Today I realised, that there wasnt any crossbows in the videos. So, will there be crossbows? Thanks.
It’s confirmed that there won’t be any, at least in the first Act. I wish there were as they were a common (but powerful) thing in the 15th century, but I guess it’s a compromise from a game development standpoint.
Was there any reason given? They seem like they would be a relatively easy weapon to implement.
Not enough time. They said it’s too much work compared to the added gamplay value and they rather invested that time into implementing polearms. And I don’t really think it’s easy to implement, considering their standards for combat mechanics.
Crossbows are simple weapons though, it’s not like they would need to implement all these fancy moves, and combat techniques like they did for pole arms. Plus it’s going to feel extremely weird to see English longbows in central Europe, but no Crossbows.
Bows but no crossbows. In Europe. In Middle Ages.
2 Likes
Yeah, if its polearms or crossbows, I would also choose polearms.
2 Likes
Yes, it is shame.
Polearm and crossbows were weapons, that were most typical for medieval combat. One won’t bee there and other one just barely. I would make much more sense if they had crossbows and not bows (at least in this Europe).
I would not be that hard to make them, but i think they have problems to implement them in RPG system. If you are bad with bow in game, you have shaky hand, that wouldn’t make sense with crossbow.
1 Like
It may well also pose a great challenge balance wise. The crossbow changed radically the way medieval warfare worked, due to its ability to kill pretty much any heavy armoured knight easily, which a bow would barely achieve unless the bowman was extremely skilled, and using a powerful composite bow.
I believe it would be relatively complex to balance it while being true to realism. It doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done, but maybe one weapon for a DLC, with extra revenue to work on.
Ideally, we’d need all weapons really (historically available, I don’t want to hear of Katana or this eastern asian non sense like most RPG eventually do to catter to the manga afficionados), even if it means in DLC or such.
I wouldn’t say that crossbow could kill heavy armoured knight easily. You would need to have really powerful crossbow and be at relatively close range to penetrate all layers of armor and kill the knight. Crossbows weren’t necessarily stronger than bows, but you needed much less training and physical strength to be able to use effectively one.
Cossbows kind of balance themself, the stronger it is the more time it takes to reload it.
Well… in terms of total draw weight, maximum achievable bolt velocity (feet per second) and ultimately, penetration capability; I’d have to say that generally speaking a late medieval / middle age crossbow would indeed be ‘stronger’ than a regular bow (*be that a recurve, long or even compound style)
This though as you say, is the trade-off 
which is why the pavise was developed to help protect a crossbowmen while he was reloading. They even fought sieges in pairs, with a groom or other bowmen holding the shield, while the other shot and reloaded.
Draw weight is often higher, but the shorter span and draw limit the energy that can be transferred to the quarrel to not very much different to a bow.
A very large siege arbalest might do slightly better, but then that isn’t the equipment of most crossbowmen.
Draw weight can generally be much higher (especially when we’re talking about a war crossbow or arbalest with a windlass mechanism). They were capable of really drawing some incredible weights
And yes, the shorter span (affecting total draw length), certainly limits how much of that potential energy is transferred to the projectile. Which is why I’ve seen a lot of reference to Inch-pounds when talking about crossbow power. Being a simple multiplication of draw weight times draw length. Then you’ve also got to take into account the weight of the bolt or quarrel… 
Anyway, generally speaking a late medieval crossbow (or arbalest) would still perform better in terms of penetration and power at close to mid range, than a standard bow.
And the fact that they could be used by relatively unskilled or untrained hands is why they saw such a massive surge in popularity… with England being the notable exception for the period.
It’s very hard to find sources agreeing on the subject. On one side, you’ll find sources that would tell you the crossbow was such a danger to nobility (those wearing armor) that it even got forbidden by the pope. On the other hand, you’ll find sources saying it could seldom penetrate armor.
Given this source and the first test done with a bow, I’d say there is a possibility it could go through, but this seems to break the arrow head enough for it to be unable to penetrate the under layer to be of any kind of danger to the wearer.
So very likely, plate armor was seldom pierced. Mail and other non full metal breastplate armor, quite something else though.
Medieval Tank this is then 
Harness was hand raised from steel. It varied in both thickness and curvature according to vulnerability and threat - thickest in the front and crown of the helm, thinner in the sides, and rear.
I doubt than much would penetrate the centre of the lung plates/breastplate, but the aspiration of the visor is a much weaker target.
Agreed that opinions differ quite greatly around the subject, and it is hard to find reliable educational sources with definitive test results to prove one way or the other.
I had a quick look at the link you provided, and it appeared to just be testing longbows vs plate armour?
It didn’t appear that they were using bodkin heads either…But like I said, I did only review it briefly
Going back to the arbalest / crossbow penetration capability, I think that would tell a different story at close to mid range, which is really the crux of our discussion
Here’s one with bodkins.
3 Likes
I could see the difficulty in programming the use of a heavy pull crossbow and attaching a crannequin device in order to pull the string and set it. I’ve used a goatsfoot to draw a light crossbow and I must say that a crossbow is not a weapon that lends itself to battle of maneuver. A crossbowman is incredibly vulnerable while loading and I have held a shield and warded off incoming bolts and arrows in SCA battles, as archers are always primary targets.
I have to add: If you can see the guy firing at you, the chance of being hit is near zero, especially if you have a shield because arrows and bolts are very slow in flight and I’ve seen fighters deflect them with swords as well as their shields. It is usually the shooter that you don’t see that hits you. As an archer, if I can see even the slightest bit of a crossbowman loading; The top of his head, a glimpse between shields, etc., I’ll take the shot, because he’s a sitting duck while he’s loading up the the point that he’s put the bolt in place and peering over the shield for targets.
I can see why the crossbow would be considered an ideal siege weapon, as the firer could load and fire at a more leisurely pace, while behind a wall or siege mantel.
2 Likes
Pewww bounces right off
And Vlad
Exactly, right?! From a defensive perspective you can imagine how formidable a group of heavy crossbowmen would be from behind crenellations or parapets. With the added benefit of being deadly in the hands of the average Joe or Jane. It’s understandable why they gained so much popularity throughout Europe during the middle ages.
Shame they won’t be in Act 1 really.
4 Likes
I guess we’ll have to survive…