Opinion on Crossbows

[Rehab]

What I mean by the first bit is that if they're easier to use, I don't think it's too much to ask to use that as the rationale for allowing crossbows to still have use at 1 range, since it's established we're in fantasy territory already.

What I mean by FE's depiction of archery is that, while the battle animations may look okay in FE10, on the map the distances are totally skewed, such that if an archer is 3 spaces away from an enemy with both of them, say, standing by a wall, it seems as though the archer can't hit somebody that's only 3 person-widths away. It's probably supposed to represent a greater distance than that, but even then it visually implies an archer (supposedly a phenomenally skilled one, in the case of many FE characters) can't hit somebody at the mere distance of the width of a below-average-size building.

I've been led to believe that in real life, it's possible to hit somebody at a range many times that, well before they close the distance to lay arms on the archer, even if the archer misses more than once. Of course, even I think it'd be pretty bad for range balance if an archer could hit somebody from over 6 spaces, and that range balance is more important than realism for the purpose of the game. I actually do think it'd be neat if archers could carry knives for 1-range, but my point overall is that I think it's not too much more a suspension of disbelief than is already in play for crossbows to be usable at 1 range.

And no please, feel free to rant at me about archery, I'd be happy to know what I'm missing, and it is tied pretty closely to the point of the thread after all.

[Snowy_One]

Yes. I have always been a fan of introducing new mechanics to a game that allow players to think in out-of-the-box manners and debate pros and cons of various weapons instead of instantly tossing aside one weapon for a 'superior' upgrade and I feel crossbows have MORE than met that qualification. I'm sure many of you are aware of the strategy of giving Shinon a bowgun and disarm so he can disarm all foes then have a thief steal their weapons? Yea. Prime example of how I feel skills and weapons should allow for out-of-the-box thinking in games.

That being said, they'd need some... reworking. One BIG problem is that their MT is FIXED... Which has me worried that they might actually be too STRONG! A bowgun has a base MT of 24, but an iron bow has a base MT of 8, meaning a sniper would need 16 STR before a iron bow could match it (Edit: PoR Titania with a Steel axe has 23 MT at base level for comparison). That's not something a sniper will have for quite a while. And to top it off it doesn't even require a weapon-level or training. You could take a level 1 Rolf or whoever the starting archer and slap him in the final chapter with an Arbalest and have him pull 38 MT. That would be fine if you raised a dedicated archer (Silver bows have 15 MT meaning the endgame archer would need 23 STR assuming no forge which is doable), but if your baby archer can pull that... There is a problem.

That being said, crossbows look like a much-needed addition to the archers weapon selection. They give them a 1-range counter, but have the unique factor of not being affected by STR, which can make training an archer easy, but also nudge grown archers towards superior bows which have only 2-range capabilities. A warrior might want one because it's a non-training required bow (that doesn't kill their ability to counter), but they lose their massive STR boost if they use it. Seems like a great idea to me.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Snowy_One

[Vorena]

From Snowy's argument, I think I might quite like how the crossbows turned out.

[Parrhesia]

Runs off of skill, can't double. Warriors should be using normal bows.

[MacLovin]

make it mt based, and have weak ones early on, decent ones mid-game, and strong ones lategame.

[Jotari]

Crossbows would have quite a bit of recoil I imagine. Something that might be interesting would be to have strength determine their accuracy and skill determine their might. I know recoil wouldn;t have much effect on accuracy after the bolt has been fired but meh it still could be an interesting idea.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Jotari

[Anouleth]

Yes. I have always been a fan of introducing new mechanics to a game that allow players to think in out-of-the-box manners and debate pros and cons of various weapons instead of instantly tossing aside one weapon for a 'superior' upgrade and I feel crossbows have MORE than met that qualification. I'm sure many of you are aware of the strategy of giving Shinon a bowgun and disarm so he can disarm all foes then have a thief steal their weapons? Yea. Prime example of how I feel skills and weapons should allow for out-of-the-box thinking in games.

That being said, they'd need some... reworking. One BIG problem is that their MT is FIXED... Which has me worried that they might actually be too STRONG! A bowgun has a base MT of 24, but an iron bow has a base MT of 8, meaning a sniper would need 16 STR before a iron bow could match it (Edit: PoR Titania with a Steel axe has 23 MT at base level for comparison). That's not something a sniper will have for quite a while. And to top it off it doesn't even require a weapon-level or training. You could take a level 1 Rolf or whoever the starting archer and slap him in the final chapter with an Arbalest and have him pull 38 MT. That would be fine if you raised a dedicated archer (Silver bows have 15 MT meaning the endgame archer would need 23 STR assuming no forge which is doable), but if your baby archer can pull that... There is a problem.

Well, a baby archer would be slowed down so much by the Arbalest, any enemy would be able to kill him easily. Also, Archers can't wield Crossbows in FE10.

I think that a lot of people's judgment of crossbows is coloured by them being in FE10. In a game where units have great stats, it's no wonder that a weapon that ignores strength would seem bad. But in any other Fire Emblem, they'd be great. 24ATK is nothing to sneeze at in any Fire Emblem, especially with perfect accuracy at 1-2 range and no weapon rank requirements. While a trained bow user would obviously prefer to use a bow, they would be useful for untrained units to assist. Plus, variety is the spice of life. I don't like to poopoo new weapon types: it's a good thing that IS is trying new things, and just because they didn't work out the first time doesn't mean they can't be revised in a new context.

[Sasori]

I hated crossbows in fe10 because they where pretty weak when I used then, while still one shotting most of my flyers, but i'm not against a return of the crossbow. As long as they use them well and realise that crossbows don't really work like bows.

[Shadow Mir]

Yes. I have always been a fan of introducing new mechanics to a game that allow players to think in out-of-the-box manners and debate pros and cons of various weapons instead of instantly tossing aside one weapon for a 'superior' upgrade and I feel crossbows have MORE than met that qualification. I'm sure many of you are aware of the strategy of giving Shinon a bowgun and disarm so he can disarm all foes then have a thief steal their weapons? Yea. Prime example of how I feel skills and weapons should allow for out-of-the-box thinking in games.

That being said, they'd need some... reworking. One BIG problem is that their MT is FIXED... Which has me worried that they might actually be too STRONG! A bowgun has a base MT of 24, but an iron bow has a base MT of 8, meaning a sniper would need 16 STR before a iron bow could match it (Edit: PoR Titania with a Steel axe has 23 MT at base level for comparison). That's not something a sniper will have for quite a while. And to top it off it doesn't even require a weapon-level or training. You could take a level 1 Rolf or whoever the starting archer and slap him in the final chapter with an Arbalest and have him pull 38 MT. That would be fine if you raised a dedicated archer (Silver bows have 15 MT meaning the endgame archer would need 23 STR assuming no forge which is doable), but if your baby archer can pull that... There is a problem.

That being said, crossbows look like a much-needed addition to the archers weapon selection. They give them a 1-range counter, but have the unique factor of not being affected by STR, which can make training an archer easy, but also nudge grown archers towards superior bows which have only 2-range capabilities. A warrior might want one because it's a non-training required bow (that doesn't kill their ability to counter), but they lose their massive STR boost if they use it. Seems like a great idea to me.

It's not that I disagree, but I have some issues with this. Mainly the fact that bowguns and their 24 Mt generally couldn't hack it (4HKO or worse against most promoted non-mage enemy classes), and by the time crossbows (the strongest buyable crossbow type) were buyable, 28 Mt doesn't cut it. I agree that crossbows have their uses, but like I said, unfortunately, their uses seem to be rather limited.

[BlueLore]

would like it if they return as a subgroup of bows that is restricted to some classes(like warriors).

I don't think they need their own weapon type.

[Snowy_One]

It's not that I disagree, but I have some issues with this. Mainly the fact that bowguns and their 24 Mt generally couldn't hack it (4HKO or worse against most promoted non-mage enemy classes), and by the time crossbows (the strongest buyable crossbow type) were buyable, 28 Mt doesn't cut it. I agree that crossbows have their uses, but like I said, unfortunately, their uses seem to be rather limited.

As Anny pointed out, a lot of this is because they were introduced in FE10 in which units ended up stronger than any other FE to date. A max-level Seth with Vidofiner has 38 MT which is the same as the Arbalest. Max level Titania with an unforged silver axe clocks in at 36. These units are considered the best in their respective games. A bow-user would be able to get MT similar to them just by equipping that crossbow and would be able to do it at 1-2 range regardless of their level. FE10, however, screws them over BAD. An endgame Leonardo with nothing special done to his stats can match an Arbalest at 20/20/20 with an iron bow. That's not the Arbalest's fault, it's IS's for not properly balancing it.

[Byte2222]

Crossbows would have quite a bit of recoil I imagine. Something that might be interesting would be to have strength determine their accuracy and skill determine their might. I know recoil wouldn;t have much effect on accuracy after the bolt has been fired but meh it still could be an interesting idea.

From a realism standpoint this is absurd. Yes, crossbows have some recoil but probably less than a gun (I've shot a crossbow but not a gun) an so little that a crossbow's easy to control. Like I've said before, the strength of the shooter does factor in to an arrow/bolt's power (perhaps not in the same way as a sword or axe though) and crossbows are less different from normal bows that you'd think. Oh, and a normal bow does have recoil, it's just that it's directed forwards/in the direction the bow bends during the shot (which is what that crazy scaffolding/rods on the front of Olympic bows is about but that's a whole other story).

And no please, feel free to rant at me about archery, I'd be happy to know what I'm missing, and it is tied pretty closely to the point of the thread after all.

I could probably go on for ages and I don't feel that much is relevant to crossbows! I do, however think that everyone should know how bows and crossbows were really used in real warfare. Bows (especially longbows) were often shot in volleys at armies a long way away: shoot 20 arrows at the army 150 yards away and you'll probably do plenty of damage. Longbows were actually really inaccurate and inefficient, their shape furiously resists bending which is how they can get powerful 120lb warbows. Of course, this strain meant that shooting a longbow didn't do it any good, there's a saying that a fully drawn longbow is 90% of the way to breaking! You couldn't hold it for more than a couple of second to aim without damaging it (if you even wanted to, one used in target competitions these days are still 50lbs 'ish) so they're notoriously bad in modern competitions. Now the kinds of bows used by the Mongols and Parthians, the highly curved and recurved ones, those are good designs. They're comparatively harder at the start of the draw and lighter to hold than longbows or native american flatbows, giving more power for less effort, and the same basic design is used in modern Olympic bows. These bows were also quite short tip-to-tip so they could be shot from horseback: both Mongolian and Parthian horseback archers made their name in hit-and-run attack to harass their enemies. They fare better in skirmishes, actually using accurate, targeted attacks to chip away at the enemy and try to draw them into a suicidal chase, running them into the main army.

As for crossbows, a favourite tactic (that I've heard of) is using a Pavise (Great Shield). They jam this huge shield into the ground to give them cover to reload behind, allowing them a more direct contribution than "shoot a volley and some of them are sure to do damage". Crossbows were much more accurate too and the power they spat the bolts out with could penetrate armour. I fact, most arrows could penetrate armour, or at least damage it, they're shot at something like 150 feet per second, probably more for a proper warbow. I personally remember a time that a guy with a warbow shot the wooden target stand leg, we had to chisel the leg in half to actually get the point out. That's another major advantage that bows have, even to this day: a proper hunting/military broadhead arrow is effectively shooting 3 knives at something (or someone!). You can't just pull an arrow out of a wound either (you should never pull a foreign object out of a wound anyway) it needs to be cut out or it'll tear the flesh up even more. Even if you got an arm or leg, there are plenty of nerves, muscles and tendons to destroy (see Lord of the Rings: Fellowship where Borimir's arm goes limp after one of the later arrows). To compound the problem, arrows tended to be stored by sticking them in the ground, adding Tetanus, Tuberculosis etc. to the list of problems.

I think I might have put someone to sleep by now so I'll stop. If you're still interested you could always PM me (this is just the tip of the iceberg, I know enough technical stuff to bore actual archers senseless) or maybe this deserves its own topic. Oh, and I'd love to give advice to artists on how to draw archers, most depictions of archery I see make me cry inside (The Avengers was terrible (but that's another story)).

[bottlegnomes]

First off, lol at realism in video games. If things were realistic, bows would have ballistae's current range, and ballistae would have like 10-50 range and like 150 might, but both would have accuracy that's inversely proportional range, with the far end being crap, because of how they were used in battle. And I think we can all agree this wouldn't be much of an improvement.

What if crossbows could one-shot Wyvern Knights?

Figuring the more common recent caps (max health of 60 and def of, say, 30) and 3x effective multiplier, that would mean 30mt at most would be necessary, which doesn't seem unreasonable for a high level crossbow if str isn't factored. Seth would need a steel sword and to be at level 17 to match that. FE7 Marcus would need a steel lance and to be at 16 or 17. For bow users, Wil would need to be 20/13 with a steel bow, 20/5 with a silver. Rebecca would need to be 20/9 with a silver. Louise 19 with a silver. Igrene would need to be level 7 with a silver. Most of those don't seem too unreasonable, unless you're playing really quickly.

make it mt based, and have weak ones early on, decent ones mid-game, and strong ones lategame.

This. Maybe something like 10mt for E rank, 15 for D, 20 for C, 25 for B, and 30 for A.

That way (figuring FE12 mights), an archer would need 5 str to match E with an iron bow, but 10's not so weak it's useless early on. For D he'd need 10, 7 with a steel. For C, 15, 12 with a steel bow. For B, 20, 17 with steel, and if it's like SD and NMotE, 13 with a silver. For A, 25 with iron, 22 with steel, 18 with silver, and 12 with Parthia. That way, a decent strength sniper using an equivalent bow should have better attack, but the crossbows wouldn't be too weak to be useful. The only issue would be making sure the extra mt from bows would actually be meaningful.

If you include weapon rank bonuses like in 11 and 12 (which I thought were a fairly good addition, though they maybe need to be reworked) and crossbows don't get any mt bonus, C would drop to 14 and 11; B to 19, 16, and 12; A to 23, 20, 16, and 10.

Comparatively, a maxed strength warrior with a hand axe would have 34 attack. Being slightly outdone by a high end high might class in an area that's not your specialty doesn't seem too bad. Comparing them to a somewhat similar class (hero), a hero with a silver sword and A swords would have 40 attack. A sniper would have 38 attack with comparative weaponry. At 1-2 range a hero would have 29 and a sniper would have 30. That seems pretty even, if you ignore how much more prevalent 1 range is than 2, which is a bit of an issue of it's own.

Well, a baby archer would be slowed down so much by the Arbalest, any enemy would be able to kill him easily. Also, Archers can't wield Crossbows in FE10.

I think that a lot of people's judgment of crossbows is coloured by them being in FE10. In a game where units have great stats, it's no wonder that a weapon that ignores strength would seem bad. But in any other Fire Emblem, they'd be great. 24ATK is nothing to sneeze at in any Fire Emblem, especially with perfect accuracy at 1-2 range and no weapon rank requirements. While a trained bow user would obviously prefer to use a bow, they would be useful for untrained units to assist. Plus, variety is the spice of life. I don't like to poopoo new weapon types: it's a good thing that IS is trying new things, and just because they didn't work out the first time doesn't mean they can't be revised in a new context.

Agreed. Look at laguz. Overall, they were handled much better in FE10 than they were in FE9.

As for weapon levels rising, that was more an issue of FE9 and, more so, 10. If they grew like in 6-8, it wouldn't really be an issue. Even in 11 and 12, it wasn't too bad. A unit could main a weapon and get it to A in a reasonable time, but trying to get two to A was kind of tricky. Also, to avoid weapon level issues, make both correspond to bow rank, but, again, have crossbows not get a mt bonus.

Of course, all of this won't do much if archers aren't balanced as a class, e.g. not having shit starts. They could be like berserkers, sort of, and have very high strength, skill, and speed, but crap durability, trading health for skill.

Wow. That was a lot more than I intended to write.

Edited January 3, 2013 by bottlegnomes

[Integrity]

CUT DOWN A MASSIVE POST TO ONE LINE

Yes, crossbows have some recoil but probably less than a gun (I've shot a crossbow but not a gun) an so little that a crossbow's easy to control.

As a full-blood MURRCAN I've shot a small variety of guns, and even though it's been a good while since I shot a crossbow the recoil from a really low-caliber weapon like a .22 rifle (if you're a non-gun-people, we're talking a bullet narrower than the top joint of your little finger) is more than I remember from the crossbow.

[Rehab]

First off, lol at realism in video games. If things were realistic, bows would have ballistae's current range, and ballistae would have like 10-50 range and like 150 might, but both would have accuracy that's inversely proportional range, with the far end being crap, because of how they were used in battle. And I think we can all agree this wouldn't be much of an improvement.

Dude FE: XCOM edition sounds awesome, if only to see how silly it'd be

[Snowy_One]

It simply is not true that longbows were as inaccurate as Byte makes them out to be. When shooting at long range there will be an obvious drop in accuracy. The user has to account for more wind and gravity than at short range after all and, even if they are absolute masters of aim, the longer distance also means the target has more time to move (anyone who has tried to snipe in a game only to have their target move at the last second knows what I mean). Plus remember that longbows were not English-Exclusive weapons. The Japanese Yumi is also a longbow and anyone who has watched the Samurai Episodes of Deadliest Warrior knows just how accurate those things are. Additionally, it is documented that Henry the VIII made it so that no practice range could be longer than 220 yards. This implies that there were practice ranges that were longer than 220 yards simply because the bow could just simply shoot that far. The Longbow remained in serious military use well into the 1700's and even Benjamin Franklin was in favor of using them. There was a good reason why too.

The Mongol Shortbow, while effective on horseback, wasn't all that good when off horseback. The reason the Mongol horse archers were feared was not because of their bowmanship, but because they were bowmen on HORSEBACK WHO COULD MOVE FASTER THAN NORMAL ARCHERS AND BE VASTLY MORE MOBILE THAN THEM.

Anyways, back on topic.

I don't know exactly what you mean by 'MT-based' but the one thing I DON'T think Crossbows should do is allow for stats to be factored in. Here is why. Archers/snipers are meant to be ranged specialists. That is what they've been in every game up unto this point and that is *likely* where they will remain. However, the crossbow allows for them to do something they never could before. Namely counter at 1-range without sacrificing their 2-range capabilities. Even if their weapon stats were the same to thrown weapons, letting them feed off STR would mean that they could easily grow and have no downsides when compared to their normal counterparts. Even if they ended up weaker players would still opt for them simply because of their 1-range counter factor. Not to mention it removes the one really unique thing about them and turns them into 'handaxe-bow version'.

Another huge problem is how they compare to their sister-class the Swordmaster. Usually archers and Swordmasters have fairly similar stats on the whole with Swordmasters focusing on 1-range and bow users on 2-range. I won't claim that this has been fair, but at least the two have each had their own niche. If bow-users could suddenly fight at 1-range constantly without any major drawbacks except for possibly lower (but still high enough to reliably kill) MT while Sword-users don't get the option to even fight at 2-range (never mind how well), Bow users suddenly make the entire class redundant. Similar stats. 1-range combat, but then the option of fighting at 2-range as well.

Maybe leave the crossbows as stat-independent for damage, but weapon rank determines how much of the damage they deal? E-rank means only 50%, D = 60%, and so forth?

[Renall]

As a full-blood MURRCAN I've shot a small variety of guns, and even though it's been a good while since I shot a crossbow the recoil from a really low-caliber weapon like a .22 rifle (if you're a non-gun-people, we're talking a bullet narrower than the top joint of your little finger) is more than I remember from the crossbow.

That should almost always be the case, but I'm not absolutely clear on a 150lb crossbow. The physics of a firearm firing will naturally cause more recoil than the physics of a crossbow release. You would either need a gun with minimal force (and they don't get much smaller than a .22, maybe an air rifle but then it isn't really a firearm) or an absolutely enormous crossbow (I imagine a wheeled ballista has considerable recoil).

However, the main thing a crossbow and a flintlock-style gun have in common is that you don't really need to account for the recoil, because the weapon is only firing once. As long as you can hold the weapon (STR) and keep it steady (SKL), it is as accurate as the craftsmanship of the weapon allows (Hit). Recoil doesn't matter as a factor of accuracy unless you're taking subsequent shots, which you're only going to do with a semi-automatic or automatic weapon. Given that bows have to redraw and crossbows/guns have to reload, every shot taken is basically a fresh shot.

That's ignoring the other effects of recoil, like causing increased fatigue on the user that would limit later shots, since FE doesn't really model that kind of thing. Either way, I can't see crossbows having worse accuracy than bows; if anything they should have incredibly high accuracy since they really are a point-and-shoot weapon. A bow requires at least marginally more mental arithmetic to calculate a shot, and you're doing it with the thing drawn which is a fair physical strain. You could be resting a crossbow on a table or something and take all the time you need, or just kinda stick it in the general right direction and pull the trigger. It could still miss, but it's way less effort.

EDIT: I suppose technically a crossbow can have multiple shots (multi-shot crossbows existed in ancient Greece and China, so it wasn't some sudden innovation), and in that case recoil would indeed apply to some extent. I'm not enough of a crossbow expert to say whether the recoil from firing a crossbow once is significant enough to impact accuracy on subsequent shots though.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Renall

[Byte2222]

It simply is not true that longbows were as inaccurate as Byte makes them out to be. When shooting at long range there will be an obvious drop in accuracy. The user has to account for more wind and gravity than at short range after all and, even if they are absolute masters of aim, the longer distance also means the target has more time to move (anyone who has tried to snipe in a game only to have their target move at the last second knows what I mean). Plus remember that longbows were not English-Exclusive weapons. The Japanese Yumi is also a longbow and anyone who has watched the Samurai Episodes of Deadliest Warrior knows just how accurate those things are. Additionally, it is documented that Henry the VIII made it so that no practice range could be longer than 220 yards. This implies that there were practice ranges that were longer than 220 yards simply because the bow could just simply shoot that far. The Longbow remained in serious military use well into the 1700's and even Benjamin Franklin was in favor of using them. There was a good reason why too.

The Mongol Shortbow, while effective on horseback, wasn't all that good when off horseback. The reason the Mongol horse archers were feared was not because of their bowmanship, but because they were bowmen on HORSEBACK WHO COULD MOVE FASTER THAN NORMAL ARCHERS AND BE VASTLY MORE MOBILE THAN THEM.

Have you ever seen a longbow being shot? I have, many times. I've even shot a couple of longbows too. May I stress that I'm talking about target archery i.e. a ringed-scoring-zone target at a know distance away that's between 100 and 20 yards. For target archery a longbow performs poorly, especially compared to modern bows. I'll cite some club records at you to prove it: for a Portsmouth round (60 arrows at 20 yards indoors, max. score 600, we shoot this a lot) the male records for olympic recurve (excluding archers who've got to the top 5% in the country), recurve barebow and longbow are 580, 520 and 447, respectively. Have a look if you like. Also, don't forget that this is top-level shooting, common archers in these bowstyles are more likely to shoot something like 530, 480 and 350. Now clout shooting, long distance (~180 yards) shooting at scoring zones on the ground, is another matter entirely. This is what longbows were designed for and what the male citizenry was legally obliged to practice regularly in medieval England. Longbows, as far as I know, fare much better in clout shooting. You could certainly hit an army with one, which is what they were for. Oh, and don't forget that longbows were designed for cheapness to make and raw power, not accuracy.

A Japanese yumi is a completely different kind of bow. Apart from the yumi and the English longbow both being big they have very little in common. I also know very little about the yumi and kyudo so I'll stop there.

The bow still had major advantages over guns in the 1700's, chiefly the rate of fire and the practical range, but remember that a military archer requires quite literally a lifetime of training, especially back in those days. A musketeer, not so much. I'm not saying that bows suddenly died out but I'm just saying, there are reasons why we all use guns now.

I was merely commenting on the construction of the bows, the type of archery used and the broad strokes of the strategy. You're absolutely right, the main advantage of horseback archers is that they can move, shoot and escape at the same time and this allowed for the hit-and-run attacks that, at least as far as I know, they are infamous for. By the way, I don't claim to be an expert on the history of archery; I'm an expert at archery and the technical aspects of it and because of this I've learned a bit more about its history than your average guy. Rehab expressed an interest and I shared what I knew and thought was relevant to the discussion.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Byte2222

[Anouleth]

Have you ever seen a longbow being shot? I have, many times. I've even shot a couple of longbows too. May I stress that I'm talking about target archery i.e. a ringed-scoring-zone target at a know distance away that's between 100 and 20 yards. For target archery a longbow performs poorly, especially compared to modern bows. I'll cite some club records at you to prove it: for a Portsmouth round (60 arrows at 20 yards indoors, max. score 600, we shoot this a lot) the male records for olympic recurve (excluding archers who've got to the top 5% in the country), recurve barebow and longbow are 580, 520 and 447, respectively. Have a look if you like. Also, don't forget that this is top-level shooting, common archers in these bowstyles are more likely to shoot something like 530, 480 and 350. Now clout shooting, long distance (~180 yards) shooting at scoring zones on the ground, is another matter entirely. This is what longbows were designed for and what the male citizenry was legally obliged to practice regularly in medieval England. Longbows, as far as I know, fare much better in clout shooting. You could certainly hit an army with one, which is what they were for. Oh, and don't forget that longbows were designed for cheapness to make and raw power, not accuracy.

A Japanese yumi is a completely different kind of bow. Apart from the yumi and the English longbow both being big they have very little in common. I also know very little about the yumi and kyudo so I'll stop there.

The bow still had major advantages over guns in the 1700's, chiefly the rate of fire and the practical range, but remember that a military archer requires quite literally a lifetime of training, especially back in those days. A musketeer, not so much. I'm not saying that bows suddenly died out but I'm just saying, there are reasons why we all use guns now.

I was merely commenting on the construction of the bows, the type of archery used and the broad strokes of the strategy. You're absolutely right, the main advantage of horseback archers is that they can move, shoot and escape at the same time and this allowed for the hit-and-run attacks that, at least as far as I know, they are infamous for. By the way, I don't claim to be an expert on the history of archery; I'm an expert at archery and the technical aspects of it and because of this I've learned a bit more about its history than your average guy. Rehab expressed an interest and I shared what I knew and thought was relevant to the discussion.

Well, it came off a bit like you were saying that the longbow was a bad weapon, when it's just specialised for a different role.

[Renall]

Well, it came off a bit like you were saying that the longbow was a bad weapon, when it's just specialised for a different role.

I suppose the main problem in a FE context is that since a unit represents a single person, the Longbow has to behave completely unrealistically because longbows were designed for mass volley against enemy formations, so a single archer firing a longbow is probably unlikely to hit anything in particular. But the same is true of a lot of things; one swordsman is unlikely to be able to stop a rush of guys, one soldier with a spear is unlikely to be able to stop a charging horse by herself, etc. But on the other hand, oh well.

Still, Crossbows having a somewhat unique gimmick to differentiate them from Bows is what I did like about them. If nothing else, I'd like to see them implemented as-is somewhere just to see how they fare in a game that isn't RD. If the series continues down the Awakening route though you're going to have issues with postgame/DLC stuff where everybody's stats are so insane that either no Crossbow has any value in them or some stupid-insane Crossbow will exist that basically fires bolts of pure apocalypse.

[Byte2222]

Well, it came off a bit like you were saying that the longbow was a bad weapon, when it's just specialised for a different role.

I... didn't mean to say it like that and I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

[Original Alear]

What I mean by FE's depiction of archery is that, while the battle animations may look okay in FE10, on the map the distances are totally skewed, such that if an archer is 3 spaces away from an enemy with both of them, say, standing by a wall, it seems as though the archer can't hit somebody that's only 3 person-widths away. It's probably supposed to represent a greater distance than that, but even then it visually implies an archer (supposedly a phenomenally skilled one, in the case of many FE characters) can't hit somebody at the mere distance of the width of a below-average-size building.

Also see (for an exagerrated case) FE9, where a double bow using unit appears as far away from an enemy in the visual depiction as a 2-range unit. I think they may have actually created a bit of extra distance between 1 and 2 range in the FE9 fights but it's been a long time.

As far as realism goes, one should consider that the way that the combat style of FE breaks down on the level of the battlefield (series of one-on-one bouts) prior to FE13 is a major representation of how battles are fought, and deviations are not very frequent. For that reason, arguments about battle and combat that rely on organized melees (for lack of a better name because I don't know enough to come up with one) as opposed to an organized series of bouts or duels should be viewed skeptically. I think that FE13 (double fighting and whatever) may represent a change in the representation of FE combat, so that's about all I can say for now.

[Anouleth]

I suppose the main problem in a FE context is that since a unit represents a single person, the Longbow has to behave completely unrealistically because longbows were designed for mass volley against enemy formations, so a single archer firing a longbow is probably unlikely to hit anything in particular.

In a way, it's borne out in Fire Emblem because longbows are generally less accurate and heavier than regular bows, and far less accurate than Short Bows in particular, but having higher power. The problem with Fire Emblem's portrayal is that archers in FE have teeny range, that looks to be something like 10 feet. The range of an archer would be much greater than that, whether he used a short bow or a longbow. But even that is understandable; you could not have common enemies running around with 10 range weapons and reasonable offensive stats and expect the player to keep his units alive.

Still, Crossbows having a somewhat unique gimmick to differentiate them from Bows is what I did like about them. If nothing else, I'd like to see them implemented as-is somewhere just to see how they fare in a game that isn't RD. If the series continues down the Awakening route though you're going to have issues with postgame/DLC stuff where everybody's stats are so insane that either no Crossbow has any value in them or some stupid-insane Crossbow will exist that basically fires bolts of pure apocalypse.

Making them forgeable could also help alleviate their problems. It's often forgotten that Shinon with a plain Steel Bow has 31 attack, which is only 3 higher than a Crossbow, so if they could be forged to the same level, the Crossbow might be able to compete (staggering cost and unbuyability of crossbows beside). And if he outgrows it, the weapon can be easily re-used.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Anouleth

[Snowy_One]

In a way, it's borne out in Fire Emblem because longbows are generally less accurate and heavier than regular bows, and far less accurate than Short Bows in particular, but having higher power. The problem with Fire Emblem's portrayal is that archers in FE have teeny range, that looks to be something like 10 feet. The range of an archer would be much greater than that, whether he used a short bow or a longbow. But even that is understandable; you could not have common enemies running around with 10 range weapons and reasonable offensive stats and expect the player to keep his units alive.

Making them forgeable could also help alleviate their problems. It's often forgotten that Shinon with a plain Steel Bow has 31 attack, which is only 3 higher than a Crossbow, so if they could be forged to the same level, the Crossbow might be able to compete (staggering cost and unbuyability of crossbows beside). And if he outgrows it, the weapon can be easily re-used.

While I don't disagree with the notion of forgible crossbows, can you find some way to keep it from them becoming 'hand-axes: Bow version'?

Here is another idea I just got. Maybe crossbows could, indeed, have a decently sizable amount of MT, but they only get 75% of it when countering at long-range? So a crossbow with 20 MT would get full-power when attacking at long-range, but would not be desired for 2+range combat where the player would want a bow instead?

[Espinosa]

Crossbows were menacing enough to Marcia/Tanith when used by enemy Warriors and whatnot, I found.

But to make them a more appealing choice for the player, they probably should've made them ignore the target's defence rather than the user's strength (and drop their Mt drastically, obviously).