time playing as an archer, but it's not some cheap easy thing.  I have fired historically accurate replicas of longbows, seen experts use them, etc. and I can tell you they are quite accurate, despite your claim to the contrary.

[bruce]

Longbows, and bows in general, actually, were capable of far longer range than any crossbow. 

Which is untrue.

He is wrong, of course, but so are you. Longbow and higher powered crossbow ranges were more or less equal - and certain types of crossbow - arbalests - exceeded longbow range by far. However they also fired about one or two shots per minute and were cocked via a windlass. There are no arbalests in crpg or M&B at all, so his statement doesn't hold water - but yours is wrong/misinformed, too.

The weaker crossbows which you reloaded with the foot stirrup had inferior range, which is largely due to how arrows and bolts behave once airborne.

As for accuracy, the only reason why someone would think the longbow is somehow more accurate then a crossbow is perhaps because he saw it in movies.

Crossbows were not developed because they were better, but because they were easier.

Wrong. They were developed for a host of reasons. To begin with, most bows were extremely inefficient against mail, much less anything else. The longbow and some compound bows were the only bows to offer similar penetration to stirrup crossbows. Secondly, you can hold you aim with it enabling more careful aim, and expose a very small part of your body when shooting over obstacles. I'm sure, as you can imagine, that this is a quite major advantage in some situations (like sieges, for instance).

A bolt was capable of greater armor penetration on average, this was true, but they couldn't do anything approaching the range or accuracy.

You're impressing us with your movie knowledge.

  Crossbows were imprecise weapons, used primarily by non-archers.  They were easy to load, required no great skill to use, and were an alternative for those without the skill and training of the more traditional archer.

Well, there is at least one valid thing you said here, they were indeed used by non-archers. The people using crossbows are called crossbowmen. The crossbowmen were professional, well paid troops. They didn't pick up peasants from villages and told them "look here, pull dis lever and it fires somewhere over dere, good lad". Sure, they were easy to use, which meant that you didn't need that much time to train one as you would do train someone to use a longbow, but it wasn't issued to random idiots as people like to think for some reason.

The entire mainland Europe really used crossbows more then bows. Only the British really relied on archery instead of crossbowmen (which isn't to say they didn't use crossbows themselves, when Richard the Lionheart died - from a wound inflicted by the crossbow - many at the time considered it to be God's punishment for ignoring the Pope and using the crossbow very liberally against both christians and muslims alike.)

I have fired historically accurate replicas of longbows, seen experts use them, etc. and I can tell you they are quite accurate, despite your claim to the contrary.

You will find that ranged weapons in the game are quite accurate, actually. I mean, most of the time you miss you miss because you were firing at a moving target and it moves in the classic jerky M&B way, not to mention that correctly leading moving targets is a pain, or you miss by some narrow margin at long range. But if you miss a person 150 metres away by 30 cm it's still fairly damn accurate.