What game has the best archery?

>crecy and the HYW was in the 11th century
wew

Then you severely underestimate the power of a longbow

Skyrim
in fact you can even finish the game using only it

even heavy crossbows dont pierce plate armor

Stealth archer chads know the real way to play the game

Arrows do not pierce curved plate, retard, they glance off.

>longbows
lol. where are my hornbow chads at?

>arrow on the inside of the bow

>11th century
the shit you read on Yea Forums

Now that is just plain wrong
youtu.be/XMT6hjwY8NQ

there is no hard and fast rule to which side you hold to on a longbow
its personal preference really

Guess you don't know shit, hardly a surprise tho.

later period armor sure, but longbows had a reputation for killing armor

That video proved yourself wrong?
The 1000lb crossbow didn't even penetrate the shit tier plate armour.

Attached: 1500526834133.jpg (640x640, 175K)

Wrong, longbows weren't enough to penetrate plate.
youtu.be/DBxdTkddHaE?t=842
youtu.be/Ej3qjUzUzQg?t=56
youtu.be/JqkiKjBQe7U?t=1200

Did you not even watch it? He turns it into swiss cheese

>MFW the English lost 80% of all the major encounters / battles past Agincourt, with the English Longbowmen getting trampled to death in almost all of them, but Anglos ignore this while muttering muh Crécy and muh Agincourt

Attached: 1495834975870.gif (510x510, 690K)

Other modern tests described by Bane include those by Williams (which concluded that longbows could not penetrate mail, but in Bane's view did not use a realistic arrow tip), Robert Hardy's tests (which achieved broadly similar results to Bane), and a Primitive Archer test which demonstrated that a longbow could penetrate a plate armour breastplate. However, the Primitive Archer test used a 160 lbf (710 N) longbow at very short range, generating 160 joules (vs. 73 for Bane and 80 for Williams), so probably not representative of battles of the time.
Idiot.

>>MFW the English lost 80% of all the major encounters / battles past Agincourt, with the English Longbowmen getting trampled to death in almost all of them, but Anglos ignore this while muttering muh Crécy and muh Agincourt

Attached: 100 english lonbowmen.png (296x776, 167K)

I'm sure you have source for that.

Nigger the arrowheads didn't even get past the Cloth underneath, the guy also keeps shooting at crumpled, flat parts of the armor.

Attached: 1537171149634.png (960x598, 271K)

>bowfags lose despite having a numbers advantage
>Everyone conveniently forgets this
muh longbows

Attached: battle of patay.jpg (1116x557, 297K)

Watch him use the heavy crossbow not the light one you moron it very clearly penetrates

Longbows do/did not regularly penetrate plate armour, and typically only killed armoured men in cases of extreme luck, e.g. arrow through the visor.
They did, however, kill unarmoured horses (typically too expensive to protect) and exhaust, disorient and disorganise those they hit, which was key in allowing a relatively small but fresh contingent of English infantry to defeat relatively large french forces.
>The English shitstomped a country at least a triple of their size and only lost because their 35 year old ruler died of disease around the same time a 60 year old died of disease

M&B Warband for realism and Dragons Dogma for fun

Oh wow, a whole quarter of an inch, and still would fail to do anything to the guy wearing it.
Piss off fuckstick.

Attached: surprise-pikachu-meme-000-original-blank.png (960x830, 339K)

We're never getting a good open world medieval style game. :(

Attached: 1553640105803.jpg (600x400, 42K)

youtu.be/XMT6hjwY8NQ?t=115
>It made a little hole
>"IT PENETRATED GUYS, EFFECTIVE AGAINST PLATE KNIGHTS ARE FINISHED"

History question from a guy who sucks at history. What made early muskets appealing in comparison to a longbow. I mean on paper longbow looks better.

>About the same range
>Much cheaper to manufacture
>Higher rate of fire

Was it merely an intimidation thing? The only other thing I could see being a factor would be training? I don't know how much training you need to shoot an arrow a long distance into a group of people.

Training an archer takes a lifetime.

Ahem

Fuck the Irish
Fuck Papists
Fuck the Monarchy
Fuck Scotland

Attached: 1024px-Oliver_Cromwell_by_Samuel_Cooper.jpg (1024x1244, 402K)

Longbows didn't stop advancements in plate technology.
Muskets and gunpowder forced them to dress down and become more mobile on the field of battle.
Tell me which one is more effective.

Attached: 1549257903886.gif (375x375, 1.39M)

>Was it merely an intimidation thing?
Yes. The earliest examples of firearms being used on the battlefield would be the Hussite Wars, in which cannons were used as field artillery and handgonnes (pistala) were used to a pretty great extent.
The early handgonnes had less stopping power than the crossbows of the time, but they were effective due to ease of use, ease of upkeep, ease of crafting, and ease of transportation. Crossbows were a lot worse in all of these categories.
Firearms only advanced in all of these categories and eventually the firepower got more and more comparable.

The impact would wound the wearer underneath by concussive force directed so sharply into such a spot more than penetration. It's punching holes, but not genuinely sticking through the armor entirely. They're not actually sticking and tearing through entirely. Not to mention, the heavy crossbow is still failing to genuinely penetrate plate mail, even if it's punching a hole in the plating.

There's a difference between "piercing" and "impacting". And even then, acting like crossbows at a short range are the end-all be-all of discussion against an idle target dummy is dumb and not indicative of battlefield variables.

Do you even know what penetration even means?

Even loves arrow?

I mean, could it be that knights being knocked out/winded from a fall and then killed with a coup de grace have been the main contributor to the Arrow>Armor meme?

>Build entire army of horse archers
>Invincible

Attached: ad77a273838185770936a41986f807e3.jpg (1349x1208, 207K)

No you, dumb cunt
Crossbows were DESIGNED to pierce armor, bolts are built for pericing not bleeding
Just google it you idiot
>conclusions were that a heavy crossbow was more than capable of penetrating even the heaviest plate, with devestating result to the wearer. The reason they were outlawed by the church was that they were so astoundingly lethal. After the crossbow saw widespread use in medieval warfare the number of deaths among the nobility (who were the ones wearing plate) skyrocketed.

Why were they so shit at art back then?

>it's another 'fire-arrows' episode
Stupid fucking retards, unless you hit something DOUSED in flammable liquids, it won't do shit.
If you shoot it over long distances it's likely that the flames will snuff out well before they reach their target too.

Attached: pgxb4kwU3t1wo7aq1.gif (332x332, 1.71M)

Apparently you dont

Using a bow effectively takes a massive investment of time you essentially change your entire body around using a bow. Drawing a warbow repeatedly is exhausting and only the strongest and most endurant have what it takes to be good archers. It takes years to change the body enough to make an effective archer.

youtube.com/watch?v=DSTvLAhLpgQ

Gun meanwhile you slap that in their hands, give them a 3 week intensive course on how to use it and they're as effective a killing machine as any with the added bonus of being able to continue fighting for hours and hours instead of being exhausted after a dozen volleys. Also musket balls are incredibly easy to mass produce compared to arrows.

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (970x545, 245K)

Listen here you stupid NIGGER.
There is literal video evidence of a 1000 pound draw weight crossbow shooting at shitty reconstruction plate from fuckall distance away.
The bolts found places where plate was not, where mail and padded cloth would be.
Stop being so fucking ignorant.

Attached: 1327401153985.png (332x324, 76K)

Art was wildly differing in quality. Just like it is now.

Attached: knight_14th_century.jpg (716x960, 208K)

pretty sure the flames always snuff out as soon as you let fly

Longbows are very difficult to use.

>shitty reconstruction plate
1. Its not shitty, that steel is guaranteed to be of higher quality than what they used in the middle ages
2. The bolt was fucking broken and blunted to shit, and yet still made a hole
3. Read the fucking quote

Have you tried drawing a longbow? It's hard, I tried to draw one at an expedition. When I barely managed to shift the string to my forearm, a curator was impressed and asked me if I did archery.

Seen some people to it IRL but I think they had the tip of the arrow doused in gasoline or something.

What is that image meant to show? There’s 0 unusual muscle development there.

OK retard.

watch the video

>posts equally shitty art to demonstrate art quality variation

I see. Thank you sensei-tachi.

Attached: 1496123197905.png (800x900, 646K)

Are you retarded or baiting? Can't you see one side is much larger than the other?

thehunter call of the wild

>>equally shitty art
check your eyes bro

because it's drawn by a writer

They weren't, it was a style

>It takes years to change the body enough to make an effective archer.
And then at some point he dies like a retard in battle.

Macefags and Zweihanderfags are the real niggas of medieval combat

Keep in mind that this is the rough equivalent of a comic book and not a painting on a canvas. And then there is

What if I set myself on fire? While I deal extra damage when I shoot arrows?

It was the deviant art years of olden times.

I skimmed it, and it shows a half naked skinnyfat old man in his basement mumbling about archers needing strong backs. Fuck off with your literallywho youtube videos.

forgot pic

Attached: BYVANCKB_mimi_72a25_144r.jpg (1920x2493, 690K)