Quote Originally posted by anymapkoku:
I know what their ammo is but if it takes 23 years for them to runout while firing nonstop, that's unlimited ammo to me.[/QUOTE]
Dude, that's actually a disadvantage
Who's gonna win the race, the snail or the hare? "The snail!" you say "because he can run forever!"
bif
bif
-- There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't. --
Arbs inflict more casulites in a fight and go alot longer before becoming useless.
Which one is the winner here?
It MIGHT be longbows if they killed more in the shorter period of time, but honestly, they don't.
Well, arbs are way, way, better on the defensive. Longbows are better on the offensive because they can fire over friendlys. Thats worth a lot.
Overall though, missle troops suck, especially longbowman. They just are not much better (if at all better...) than archers, or any other bow unit. Arbalests are a lot more lethal and they dont seem to suffer as much in the wet weather.
olaf
Quote Originally posted by Gringoleader:
Problem with pav. arbs is that you won't be able to ever fire off all the shots because any unit can catch them and batter them before they've got more than a couple of shots off. [/QUOTE]
Again, this is due to your inexperience. What are you doing fielding a unit of pavise arbalesters over-extended to a point where you don't have a spear or sword unit close enough for it to fall back behind in case of danger?
"Longbows are better on the offensive because they can fire over friendlys. Thats worth a lot"
And kill almost as many of your men as enemy men in the process.
Quote And kill almost as many of your men as enemy men in the process.[/QUOTE]
The thing is with these types of arguments is that I don't think we've all had the chance to find the most effective tactics for each and every unit. So comments like the one above just prove that some people aren't using them effectively/properly.
I've routed 2 2500 men Mongol armies without hand to hand combat from having 8 units of longbows. Casualties were 12 from the Mongol archers.
I've persisted with the Longbow because it's my favourite weapon from the middle ages and now I have it at the point where I can get the most out of them and absolutely love them!
There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
The problem with longbows is their lack of sufficient ammo. THe advantage, related to this, is that they literally pepper armored enemies to death.
I use combined arms teams, and relate my tactics to the situation at hand. If the enemy is heavy in armored chivalric cav, I put my archers on free fire, line up just outside a forest, givethem orders to stand-to and let loose, billmen behind. If the enemy approaches with spearmen or halberdiers, even better - although I tend to bring along a pavise or two sometimes, just in case. A heavy archer force, and I let my cavalry loose, followed by billmen chaging, with the longbows in reserve - pavise troops are especially slow in retreat, and my cavalry or even my infantry can quite easily bring them to ground. Sometimes I take a horse archer along too, for general harassment - the AI is a real sucker for following horse archers around.
Longbows are really effective only as part of a team, though. Without supporting billmen and cav, longbows really are useless - with, and they are armor-killing battle winners, the "anti-tank" artillery of the game.
LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR. THIS IS CONCERNING MP. WE ALL KNOW THE AI IS STUPID ENOUGH TO GET PEPPERED BY LONGBOWS AND NOT FIGURE OUT HOW TO.....NOT GET PEPPERED BY LONGBOWS.
"The thing is with these types of arguments is that I don't think we've all had the chance to find the most effective tactics for each and every unit. So comments like the one above just prove that some people aren't using them effectively/properly."
Back this up, please. There isn't many variations on "shooting at the enemy". You could flank them with your longbows and shoot into their backs, but then any other unit would be alot more effective at it.
Look at the tests. Look at the tests. The Longbow are not the anti-tank, the arbs are. Thats the entire point! The arbs kill just as many if not more in a period of time, plus their ROF is so slow that it means they can actually fire 3 or 4 times longer.
Quote Back this up, please. There isn't many variations on "shooting at the enemy". You could flank them with your longbows and shoot into their backs, but then any other unit would be alot more effective at it.[/QUOTE]
I meant that if your longbows are killing your own men that indicates you aren't using them properly as I've been able to rout armies without killing my own men.
Quote Look at the tests. Look at the tests. The Longbow are not the anti-tank, the arbs are. Thats the entire point! The arbs kill just as many if not more in a period of time, plus their ROF is so slow that it means they can actually fire 3 or 4 times longer.[/QUOTE]
My point was (and is) that longbows aren't useless. I base my army around using the longbow to maximum effect.
For me personally, I don't like exposing my missile troops so arbs are no good. Also, on offensive I usually don't have time to run out of ammo as the AI ends up attacking me (which is my plan) and eventually I have to stop them firing so as I don't kill my own men.
BTW, I am not convinced that these so-called "tests" are accurate indicators. If it was, then the balancing would have been easy for CA. Seeing as though the balancing isn't quite right, I'm guessing CA doesn't use this method.
There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
In SP.....and as I already indicated SP is not the problem here....
You're basically ignoring everything, and going 'neener neener boo boo I don't believe you!'
Thats fine, but won't change the fact longbows are horribly shortchanged.
[This message has been edited by FacelessClock (edited 10-15-2002).]
A lot of people can't seem to get it through their heads we're talking about mp in this thread, Clock.
This is why the game needs two sets of stats/costs for the units and if that were to happen (and only then) this forum needs two separate forums to keep people from getting confused, since apparently that's easy for some of them.
Coeur De Lion makes a good point about 500+ Longbowmen. The numbers of longbowmen to lances(men-at-arms) in Henry V's armies was usuallly 6 or 7 to 1 and sometimes 10 to 1. Estimates for Agincourt range from 800 lances and 4000 longbows to 900 lances and 10,000 longbows. The stakes were largely ineffectual in the battle it was the extremely heavy ground that was the downfall of the french. The horses sunk upto their fetlocks and the dismounted MAA to their knees. They were practically exhausted by the time they'd covered the 1200 yards to reach the English position. Interestingly enough when the MAA clashed there was deadlock and it wasn't until the longbows waded in on the flanks with mace and club that the outcome was decided. The extremely heavy armour of the period proving a severe handicap to the exhausted French MAA. There are well documented cases of shall we say chubby lords and dukes dying from heart failure before any wounds. ANYWAY the point is that the proportion of longbows to MAA during this period was probably alot higher than most of us have tried to replicate here.
Quote Originally posted by solypsist:
for the time period that longbows are available (Early) they're the best thing out there, thus the high cost. Of course, once you and everyone else has Arbs, there's little point in paying so much.[/QUOTE]
That's about right, except that bows are still good in desert battles later in the game most troops you will face won't be heavily armoured (well if they are you will win easy enough by making the enemy run a lot !!!)
All my actions are dedicated to the memory of my great Lord Frederick I who one day knighted a poor woodsman and man-at-arms. Ich der Salut der mutig Barbarossa
I suppose that may be true. It just seems odd to have the supposedly amazing longbows be outmodded so quickly.
Clansman, I'm not sure what a battle in which longbowmen went into melee has to do with this, since this is about the Longbows archer abilities.
Anyway, any 500+ longbow army will be defeated by a cavalry charge.
Quote Originally posted by FacelessClock:
The arbs kill just as many if not more in a period of time, plus their ROF is so slow that it means they can actually fire 3 or 4 times longer.
[/QUOTE]
The arbies kill more per volley, but it takes them twice as long to get the same number of volleys off. It may well be that the longbow kills more per second. But in the end, when both have expended all their ammo, the arbies win perhaps with as much as twice as many kills. The kicker is, will the battle last long enough for the arbies to use up their ammo?
BTW, you keep saying that it's a good thing that arbies have a slow rate of fire. Get a clue dude. That's a BAD thing. By your logic, if you increased their ROF, that would make the worse. Heh. And if we slowed down their ROF, they'd get better? How about if we make it so they could only fire once per hour... gee, they'd kick serious butt then! LOL!
The one number that matters is kills-per-volley. Then you consider if you have enough time in the battle to use all the ammo. If longbows had, say, a ROF twice that of arbies and they could score 2 kills per shot while the arbies kill 3 per shot, the longbows win in a short fight because they have a greater kills-per-second rating.
What the actual numbers work out to would require much testing (on multiple computers to make sure ROF is not CPU speed dependent).
bif
bif
-- There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't. --
Quote Originally posted by AgentBif:
It may well be that the longbow kills more per second. [/QUOTE]
Sorry I havent gotten round to testing, but surely this is the point of longbows. I mean its not as if u ll use all ur ammo and then wiat for ur opponent to use his before you fight...
------------------
Clan Kenchikuka
OMGLOLBBQ!
"The arbies kill more per volley, but it takes them twice as long to get the same number of volleys off. It may well be that the longbow kills more per second. But in the end, when both have expended all their ammo, the arbies win perhaps with as much as twice as many kills. The kicker is, will the battle last long enough for the arbies to use up their ammo?
BTW, you keep saying that it's a good thing that arbies have a slow rate of fire. Get a clue dude. That's a BAD thing. By your logic, if you increased their ROF, that would make the worse. Heh. And if we slowed down their ROF, they'd get better? How about if we make it so they could only fire once per hour... gee, they'd kick serious butt then! LOL!"
You are a moron. You have no ability to read and are picking through things for slight errors for no apparent reason.
I've said it before. I'll say it again. Pay attention, you dimwit, because having to say something four millin times to get it through a person's thick skull is getting rather old by now.
ARBS KILL JUST AS MANY IF NOT MORE PER SECOND. THEY KILL MORE DURING A BATTLE. THEY KILL MORE PER VOLLEY. THEIR AMMO LASTS LONGER DUE TO A LONGER ROF, which in THIS CASE IS A ADVANTAGE. LOLBBQSTFU!
It seems alot of people are still drooling over OMG LONGBOWS. THEY WERE GREAT IN THIS BATTLE THING SO THEY MUST RULE THE GAME. Well guess what! They don't! In fact they are a waste of time and arn't useful except in the early time-period. The devs screwed up, the longbows are horrible, they have no point. WHICH IS WHY I POSTED THIS THREAD....SO PERHAPS THEY COULD SOMEDAY HAVE ONE.
Clear?
LOLBBQOMG!!LOL!!!WTF!!!
Just added that because bif seems to think the a valid arguement must include forty pieces of internet slang.
Quote Originally posted by FacelessClock:
[B]
You are a moron. You have no ability to read and are picking through things for slight errors for no apparent reason.
I've said it before. I'll say it again. Pay attention, you dimwit, because having to say something four millin times to get it through a person's thick skull is getting rather old by now.
[/QUOTE]
Admins, can we get this guy banned from the boards?
He's been warned before regarding this kind of obnoxious brattery and he generally seems to lack the ability to participate productively in a discussion when people find flaws in his comments.
Thanks.
bif
bif
-- There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't. --
If you don't want to be insulted, the don't make off base useless "lol get a clue" comments.
Like to start fires and then point to the other guy, do ya?
Quote Originally posted by FacelessClock:
If you don't want to be insulted, the don't make off base useless "lol get a clue" comments.
Like to start fires and then point to the other guy, do ya?[/QUOTE]
Yes, I regret the "get a clue" comment... that was not appropriate. I'm sorry.
But your flat-out nastiness is totally juvenile, WAY out of line, and a consistent repeat of foolishness for which you have been previously warned against.
bif
bif
-- There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't. --
poor poor poor they are good mixed with arbers though
------------------
"The good fighters of the old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an oppurtunity to defeat the enemy."
"The good fighters of the old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat and then waited for an opportunity to defeat the enemy." - Sun Tzu
Clock: What bif is saying is that a slower rate of fire is in NO WAY an advantage.
Arbalests would be much better if they fired faster, period. Therefore their slow ROF does not constitute an ADVANTAGE, it is a LIMITATION.
In many ways the slow ROF of arbalests is a severe liability, one that cripples them in MP battles. There is no way an arb will use a significant portion of it's ammo in anything but an SP battle.
Too bad the point of this thread is Longbows, not Arbs.
This isn't a 'real time strategy game' people. It's the COMBINATION of units that makes a killer cocktail. Also, the comment on the amount of longbowmen is a correct one: USE ALOT and watch your enemies FALL QUICK. And when they run out of ammo, take them off the field. You can't handle yourself without your archers? Come on! This is not Red Alert where you can throw uberunit at uberunit and win in the end. Longbowmen are worth every penny, if used well. Concentrate the fire of three longbowmen units on one target of medium or less armor and watch them SUFFER. Even the heavier armors can get pierced if you upgrade the weapons... And your don't use them against other archers.. you got infantry and cav to do that.. if you know HOW that is...
When you have to repeat something time and time again so people will get it into their skulls, you tend to get nasty just because its the only way to get someone to actually pay attention.
See? I'm going to have to repeat myself again.
"In many ways the slow ROF of arbalests is a severe liability, one that cripples them in MP battles. There is no way an arb will use a significant portion of it's ammo in anything but an SP battle."
Which is WHY I am saying it is a advantage in this case, as in, Arbs vs. Longbows. CLEAR?!
The arbs are no way crippled and kill as many or more enemys then the longbow in MP battles per period of time. CLEAR?!
READ THE POSTS, AND UNDERSTAND THEM! IS THIS SO MUCH TO ASK?
My findings are that no archer unit is worth a stuff
This is so untrue historically and it is a shame because battles are reduced to an infantry brawl
...Orda
------------------
" Send us your ambassadors and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war..if you make war on us the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."
Arbs are useful in MP not because of the actual casualties they inflict to an army, but rather because of the psychological effect that they have on the commander of the army. If an enemy is being peppered with arbs that are in front of your main force, he is likely to send out his cavalry, at which point you can have a spear unit run out and engage the enemy cav. If you have more arbs than the enemy, you can often goad them into charging you if you are the attacker, possibly compromising their formation. The small cost of 2 0 valor units of pavis arbs is a small price to pay for this tactical versatility. As for longbows, I find that they are only useful against units that are weak against missiles such as Abysinnian guards.
Quote Originally posted by Cyricist:
Also, the comment on the amount of longbowmen is a correct one: USE ALOT and watch your enemies FALL QUICK. [/QUOTE]
No, it's "USE A LOT (two words) and watch yourself lose because half your force is pathetic archers."
Quote Originally posted by Orda Khan:
My findings are that no archer unit is worth a stuff
This is so untrue historically and it is a shame because battles are reduced to an infantry brawl
...Orda
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Thank you for understanding the point of the thread and further supporting the fact that missile units are underpowered or overpriced for what they should be.
I'v not even got the game, but from everything I read, wouldn't it be decent to return Longbowmen back to the stats of a common Samurai Archer? Samurai Archers were very well balanced in SHogun. They had bows VERY similar to English longbows, if slightly more effective because they were recurved.
Maybe drop the price so that upgradeing is cheap and effective, like it was for the otherwise useless Ashigaru..150 for the longbowmen and 100 for the Archer.
Since I don't know MTW's stats, I don't know what the inf and cav armour rateings are. Very few medieval warriors went to battle completely covered in armour. Only Higher Nobility could afford that, and there weren't alot of them. Thus the armour of most infantry's and some cav should be low..like 0-2 at best. Trully armoured(and truly expensive) units should be more like 3-6. Then if Longbowmen had the stats of a samurai archer with a lil less range, they would inflict realistic damage.
BTW, what 'counts' in a battle is Kills Per minute, not per volley. It only takes a minute or two for infantry to close on yours on flat land.
I personally would use a combination of arbs and longbows. Arbs and longbow to the front, raining arrows from above and below then pull both back and redirect when the lines close. Just to avoid friendly fire from either type of ranged unit.
I maintain none the less that Yin-Yang Dualism can be overcome. With sufficent enlightment, we can give substance to any distinction: Mind without body, north without south, pleasure without pain. Renember, enlightment is a function of will power, not of physical strength.- Shang-ji Yang
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks