*Chincha would be a neat naval focused American civ to add. The Chimu as well considering the two cultures were conquered by the Inca and in aoe3 use their unique units as their units.
The use of crossbow was actually quite widespread among the tribes and kingdoms of South China and mainland SE Asia, and its presence in the region most likely predates the arrival of the Sinitic people from the north, given that even isolated island Austroasiatic tribes like the Nicobarese had wooden crossbows. In fact it has been hypothesized by some linguists that the ancient Sinitic people got their crossbows from the Austroasiatic people rather than the other way around.
Apart from the Austroasiatic crossbow, many other peoples around the world independently invented the crossbow, including the ancient Greeks, medieval Europeans, and even certain African tribes in the Congo Basin. The only regions that didnât have crossbows AFAIK were Oceania and the Americas, but they had other weapons instead, Boomerang and various throwing clubs for Oceania and Atlatl and slings for the Americas.
2 Likes
The Inuit also invented crossbows.
Not a rare invention indeed.
I guess itâs not hard coming up with the idea to have something hold the bowstring so you donât have to.
Then why not flip it, do an Otomi campaign that could flip between both campaigns? Focus on mercs (Otomi warriors UU that can be trained by allies a la condos and kipchaks?) and have a strong lean for military techs, but mid defenses and semi-bad eco to balance it.
Yes, in short, we need more American civs with or without Eagles (last I would leave the Eagles for the mesocivs and for the Andean civs I would give them the Chasqui of AoE 3)âŠ
Of central importance to the Inca military were the Chasquis, scouts and messengers who could swiftly relay orders and were capable of traveling across extremely long distances as a result of their peak physical condition and the existence of an extensive network of Tambos, inns situated alongside the vast roadways of the Inca Empire. Chasquis were formidable fighters as well as messengers and scouts, however, and their keen senses, speed, and agility made them a challenge for even the most experienced troops in an enemy force.
Yes, it could be from Xicotencatl II, regent of Tlaxcala in 1521 and who was the first to receive Cortes in 1520âŠAnd Zuangua (1479â1520) or TangĂĄxuan II (1520â1530) for the TarascansâŠ
And also the Britons with Edward Longshanks mirrored William WallaceâŠ
Yes, you have several pre-Inca kingdoms that the devs can add⊠Tiahuanaco, Huari (both great predecessor empires of the Incas), Chanca, Colla, Chincha, Chimu and AymaraâŠ
1 Like
From what I heard they had developed a trap that was somewhat similar to crossbows, however they never developed a handheld version of it, whereas the ones I listed all developed handheld crossbows
Edit: turns out I was wrong I did some research and the Inuits did develop a handheld crossbow though it was rather small and only used for hunting small games like birds and rabbits
Yes, if there was an expansion adding two South American civs and two Central American civs, the two South American ones would be the Chimu and Muisca, and they and the Incas would receive a new Andean architecture set and a new scout unit the Chasqui. The Purepechas and Toltecs were the two Central American civs I had in mind. With this system, there would be three Meso civs and three Andean civs, and theyâd each have a common architecture and scout unit.
1 Like
Yes, I agreeâŠactually, it would be 4 Mesocivs (you are missing the Mayans)âŠ
1 Like
One thing we probably should also think about is the theoretical addtion of austroasiatic civs.
These would also probably require a different scout unit.
The main question if these should become entirely different designs or if we target to get in total only 2-3 different scout units with cultural skins and civ bonusses.
The deployment of Crossbows was often more a decision of usefulness then of technology.
Crossbows are very useful when fighting from fortifications, you can hide while reloading and then only stick out your head when shooting for a short moment. In the late middle ages they even brought their own âfortificationsâ in form of massive shields to the battlefield.
Also crossbows can be good at piercing though armour since they can generate more power then bows.
Crossbows are also good at making ambushes. You can all have your arrows ready any time without having to draw the bow, which also makes them good at hunting. Waiting for the pray to appear.
But they are not that useful in open field battles since their rate of fire is much lower and also the range is lower.
Crossbow bolts lose stability during flight and start tumbling, then they lose their piercing power and accuracy. Arrows on the other hand can be build in such a way that they can fly stabe and keep their energy for longer.
A lot of civilisations knew about crossbows but decided not to use them, like the Arabs.
The Eagle Warrior doesnât just fill the role of the Scout it also kinda fills the role of the Knight and even goes beyond that to create itâs own unit class.
New American or generally horseless civilisations donât necessarily need a unit that fulfils all of the same roles, maybe just Scout is enough.
Or starting as a Scout and then turning into something very different like the Camel Scouts.
A Scout unit could turn into some kind of Cavalry Archer or Hand Cannon replacement in Castle Age by gaining a ranged attack for example.
I am generally not a fan of having generic units with very strong civilisation bonuses.
At that point the units feel more unique then many unique units but they look completely identical to generic units of other civilisations.
A Briton Arbalester feels a lot more like a Longbow then it feels like a generic Arbalester.
Largely agree with the advantages you listed, though I wanna add that they are also easier to train with and easier to aim than bows.
I donât necessarily agree with this statement. If an army adopts the rotating formation (rotate and fire) then the rate of fire should be descent. And the range largely depends on the how the crossbow is made (i.e. draw weight, draw length, etc.), they definitely could achieve higher ranges than bows.
american civ would be nice just dont re-use the existing Iroquois warrior skin as an unique unit which is like 99% chance happening if a DLC ever comes
1 Like
No it wont even the centurion got a reskin as the uu.
But the legionary did not.
It did, actually. Thereâs a slight difference in the shield decals.
You mean the upside down shield while walking? It was a bug with the unit, if you think itâs a reskin update, donât know what to say.
This is what it looked like as a Scenario Editor unit. The new Imperial Legionary still has this appearance.
This is what the trainable unit looks like.
2 Likes
It requires tactics and discipline to compensate for the lower rate of fire which kinda removes the easier training part of crossbows.
There is a reason why bows kept being used after crossbows got invented. The English knew about crossbows and deployed a bunch of them but they kept their Longbows around until guns made them obsolete because they had a lot of distinct advantages.
The problem with crossbows is that they shoot bolts not arrows.
Arrows can be designed to fly a lot more stable, even the Huns already had arrows that rotated in the air like bullets from a rifle.
The physical design of crossbows limits what kinda bolts you can fire.
Crossbow bolts start tumbling in the air after they fly far enough which makes them less efficient at far distances.
Itâs certainly possible to engineer those issues away but the invention of gunpowder made the research into more advanced crossbows pointless so that never really happened.
The should make the unit a ranged infantry anyway. Tomahawks work well as throwing axes.
They could even be a regional unit since they were used by many different people in North America.
It never did, the picture I have posted above is from 2021.
2 Likes
Well, in the real medieval battlefield you can only fire 1 or 2 times in the effective range at the charging enemy before engaging in melee, so that largely leaves the so-called faster fire rate of the bow irrelevant. In such situations Iâd rather prefer a more accurate weapon, which is the crossbow.
Thereâs a reason why Genoese crossbowmen became the favorite mercenaries in medieval Europe. Thereâs also a reason why major military powers in Eurasia all adopted the crossbow after they knew its existence (save for a few exceptions like the Japanese).
AFAIK, apart from a few exceptions like the Chu Ko Nu repeating crossbow, most other military crossbows used in medieval Eurasia fired bolts with fletching attached, which made them essentially the same as arrows in terms of their aerodynamics.
So what about certain siege crossbows used in medieval East & SE Asia, like the medieval Chinese triple-bow siege crossbow or the medieval Khmer double-bow crossbow? What about late medieval European steel crossbows?