57 replies to this topic

[Rider of Rohan]

Same as the others i'll discuss anything to do with the dwarves here but for now i'll just be saying i may be paying some tribute to the Hobbit films and doing a small revamp on the Dwarves just new units or re-skins e.g.
Would you'll have any suggestions for the Dwarves ?

Edited by Rider of Rohan, 07 December 2012 - 06:31 PM.

[Kwen]

^ Win. That is all.

[Rider of Rohan]

Lol took like 2 mins but thanks XD (on another note) I'll probably add a new unit the "Erebor Guardians" based of the Dwarves from the new movies and rename the old Guardians to "The Iron Hill's War Battalion"or something

[Mathijs]

Whatever you do, if you want Hobbit-based retextures done, hit me up, son. Aw yeah.

[Rider of Rohan]

How are you guys on the idea of Dwarf Crossbows as an archery unit to replace the Men of Dale who will only be an Inn unit ?

Edited by Rider of Rohan, 28 January 2013 - 09:39 PM.

[Naugrim.]

Sounds good, always hated EA's axe throwers being the dwarves main archers. Seeing as Dale was a separate (although nearby) city, putting them as an inn unit is a good choice. Plus, dwarves are good enough craftsmen to make something more technologically advanced than a regular bow.

[Lauri]

Being "good enough craftsmen" doesn't relate that much to making something "more technologically advanced than a regular bow". Well, it can of course be related, but it's not always the craftsmen who do the thinking.

 

Still, I am opposed to the idea. I found this short essay, and I'll highlight the good parts:

 

The crossbow played an important role in the late Medieval period. The crossbow was really the first hand-held weapon that could be used by an untrained soldier to injure or kill a knight in plate armour. The most powerful crossbows could penetrate armour and kill at 200 yards. Longbowmen could certainly penetrate plate mail (though perhaps not at such a great distance), but longbowman were generally highly trained soldiers. This meant that they were also expensive, and that they could not be replaced easily. (Many bowmen were recruited at a young age to master their craft.)

Anyone could use a crossbow though. Crossbows are easier to aim than longbows because the crossbowman doesn't have to use a hand to hold the string back while aiming. On a similar note, a crossbow can be loaded long before the bowman might need to shoot. In this way, the bowman would be able to shoot immediately if surprised. Crossbows require less upper body strength to operate as well. One can use both arms to span (draw back) a crossbow. Crossbows do, of course, come with a price. That price is in efficiency and in the firing rate. Longbowman could shoot 2-5 times more frequently in a given time than a crossbowman. Efficiency is a more technical problem.

Although it is impossible for any bow to be perfectly efficient, crossbows are particularly inefficient when compared to longbows. The reason for this is that the draw length and the lath (also called a prod) of crossbows are much shorter than those of longbows. So even though a crossbow may have more stored energy when spanned, the tips of the lathe do not have enough time to reach the maximum velocity that the amount of stored energy would otherwise allow. It is the lathe tip velocity that determines the speed of the bolt that is loosed. (Crossbows are not "fired", which is a term related to gunpowder.)
W.F. Paterson (1990) published data from Stephen V. Grancsay about an experiment comparing a longbow and a crossbow that was spanned with a cranequin.

 

Despite being unrelated to the world of Middle-Earth (and dwarves wouldn't use longbows), what I'm trying to say is that while crossbows are more advance technologically, it isn't neccesarily a better weapon. Dwarves are rich, and they have a warrior culture that makes them badass. Even a dwarven farmer would make a fine warrior. Everyone was likely trained. That is not the case in medieval Europe, where they wanted big armies at low cost, so crossbows were ideal regarding the fact that they didn't require near as much training as a regular bow (ie, for farmers).

Not to mention the fact that Dwarves fight orcs and goblins mostly, not full-plated knights. They do fight Easterlings, but even then I don't think they would make use of crossbows. It's likely they prefer their melee fights overall.

 

And if you want to, you can use The Hobbit as a reference to dwarves using bows.

 

Regarding Dale, it was practically Erebor's front lawn. Inn units will do fine.

Edited by Lauri, 28 January 2013 - 10:44 PM.

[njm1983]

I agree with Naugrim. However... when you look into lore and our own historical references Lauri makes some better points. Id rather see short bowmen or find a way to not have ranged unit at all.

Edited by njm1983, 28 January 2013 - 10:46 PM.

[MattTheLegoman]

Where did the idea of Dwarves using crossbows come from?

[Lauri]

or find a way to not have ranged unit at all.

That will make it very unbalanced I believe.

 

But hey, who doesn't like this?

[Rider of Rohan]

Well I guess the Bows will do, never new that Crossbowmen were the lower class bowmen just knew they packed a punch. 

And I had got the idea from EA's own design (they had some awesome concept art, yet half of those ideas were in game) :

[Bashkuga]

Crossbows are indeed very easy to use, and that's why I think that the Dwarves rather used them than bows. They don't need trained archers, they specialise themselves in melee combat, you can compare them to Isengard Uruk-hai.

Edited by Fredius, 29 January 2013 - 10:44 PM.

[Rider of Rohan]

I can say you have a very good point there, I could always include both at some point but want i need is something to replace the Men of Dale in terms of Skill and i think the Short Bows can have that, but Crossbows would be also available as an option and to give them some sort of specialty i'll give their weapons a punch..

[Lauri]

Crossbows are indeed very easy to use, and that's why I think that the Dwarves rather used them than bows. They don't need trained archers, they specialise themselves in melee combat, you can compare them to Isengard Uruk-hai.

While you make some valid points, do you refer to the Isengard Uruk-hai that does not use crossbows in the books? Yep, I'm merely joking.

But I still believe that the dwarves would specialise to make the most of their army and reserves, and not 'cut corners' (though to what extend this example would qualify for 'cutting corners' can be discussed).

A small, but qualified bunch of bowmen that likes their part, as opposed to melee warriors stuck to archer duty.

[Bashkuga]

Whoops, yeah forgot that they weren't in the books .

But the Hundred Years war between France and England is a good example, the French were mostly specialised in melee combat, their archer units consisted mainly of crossbowmen, since they are easy to use. The English, however, were with their famous Longbows more suited for tactical archery combat. When an army specialises more in melee, the archery becomes less-trained, with the Hundred Years war as an example. Ofcourse the French also had archers but they consisted mainly of untrained soldiers of the lower ranks.

As for Dwarves, I think I can compare them to the medieval French, since they were also a mainly melee type nation.

Edited by Fredius, 30 January 2013 - 04:41 AM.

[Lauri]

But it was expensive for the french to train soldiers. For the rich dwarves who loved it, I don't think it's that much of a worry.

[Bashkuga]

The French had the best knights in medieval Europe, I don't think money was a problem .

[Lauri]

Are you comparing dwarven archers with french knights?

[Ridder Geel]

Obviously they seem so much alike

[Bashkuga]

I was actually saiying that money wasn't a problem for the French... .