47 replies to this topic

[Puppeteer]

both Crecy and Agincourt were held by the french

Crecy and Agincourt were one of the French's worst military blunders. In Agincourt, they staged it so that the British, though numbering 5000 were uphill on a field of marsh and mire. Sick and wounded. The French, heavily armoured knights and man-at-arms at about 30000, all raring to go. But uphill. They were slaughtered. And Crecy was basically the same.

Anyway, I no longer know any more so I'll concede. Physics, Common sense, and Aridor Airthain (which can often be the same ) all tell me the longbow has more range. Who cares anyway?

[{IP} Aridor]

Thanks for you confidence.

[Vithar-133]

Well, I'm gald that we all now share common ground.

[Hasfusel]

*on topic*

Except for units that can use Fire Arrows, the Bombard power should work the same way as a Longshot power, because it's otherwise useless.
And trees being set on fire using bombard should spread quicker, and the area of flames should be larger. Bombard is useless otherwise.

[{IP} Aridor]

Wow way to revive a long dead topic.

[Pasidon]

Yea, seriously, who does that?

But bombard isn't useless, it gives you the ability to attack regions that were otherwise unattackable. I think all units should have a force attack like that (sort of like in C&C 3).

[{IP} Aridor]

And without the a rate of fire increase to make the Longbows realistic it is pointless to bombard an empty area. That was the entire point of this topic. The longbows are totally unrealistic, as well as the crossbow.

[Vithar-133]

Yeah, I've found the bombard to be quite useful as a support to melee units as well as a 'crowd-control' ability.




So, basically, it's all said and done, now lets bury this topic and leave it that way.