Forums

Some test i've been doing to match the skin tone of the head:  

I am getting this:  

As I’ve already explained to you some time ago (and quoting from The Great Warbow, from Hastings to the Mary Rose, by M. Strickland and R. Hardy, which, although in a Medieval setting, is illustrative for each weapon): -Longbows weren’t necessarily more powerful than composite bows. Actually, the latter were more efficient, delivering more energy for a given draw weight. Usually, composite bows have lower draw weight (the thumb draw being a factor, apparently giving a bit more accuracy), but their power was comparable across a broad range: “a composite bow with a draw-weight of 59.5lb shot the same arrow as fast as a replica medieval yew longbow with a draw of about 74lb” (both of these numbers are below average for their respective warbows, but the comparison stands given a proportional scaling). A different thing is the power of the arrows, for which the longbows would have an edge, given their arrows were heavier, making them usually more armor piercing: “In the same decade in which Gerald of Wales was writing of the formidable penetrative power of the Welsh elm longbows in Gwent, Saladin’s close aide and confidant Beha ad-Din remarked on the effectiveness of the Frankish infantry’s armour against the Turkish bows during the Third Crusade”. -Longbows didn’t necessarily exceed the range of composite bows. Actually, the latter had greater maximum range, as expected from similar bow power but lighter arrows: “Western chroniclers were particularly struck by the range of the Saracen bows”, but both had comparable effective range, taking the previous point into account (although what is effective would depend on the actual units being targeted). -Longbows didn’t so clearly have a slower rate of “fire” than composite bows. Mainly, that has absolutely nothing to do with weapon size, but with variables like length draw and weight draw. For example, “the longbowman could shoot ten a minute and more, though Stanley says that with the heaviest bows he does not like to try for more than six a minute”. Thus, what could be done with a longbow is comparable to what was done with a composite bow, although if longbowmen sacrificed accuracy, and they wouldn’t be able to sustain that for long (all because of the higher weight draw), which wouldn't be much of an issue since they’d run out of arrows quite fast, as I’ve discussed before. In any case, this point is not as incorrect as the other two (given also that it’s much harder to properly source, and if one also considers much better trained composite bow users), but would depend more on the archer's training and technique, and, as with the previous points, on particular bows and tactics. Their advantages and disadvantages relate to other things I’ve also already told you (simplified in simple bows having lower performance, longbows lower mobility, and composite bows lower affordability, besides what I’ve just mentioned). If you keep asking AI of course you’ll get the wrong answers, because it uses misconceptions from other games. Redoubling on something I told you: many civ characteristics should be determined by not having all Storehouse techs. One of the reasons some would make composite bows is not having a lot of appropriate wood (this is connected with that they would also be horse cultures, more viable on treeless landscapes). Thus, they should not have all wood techs, and their bows should cost less wood, but more food (sinew, horn, animal glue) and metal (manufacturing cost), and more training time if that also considers manufacturing time.

Thanks! How does it look now?

Hi Asher, I read this thread as well as opened your repo on GitHub. Only after reading the first changelog entry I understood, what this Mod changes to vanilla. May I ask you to add a ReadMe.md and/or change the OP opening describing what's the USP of your Mod?