Technology ideas for Med mod II

[Kestrel]

Wes,

Your current tech tree (05 Jan 2001) looks excellent, incorporating many of the advances neglected by the standard offerings.


As far as I can determine (from your advances chart) the sequence of your basic infantry units & advances works thus -
ARCHER - (Enabled by Composite Bow)
ARQUEBUSIER - (Enabled by Gunpowder)
MUSKETEER - (Enabled by Flintlock)
GRENADIER - (Enabled by Conscription)
RIFLEMAN - (Enabled by Repeating Rifle)
MODERN INFANTRYMAN - (Enabled by Automatic Rifles)

Please correct me if I have got this wrong... (I know the Med Mod is a "work in progress")

Assuming that the Tech Tree of 05-Jan-2001 is accurate I would still be inclined to add the following extra military advance to your tech tree to better mirror the changes in tactics over last thousand years or so.

Maybe this advances should be a 'simple' advances (i.e. requiring less research or
"Cost in science points" than some of the other, more complex ones such as "Deep Battle Tactics")

Bayonet. (& Infantry Drill) Advance :
At the end of the 16th century foot-soldiers adopted a more flexible battle array and abandoned their closed ranks, initiating the line formation, which foreshadowed the extended order for infantry. The addition of the Bayonet to the Flintlock Musket in 1670 spelt the end of the Musketeer / Pikemen combination on the medieval battlefield. The Bayonet is widely recognized as being one of the decisive weapons of the 2nd millennium, both from the extra advantage it conveyed to the foot-soldier in close-quarter combat or when ammunition had run out, as well as from its psychological impact on the enemy. A line of disciplined advancing British infantry, bayonets drawn, screaming their battle cries in the 18th century struck fear in the hearts of the enemy and often caused the opposing ranks to break and run with nary a shot being fired.

Such an advance should allow an "Infantryman" unit equipped with Flintlock & Bayonet (the unit should perhaps combine the best advantages of Pikemen & Musketers or slightly better attack & defense than a standard Musketeer) - Maybe this is what you intended with your "Grenadier" unit, but that is currently enabled by Conscripton. If "Grenadiers are the assault infantry of their age, and an elite unit" shouldn't they be enabled by something other than Conscription ?

Reason ?
In the middle of the last Millenium after the invention of smallarms Musketeers formed the bulk of an infantry regiment's soldiers. They usually outnumbering the pikemen two or three to one. They were armed with a smoothbore matchlock or flintlock musket and a sword. Their role was to weaken the enemy from a distance with fire power, prior to the pike block advancing to contact. When the pike block advanced they drew swords or used their muskets as clubs and advanced along with them. Prior to the development of the Bayonet a regiment's musketeers had no effective defence against enemy cavalry and depended on the "pike block" for protection against their charge. Pikemen were often held in reserve while the musketeers weakened the enemy with their firepower. When the pike moved forward to engage the enemy infantry it meant that the crucial point of the battle had been reached. Either the enemy looked to be ready to break and a determined charge would see them off or support was needed to reinforce the musketeers. In any event the pikemen had to be prepared to move forward, often through a hail of musketry, to come to grips with the enemy. The slow rate of fire and lack of bayonets meant that without pike support Musketeers were very vulnerable to cavalry attacks.

Thus, it wasn't the development of the flintlock over the match-lock/harquebus or wheel-lock per se that revolutionised the infantry wwarfare of that period , but rather the bayonet (and the change in infantry tactics that went along with it).

Also, whilst Conscription in Modern times was first employed by Napoleon in the Early 19th century (although there were the beginnings of Citizen Militias during the French Revolution, though not necessarily well trained), we did not really see en-masse conscription of a civilian populace until the advent of the First World War. Prior to this most armies were made up of professionals and eager volunteers in times of crisis. Traditionally conscript armies are generally less effective than professional or volunteer armies.

Should Conscription therefore enable a slighter cheaper (and slightly less effective) infantry unit (e.g a "Conscript" or "Reservist" unit) which is available to be built at the same time as a professional infantry unit (whether Grenadier or Riflemen) ? This would allow players to build up small (more expensive) professional armies or alternately keep cheaper conscripts in reserve - as existing units or units that can be mobilised more quickly in time of war / peril.

Perhaps the Conscript/Reservist Unit/s could also have an early analogue (enabled after Flintlock & Bayonet) & a later more powerful analogue (Enabled after the repeating rifle).


Also (referring to your post in the other thread - dated Wednesday, January 03, 2001
) regarding a discrete precursor advance for Pikemen - What about "Medieval Warfare" ?

Also (2), what about the Longbow which is also recognized as being one of the decisive weapons of the 2nd millennium ? The longbow, was a cheap, low-class weapon. It had a higher rate of fire than the crossbows of the period as well as a longer range as well as being much simpler and cheaper to produce. The English longbow broke the stalemate of medieval cavalry battles, the showers of heavy quarrels easily punctured the heavy plate armor of knight and foot-soldier alike. English use of the longbow decimated the French knights at the battle of Agincourt, allowing the English to defeat a vastly superior French force. (A turning point in warfare - The Longbow and the Pike basically spelt the end of the age of the Knight in Europe). The longbow remained the standard infantry weapon in the English army until the end of the 16th century when Smallarms arrived in a big way. Is there room for a Longbowmen Infantry Unit in CTP2 Med Mod II ? Maybe it is another Unit that could be enabled by an advance such as "Medieval Warfare".

Happy idea sifting.

Rgrds,

Kestrel18

[Kestrel]

YET MORE on "The Bayonet & Infantry Drill" lifted holus bolus from www.britannica.com


"About 1670 the bayonet was invented, causing pikes to be discarded and homogeneous infantry to be created throughout Europe (though the expression "to trail a pike" lingered for another century). Apart from predicaments when it had to form squares in order to confront attacking cavalry, infantry now fought in very long, thin formations. Throughout the 18th century a lively debate was carried on concerning the best ways to employ these formations, but basically each side organized its forces in two lines separated by perhaps 300 to 400 yards and moving forward one behind the other. Though the precise arrangements varied from one army to the next, inside each line the units were organized by platoon, company, and battalion. Advancing toward each other, each side would hold its fire for as long as possible in order to close range and obtain a better aim, and then, acting upon the word of command, the opposing lines would fire salvo after salvo into each other. The final step consisted of fixing bayonets and storming the enemy--although, since one side usually broke, actual hand-to-hand fights seem to have been rare.

The plug bayonet, as the first type of bayonet was called, had some serious defects; once it was inserted into the muzzle, the gun could not be fired, and if driven in too tightly, it could not easily be removed. Before 1689 a new bayonet was developed with loose rings on the haft to fit around the muzzle. This design was in turn superseded by the socket bayonet introduced into the French Army in 1688. This new bayonet had a sleeve that slipped over the muzzle and was held in place by a stud on the barrel that locked in a right-angled slot in the socket. The blade was normally triangular in cross section. With minor alterations, the socket bayonet remained the basic form.

To maximize efficiency, Infantry drill was invented. Standards, often modeled after Roman ones, were introduced to help units align themselves, and tactical movements were carried out to the sound of trumpets, bugles, and drums--the latter an Oriental innovation apparently brought to Europe about 1500. In this age the military ideal was to achieve maximum reliability and efficiency by training troops to operate in a machinelike manner. This implied much tighter discipline and organization, which in turn required a shift toward the type of regular, professional forces that alone were capable of achieving them.

The development of repeating firearms greatly reduced the combat value of the bayonet. Nevertheless, it was retained through World Wars I and II, though shortened into an all-purpose knife, equipped with a hand grip and carried in a scabbard when not affixed to a rifle."

[Harlan]

Kestrel,
You make some interesting and informed points. However, I have to disagree with your comments about the Longbow, a very misunderstood weapon. These is a highly overrated weapon that not only wasn't one of the most important weapons of the last two millenia, but isn't even from the last two millenia. True, it was very effective in a few battles in France, but that was because of the element of surprise. Its overrated because of the general over attention to the history of England.

The longhow has a much longer history. It was used widely in India way back (its included in my Alexander the Great scenario for instance). There is no technological difference between a longbow and any other composite bow, its just longer! The reason it wasn't more widely used is because of the incredible strength it takes to use such a bow- one needs many years of training, and typically kings didn't have the patience and the resources it took to invest in a type of soldier that wouldn't pay off for decades. This is one reason why its use didn't sweep Europe after Agincourt, or spread from India.

The Longbow was a step up from a regular bow, but so was the Crossbow. And that bow was the real death knell of the Knight. So much so, there were repeated efforts to have it banned. It was cheaper to keep an army of crossbowmen, took much less training to use, and in its own yet slightly different way, was as effective as the longbow. This is why the crossbow did sweep Europe, when the longbow died out even in England after a relatively short time.

The crossbow has a much more ancient history than people realise, too. It was invented by the Chinese, and was their standard archer type since the BCs. The Romans used the crossbow for a short time too, but its higher technological level left it forgotten during the Dark Age. The crossbow is definitely a key unit type and technology the game should have, not the longbow.

[WesW]

As to the Flintlock and Musketeer, I am using the unit as having the bayonet. You could probably put a few advances in the game in this time period to picture the development of the firearm, but I only had room for a couple, and I picked what I thought the most important one was, or at least one that was as good as any other.
I didn't happen upon any particular advance which signaled the development of the Grenadier, but it is a unit type needed in the game, and I put it with the best advance available at the time period where I needed something. Sometimes you can't find "exactly" the right thing at the right place, and other times you have to choose between gameplay and historical accuracy. The bayonet would probably have worked about as well as Conscription, but Harlan was insistent about Conscription needing to be in the game, so I chose that to put in the game, and that was the point where the Grenadier needed to go, so there you have it.

[Kestrel]

Fair enough - I was basing the inclusion of those two weeapons / technologies based on my reading of the book :

"Decisive Weapons: The Technology That Transformed Warfare" by Martin Davidson, Adam Levy

wherere they claim the six were :
THE LONGBOW (and the training of the commoners to use it as a feature of english society of that time)
THE BAYONET (and the Infantry Drills that went with it)
THE PANZER AND THE T-34
THE P-51 MUSTANG
THE BELL 'HUEY' UH-1 HELICOPTER
THE HARRIER

But as you say opinions are (and will always be) divided on the subject and you can't include everything in CTP2 and gameplay is really the most important feature.

Good Luck in your ongoing efforts.

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Kes, always check your sources. I'll wager any amunt that the author you cite is English/British. No other way could he list the longbow and the Harrier as "decisive weapons of history"!
As to the bayonet, it was originally strictly a defensive weapon, as stated it enabled the musketeer to fight off charging cavalry. Attacking with the bayonet was a later development: the matchlock musket was so clumsy that even with a bayonet fixed, troops prefered to toss them aside and attack with a short sword, or 'hanger' which all infantry carried until late in the 18th century. Weapons drills for using, firing, and loading muskets were devised and perfected by Maurice of Nassau and Gustaphus Adolphus of Sweden early in the 17th century, for matchlock-armed infantry. Those firing drills took 42+ movements and in practice restricted each man to about 1 round per minute. Why? Because of safety considerations. Each matchlock has a glowing match hanging from it, spare matches on the man, and packets or containers of loose gunpowder all over him. This also meant that the matchlock formations had to be very loose: 3 - 4 feet for each man, so that you didn't set your neighbor to either side on fire or blow him and his powder charges up.
By contrast, the mechanical lock musket, or flintlock, or 'fusil' to use the late 17th century term, allowed firing drills to be simplified so rate of fire went up to a sustained 2 - 3 rounds per minute and up to 5 - 6 rounds for a single "mad minute", and formations to be tightened up to the infamous "shoulder to shoulder" lines of the id-eighteenth century. Result: an effective doubling or tripling of firepower and the adoption of movement drills for the infantry company and battalion that turned them into real maneuver units instead of mere 'blocks' of pikes or muskets.
The bayonet, despite all the ink spilled over it, was always mainly a psychological weapon. Larrey, the French surgeon to Napoleon's Guard, said that in 20+ years' service he rarely ever saw a bayonet wound. Statistics gathered by the Russians at Borodino, the Crimea, and the Turkish War of 1877-78 indicated that even in the Napoleonic flintlock smoothbore period bayonet wounds accounted for less than 3% of all casualties. Gunpowder was the killer: the bayonet was to scare them off or to inspire your own men to go forward in the face of enemy fire.
On the longbow - crossbow thing, a couple of points: the longbow not only took long training and practice, it was not particularly effective against plate armor. Except at point-blank range, it was unlikely to penetrate. What made the English longbowmen effective was that they were trained not only as individuals but also as units, with a definite chain of command that had the ability to direct, control, and regulate their fire. This meant that they could deliver an effective "fire shock" against an enemy, switch to important targets as required, and sustain their fire insead of running out of arrows in the first flush of enthusiasm. It also meant that longbow units are going to cost to maintain: not only do they have to be trained, they have to work together under known commandes to develope those unit skills, and that requires that someone pay them for their time and to sustain their families. The crossbow, by contrast, is easy to train people on, but the steel-bow weapons of the late medieval period were very expensive to manufacture - spring steel ain't easy without modern metallurgical techniques, and they used relatively complicated metal trigger mechanisms as well. Consequently, at the level of CtPII (army), neither weapon has a definite superiority over the other, and the longbow has the advantage of being (for the period) easily identifiable with a single group/nation, while the crossbow remained largely a support weapon and has no particular modern identification with anything but William Tell. Sad, but true.

[Dale]

I always thought the English Longbow (as opposed to other European longbows) used a yard-arm arrow and could punch a hold straight through a breastplate.

------------------
Rommell to a sub-commander outside Tobruk: "Those Australians are in there somewhere. But where? Let's advance and wait till they shoot, then shoot back."

[Kestrel]

Folks,

I can accept all that you say about the Bayonet and the Longbow (and yes, those authors were British) and I can see good reason for not including them in the CTP2 Med Mod list based on all the other possible Units and Advances out there.

But with respect to the Grenadier :

"Grenadier - (late 16th century) soldier particularly selected and trained to hurl grenades. Exceptional strength and courage were needed for hurling the grenade, and accidents were not uncommon. Grenadiers earned higher pay, received special privileges, and were distinguished by their height, dashing uniform, and tall, mitre-shaped headdress (shako). Armed with heavy hatchets for chopping through barricades and other obstructions, they were employed particularly in siege and trench warfare. During the 18th century there was a gradual decline in the use of grenades, but grenadiers were retained as elite troops."

Given that the Grenadiers were elite volunteers - why should they be enabled by Conscription ?

[Harlan]

Diodorus, I have to disagree about neither the crossbow or longbow having an advantage over each other, and your statement that this weapon was largely "merely a support weapon". Here's what Encyclopedia Britannica has to say (edited down from the www.britannica.com entry):

Crossbow: The leading missile weapon of the Middle Ages, consisting of a short bow fixed transversely on a stock, originally of wood; it had a groove to guide the missile, usually called a bolt, and a trigger to release it. The crossbow, or arbalest, was an important technical achievement that enjoyed the further distinction of being outlawed (at least for use against Christians) by the Lateran Council of 1139. Its origins are obscure, but its earliest appearance in Europe was in the technologically advanced Italian cities of the 10th and 11th centuries.

Despite the introduction of the English (or Welsh) longbow, with its quicker rate of fire, the crossbow continued its reign as the supreme hand missile weapon until, and even for a long time after, the introduction of firearms. In addition to its power, it owed its long success to its versatility (it could be fired from a reclining position or from behind a parapet) and its less bulky ammunition. The slower rate of fire (compared with the longbow) may also have been an advantage in some situations. Not until the late 15th century did it definitely give way to the harquebus.

----

A good entry, except for the sentence "its origins are obsure", which staggerly cuts out over 1000 well known years of its history. The effect is to present it as a weapon invented in Europe in the middle ages, which it clearly isn't! These are the kind of biases still common in historical writing, and the book on the the 6 most decisive weapons in history clearly shows this kind of bias. Its funny how some things in history are remembered or overemphasized and others forgotten, and strange how the longbow falls into this first category and crossbow in the latter. An example of a completely forgotten weapon: paper armor, which was preferred to metal armor in Asia through the end of the middle ages. Hard to believe, paper better than metal, but I'm not pulling your leg. If we were all Chinese, the tech tree would look very different.

Also, the point mentioned in the Britannica entry that the crossbow was the supreme missile weapon long after the gun was created is a point that most people don't realize. Early gun weapons were so wildly inaccurate and inconsistent that usually only a smattering were included in armies, for psychological effect. If only we had a good Crossbow sprite...

[WesW]

Ah, Harlan vs. Charles. I KNEW this was going to happen sooner or later. Can I be the referee, and say "Let's get it on!"?
We need to get some examples here, guys. Either of you familiar with the makeup of armies in the Crusades period? How about the Spanish campaign against the Moors? Joan of Arc vs. the English?

[wheathin]

Just like to point out that regardless of how things actually *did* occur in Medieval and Renaissance Europe, the game is about creating your own history. I most emphatically DO NOT want to be forced down a development path that mimics a specifically Western history path. Or even one that mimics a Chinese one.

Some tech-tree issues must be resolved - we can all agree that without gunpowder, there would be no guns. There could be no chariot without wheel, or (successful) printing press without alphabet (yeah yeah yeah, the chinese got it. but they didn't use it).

But for many others, just because history *didn't* happen that way doesn't mean it *couldn't* have. Part of the fun is in creating civilizations that may be very different from the way history occurred, but that, given the unique geographical and diplomatic conditions of the randomly created worlds, are perfectly plausible. I.e., firearms might have developed in dozens of different ways (Minie balls before flintlocks? Autoloading weapons before rifling?). We shouldn't force players to recreate the exact course of European gunsmithery.

=

As to the longbow-crossbow dispute: Keep the Crossbow in. But Longbow is not a separate weapon from archers.

I think the crucial factor is the ease of training a crossbowman. I tend to regard the English use of longbowmen as opportunistic - there was a large body of skilled archers, for a variety of socio-political and economic reasons that could be called up by the King. Had they not existed, it is unlikely that the King would have created them (hiring, training, etc.) - he would have hired crossbowmen like everyone else!

Moreover, the crushing victories in the Hundred Years war were more the result of the arrogance and stupidity of the poorly organized French Knights. They did not have a decent command structure (each knight served at his own pleasure), and they let the English dictate the terms and location of the battles. A refusal to recognize that heavy Cavalry would not function well in mud (Agincourt) or in charges up well-defended hill-top positions (Poitiers) resulted in predictable defeats. Had the French chevalliers been more willing to let lowerclass infantry forces (Mercenaries and levies) get some of the "glory", they might have won.

[This message has been edited by wheathin (edited January 17, 2001).]

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Wes: As to the actual composition of medieval armies, with the caveat that every number from that period can be fought over by historians and debated as to accuracy, here is some information on "army composition".
First, in all armies the bulk of the troops were infantry armed with spears, shields, varying degrees of armor, and frequently, javelins. This type was both the Town militias and the Communal troops of the Italian city-states. In Spain, the Moslem armies had infantry forces consisting of 1/2 spearmen with large shields and javelins, and 1/2 archers (regular bows) in a second line. The third line of the army was cavalry, somewhat lighter than knights, with lots of light cavalry on the flanks.
As for numbers of crossbowmen versus regular (spear-armed) infantry, at Falkirk in 1298 Edward I had 250 crossbowmen out of 2500 infantry, and another 10,000+ hired Welsh longbowmen. In the town militia of Bruges in 1303, there were 200 crossbowmen out of 1254 troops, while Ghent in 1340 numbered only 65 "bowmen" (type not specified) out of 5000 men. In Christian Spain, an ordinance of 1385 required men with 1/10 the income of an armored knight to show up for military service with a crossbow, but any foot with less income than that to have spear, shield, and, at the lowest level, javelins. A Spanish army in 1374 had 6000 crossbowmen out of 50,000 men total.
In the beginnings of the Renaissance, the Italian city militias in the early 1400s had companies with spearmen, pavisiers (men with spears and large shields to cover the archers) and crossbowmen "in equal proportions of each". BUT by 1476 Milan had 10,000 infantry, of which 2000 were handgunners and in 1482 the Milanese troops in the War of Ferrara had 1250 handgunners, 352 arquebusiers, and only 233 crossbowmen!
All of which is by way of pointing out that most of the infantry from 3000 BC to1400 AD are men armed with a spear and protected by a large shield fighting in close formation. Bows, slings, longbows, crossbows, et al were support weapons which in the Western tradition at least, very rarely won battles by themselves: and that includes the English longbows at Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt, which in every case were protected by other armored men and defensive stakes. On occasions when longbowmen were caught without the stakes and a settled infantry line, as at Patay by Joan d'arc and a company of French under the Constable of France, they were ridden down and massacred.
I'd also like to point out that contrary to other reports, the Milanese and Italian city states at least, considered the 'handgun" or primitive firearm to be a much more effective and better investment than large numnbers of crossbows. The main reason was that while crossbow bolts or 'clothyard shafts' from longbows rarely penetrated plate armor unless they hit it just right, the lead ball from a handgun would usually penetrate and even if it didn't, the force from the impact was enough to knock a knight right off his horse and crack ribs or skulls under the plate armor.

[Locutus]

I'd hate to interrupt The Big Fight (Harlan vs Charles), but I have a comment about the tech tree as well
IMHO the name Computer Age is plain wrong, Information Age is much better. For one thing, the first computers arose, depending of what you use as definition as computer, anywhere between 1800 and 1945 (though most conventional definitions place the first computer at the late 1930s). So to state that the Computer Age starts around 1960 would be grossly inaccurate, the computers of that time compare to the very first computers as a Jet Fighter to the Wright Flyer.

More importantly though, Computers are just a tool. Something like a knife was an important instrument in the Bronze Age (just an example, I don't claim to be an expert on Bronze Age technology), yet we don't call it the Knife Age. What is so important in everyday life these days, is information. This is also what computers, among other things (TV, satellites, networks like the Internet), are tools for: they can generate, collect, store and transfer information. So Information is a much more generic term that describes what this Age is all about.

Other than that, I think the tech-tree is fantastic, I never thought it possible but it's indeed tons better than the one of MedMod4. Now, let the fighting resume...

[Harlan]

I don't really think there is any disagreement between Charles (Diodorus) and I on this issue, its just a matter of glass half full or half empty. If Charles means that the Crossbow never made up the bulk of medieval armies, I agree. Its just like CTP2 has it: the ranged weapon stood in back and supported the infantry. My point was for several hundred years, in CTP2 terms, the Archer unit would have been replaced by the Crossbowman unit in most places as that ranged unit.

Diodorus, the facts you present show an amazing grasp of history, but don't really say anything new. Yes, Edward I had lots of longbowmen- he was the champion of the weapon. Yes, in Italy the handgun was taking off in popularity by the end of the 1400s (recall the Britannica entry I pasted in: "not until the late 15th century did [the crossbow] definitely give way to the harquebus").

The point I was making was that for a long time, when you wanted archers in your army, they were very likely to be crossbowmen, and only with the exceptions of England and India at certain historical times were longbows much of a factor. Thus the crossbow is a much more important weapon, and more deserving to be in a CTP2 mod. I doubt that Charles would disagree with that.

Onto wheathin's point, I agree with wheathin. However, in practice we don't even have the tools to make the "standard" history, much less alternative ones. For instance, if I were to make a mod of all of history, one weapon I'd have is the Armored Wagon, a great what-if weapon that did get limited use here and there (for instance the Hussite wars) but never reached its potential.

Also, one thing I gathered from my study of history was that there were many paths technological development could take, till about 1500. There was a great variation between cultures. But after that point, the options tend to narrow greatly. More and more the new discoveries rest on all the ones that came before, drawing from more and more fields. For instance, much has been made of the fact that Hero almost invented the steam engine back in the BCs, coming up with a primative model. But to actually make a useful steam engine required advances in metallurgy and many other fields that were the accumulation of thousands of years of development, so there's no way that discovery could have really worked back in Hero's day, no matter what he did. Its like the difference between making a toy glider and making an airplane. Time and time again, after 1500 discoveries happen one after another in logical order, with many instances of the same thing being invented in different places at the same time, in some cases even on the same day! That's not to say there wasn't variability, but that the wiggle room for changing the order inventions were discovered has shrunken down.

Getting to your gun example, I'll bet that if we "replayed" history, the development of the gun would have occurred in roughly the same order. There's probably a real good reason why autoloading weapons didn't happen earlier, for instance (though I don't know what it is! ). There would have been a lot of play in the time gunpowder was discovered though since its the kind of thing a single person could have done, but that wouldn't have led to a proper gun until other fields caught up. You can even see this in the similiarities and differences between the Chinese and West in developing weapons from gunpowder prior to 1500 when direct contact really took off.

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Harlan, one last comment on cross versus long bows: The crossbow predominated in China (mounted and foot), France, Italy, and Germany. Spanish armies used regular bows and slingers mostly, as did all the Moslem armies. In Eastern Europe, the Slavs, Poles, Russians, et al tended more to mounted and dismounted archers, although the city militias did use crossbows. One of the culminating armies of the late Middle Ages, the Burgundian Ordinance Army, had, on paper, about 5 longbowmen for every crossbowman (and the crossbowmen were mounted, not foot) BUT this army tried to combine the best troops from everywherre in Europe in a Perfectionist Mercenary array: English longbows, French knights, etc. This, by the way, also makes my final point: Ifarmies had their druthers, they got Longbows. Trouble is, the longbow, as you rightly pointed out, weren't available as generally as crossbows or regular bows were.
As to why autoloading, breechloading, and other 'advanced' forms of firearms weren't tried earlier than the 19th-20th centuries, they were! Breechloading rifled firearms were designed and built from the start of gunpowder 'handguns', the Austrian army even tried breechloading cannon in 1700-1705, and multi-shot 'machinegun' equivalents were designed by Leonardo Da V and actually built by several states as early as the 16th century. None of them worked. reason: lack of engineering expertese. You can't build precision arms, with the kind of fine tolerances automatic mechanisms and gas-tight breech mechanisms require, if you haven't got any precision tools. You can't build precision tools unless you have precise measurements, and so on and on. The prerequisite advances in a lot of fields like Mathematics, metallurgy, machine tools (any of these sound familiar?) had to be made before advanced firearms, or any other kind of machinery, were possible. I thoroughly agree with you that after a certain point, technological advance becomes so interconnected that it's hard to see how the sequence could be wildly different.
On the other hand, there are a lot of 'minor' technology changes that could have occured at a different rate or been applied different ways: The Hussite Wagon or Russian Gulay Gorod, for instance, or the Munroe Effect conical bullet, to make rifles effective as early as smoothbore muskets were. Had there been a major European War in the 1890s, there might have been steam-driven armored 'tanks' in use 20 - 25 years earlier than the familiar gasoline-diesel types of our history. These, and the very real possible changes in social, political, and economic systems, are where I think realistic "What If?" alternate history can be played...