Improving vanilla archers

[Martok]

Just checked the projectile stats, and unusually only the Longbow, Mounted Longbow, Catapult, Trebuchet, Mangonel and Mortar have the "try high" option enabled and not the Shortbow? The Shortbow is the regular bow wielded by all foot archers except the Longbowmen. The Mounted Longbow (ignore the unusual "Longbow" naming, it is not a longbow) is exactly the same as the Shortbow but less accurate and used only by Horse/Camel Archers. I have no idea why "try high" was omitted from the foot archer Shortbow and added to the horse archers' Mounted Longbow.

Hmm, that is odd.

Is it possible to mod this at all? Anything that can potentially improve the lethality of MTW's vanilla archers would be welcome, as they've been underpowered from the beginning.

[caravel]

This can be modded, but I won't go into that here, I'll cover it in the pocket mod forum instead. I'm consciously trying not to turn every thread in the main hall into a thread about modding.

[Martok]

Good point. We'll discuss it over there.

Edit: Split off from the thread in the Main Hall and moved it here (so as not to derail the original topic).

[caravel]

I also feel archers are underpowered in MTW, though only vs lightly armoured and unarmoured units. Vs armoured units they are realistically less effective. The Samurai Archers in STW always seemed to do a lot more damage to me. I often find that during battle I can find a good vantage point for my archers but rarely feel that they've done enough damage when their quivers are empty. I also feel that the AI archers are less than effective unless they're in ridiculous numbers. I can usually charge them down with light cavalry and take only a few losses from the volleys they let off. In reality cavalry charging straight at a unit of archers would take many more losses before closing with them, unless they were suitably well armoured.

Perhaps lethality could be increased slightly and the armour piercing decreased a bit?

Horse archers are worse. I have no idea why their "mounted longbow" has worse accuracy than the shortbow, when throughout history horse archers were some of the best archers ever. Also in this game they can only fire when stationary so it's not as if the lack of accuracy can be put down to them being on the move.

This shouldn't be a problem for much longer however, as I intend to equip them with the compound bow. The question is though, should they use the same compound bow as foot units (such as JI, Futuwwas, [Eastern] Archers and Psiloi use) or should a less accurate version be made for horse archers (though I can't see the sense in this)?

Another issue is, which horse archer units should use the compound bow? All or only certain units?

With the horse archers previous bow out of use, we have a free weapon. I remember someone mentioning differences between the mongol bow and the eastern compound bow? If this is the case the old mounted longbow slot could be used for this, as a mongol bow. I am no expert on this though and would need some info on the differences between the two.

[Puzz3D]

I also feel archers are underpowered in MTW, though only vs lightly armoured and unarmoured units. Vs armoured units they are realistically less effective. The Samurai Archers in STW always seemed to do a lot more damage to me.

The shortbow and mounted archer stats in MTW are exactly the same as they were in STW. The effectiveness of a volley is exactly the same in both games against a target of the same armor level under the same conditions. There is a difference in how unused ammo is treated. In STW, unused ammo was retrieved from dead men in the unit. In MTW, the unused ammo of dead men is lost. That's why we increased the ammo for archers from 28 to 36 in Samurai Warlords. We also gave mounted archers the same bow as foot archers. The mounted unit will still loose a shootout with a foot archer because the horse is a larger target and therfore easier to hit.

I think the main reason archers seemed more effective in STW is that the average armor level was lower. It ranges from 1 to 5. The valuable WM and cheaper ND sword units only have armor = 1, there are no shields and even the spearmen are only armor = 3. Only two units, HC and NI, have armor = 5. Everything else is armor = 3 or less.

On a stationary, 60 man infantry unit of armor = 1, 60 archers will get 3.3 kills per volley. In 40 seconds they will reduce that unit to half strength, and still have more than half of their ammo. That will drop off to between 0.8 kills per volley on an armor = 5 infantry unit. Kills per volley on similarly armored cavalry units is somewhat higher, but I don't remember the numbers.

I often find that during battle I can find a good vantage point for my archers but rarely feel that they've done enough damage when their quivers are empty. I also feel that the AI archers are less than effective unless they're in ridiculous numbers. I can usually charge them down with light cavalry and take only a few losses from the volleys they let off. In reality cavalry charging straight at a unit of archers would take many more losses before closing with them, unless they were suitably well armoured.

The arrow's arc carries it over charging cavalry. This is actually a designed feature of the engine to contribute to combined arms gameplay. If the cavalry is made to retreat by a supporting unit, you'll see the archers get many kills on them as they move away. Killing AI archers with cav in STW or Samurai Wars isn't so easy because they are samurai and have some melee capability. That delay in their collapse gives the AI time to bring a spear unit into the melee, and since spear units are very effective vs cav, it's bad news for the cav which is very expensive compared to either archers or spears.

This is where the design decision in MTW to turn spears into defensive unit hurt the AI because the AI thinks that spears kill cav. I can see in Samurai Warlords that the AI is using spears exactly the same way it used them in STW. It's very prompt with sending them after cavalry that's within a certain range, and it does keep spears within a proximity close enough to protect archers. If you want the AI to play a stronger game, then change the spears so that they can dispatch cavalry in a more timely fashion.

Perhaps lethality could be increased slightly and the armour piercing decreased a bit?

Those would be the parameters to change because effectiveness is linearly related to them. It's much harder to get a predictable result by changing the accuracy.

Horse archers are worse. I have no idea why their "mounted longbow" has worse accuracy than the shortbow, when throughout history horse archers were some of the best archers ever. Also in this game they can only fire when stationary so it's not as if the lack of accuracy can be put down to them being on the move.

A hold over from STW. It's one thing we didn't keep in Samurai Wars, but we only ended up giving the mounted archers the shortbow after extensive testing.

I actually never noticed that the shortbow can't use high trajectory. This might be a mistake in the projectile stat, but it's not clear to me that it would be an advantage for them to use a high trajectory or if they would ever use it. They can already shoot over the heads of a unit with the low trajectory.

[caravel]

The shortbow and mounted archer stats in MTW are exactly the same as they were in STW. The effectiveness of a volley is exactly the same in both games against a target of the same armor level under the same conditions. There is a difference in how unused ammo is treated. In STW, unused ammo was retrieved from dead men in the unit. In MTW, the unused ammo of dead men is lost. That's why we increased the ammo for archers from 28 to 36 in Samurai Warlords. We also gave mounted archers the same bow as foot archers. The mounted unit will still loose a shootout with a foot archer because the horse is a larger target and therfore easier to hit.

I think the main reason archers seemed more effective in STW is that the average armor level was lower. It ranges from 1 to 5. The valuable WM and cheaper ND sword units only have armor = 1, there are no shields and even the spearmen are only armor = 3. Only two units, HC and NI, have armor = 5. Everything else is armor = 3 or less.

On a stationary, 60 man infantry unit of armor = 1, 60 archers will get 3.3 kills per volley. In 40 seconds they will reduce that unit to half strength, and still have more than half of their ammo. That will drop off to between 0.8 kills per volley on an armor = 5 infantry unit. Kills per volley on similarly armored cavalry units is somewhat higher, but I don't remember the numbers.

That actually makes a lot of sense and I can see why it would make a vast difference. I wasn't aware that the there was, effectively, per unit ammunition in STW and per man ammunition in MTW either, you learn something new every day.

The arrow's arc carries it over charging cavalry. This is actually a designed feature of the engine to contribute to combined arms gameplay. If the cavalry is made to retreat by a supporting unit, you'll see the archers get many kills on them as they move away. Killing AI archers with cav in STW or Samurai Wars isn't so easy because they are samurai and have some melee capability. That delay in their collapse gives the AI time to bring a spear unit into the melee, and since spear units are very effective vs cav, it's bad news for the cav which is very expensive compared to either archers or spears.

This is where the design decision in MTW to turn spears into defensive unit hurt the AI because the AI thinks that spears kill cav. I can see in Samurai Warlords that the AI is using spears exactly the same way it used them in STW. It's very prompt with sending them after cavalry that's within a certain range, and it does keep spears within a proximity close enough to protect archers. If you want the AI to play a stronger game, then change the spears so that they can dispatch cavalry in a more timely fashion.

I remember stats were changed for spears in MTW v1.1 from v1.0 and spears were rendered useless in MP. What exactly was changed stat wise, I have always wondered about that? Would reversing this overall for all spears be a positive move?

Those would be the parameters to change because effectiveness is linearly related to them. It's much harder to get a predictable result by changing the accuracy.

This is what I was thinking. I would prefer arrows that are slightly more lethal, but not ridiculously overpowered and less effective against armour.

A hold over from STW. It's one thing we didn't keep in Samurai Wars, but we only ended up giving the mounted archers the shortbow after extensive testing.

Well I could possibly use the MTLG projectile for something else as the difference is only in the accuracy and nothing more.

I actually never noticed that the shortbow can't use high trajectory. This might be a mistake in the projectile stat, but it's not clear to me that it would be an advantage for them to use a high trajectory or if they would ever use it. They can already shoot over the heads of a unit with the low trajectory.

I may add the high trajectory to the foot archers and remove it from horse archers, which would be one reason to keep both types of projectile I suppose.

[Martok]

I also feel archers are underpowered in MTW, though only vs lightly armoured and unarmoured units. Vs armoured units they are realistically less effective. The Samurai Archers in STW always seemed to do a lot more damage to me. I often find that during battle I can find a good vantage point for my archers but rarely feel that they've done enough damage when their quivers are empty. I also feel that the AI archers are less than effective unless they're in ridiculous numbers. I can usually charge them down with light cavalry and take only a few losses from the volleys they let off. In reality cavalry charging straight at a unit of archers would take many more losses before closing with them, unless they were suitably well armoured.

Perhaps lethality could be increased slightly and the armour piercing decreased a bit?

To be honest, I'm not sure I would reduce *any* of their stats, period -- after all, they're not like Sumurai Archers, who (as Puzz just pointed out) at least possess a limited melee capability. Not that we want to make vanilla archers overpowered and turn them into a bunch of Legolas clones, but they should at least have a better kill rate against lower-grade troops than they do.

Still, you should do what you think best, mate. I'm not really familiar with the armor/defense stats for spear/militia units (especially since I don't know what changes you may have made to them) and how they'd be affected by improved archers, so you know far better than I as to how to best tweak them.

Horse archers are worse. I have no idea why their "mounted longbow" has worse accuracy than the shortbow, when throughout history horse archers were some of the best archers ever. Also in this game they can only fire when stationary so it's not as if the lack of accuracy can be put down to them being on the move.

This shouldn't be a problem for much longer however, as I intend to equip them with the compound bow. The question is though, should they use the same compound bow as foot units (such as JI, Futuwwas, [Eastern] Archers and Psiloi use) or should a less accurate version be made for horse archers (though I can't see the sense in this)?

Well my understand is that most HA units used a smaller version than their foot-based counterparts, as full-sized bows were too cumbersome on horseback. I don't know that they would be less accurate, however. I *do* seem to recall reading they had lesser range (because of their bows' smaller size), but don't quote me on that.

Another issue is, which horse archer units should use the compound bow? All or only certain units?

To be honest, I would say pretty much all of them should have compound bows. My impression is that just about every group that developed cavalry archers as a part of their battle tactics adopted the compound bow fairly quickly, less they be outclassed and defeated by their enemies. However, I'm definitely no historian in this respect.

With the horse archers previous bow out of use, we have a free weapon. I remember someone mentioning differences between the mongol bow and the eastern compound bow? If this is the case the old mounted longbow slot could be used for this, as a mongol bow. I am no expert on this though and would need some info on the differences between the two.

I didn't realize there *was* a difference, to be honest. I'd always thought the main difference between the Mongols and other peoples with horse archers was that the Mongols were generally better at concentrating their fire (from their missile cav). I don't know.

[caravel]

To be honest, I'm not sure I would reduce *any* of their stats, period -- after all, they're not like Sumurai Archers, who (as Puzz just pointed out) at least possess a limited melee capability. Not that we want to make vanilla archers overpowered and turn them into a bunch of Legolas clones, but they should at least have a better kill rate against lower-grade troops than they do.

I'm not speaking of reducing any of the stats of vanilla archers here. Vanilla archers are the unit itself and their only stats are their melee one. The stats I'm referring to are the shortbow projectile stats. This is the actual missile that the archer "fires" at the target. Any edits to this projectile would effect all units using the shortbow, which are Genoese Sailors and vanilla Archers. These are the standard western european archers. Most other foot archer units are now using the compound bow which is much more deadly. The problem with the Vanilla Archers as I see it is that they are only moderately effective against unarmoured units and a waste of time against armoured ones unless you have three or four units all firing at the same unit in unison. My aim is to make them even more useless against armoured units forcing the use of basic crossbows which are now available in early, but the bane of unarmoured units. If possible I would like to tweak their lethality until they are quite devastating against armour level 1 units (no armour / light armour), but virtually worthless against well armoured units such as CMAA who would have walked through a storm of these taking few casualties due to their superior armour and shields. This would make the longbow much more worthwhile, and not merely an "uber unit".

Still, you should do what you think best, mate. I'm not really familiar with the armor/defense stats for spear/militia units (especially since I don't know what changes you may have made to them) and how they'd be affected by improved archers, so you know far better than I as to how to best tweak them.

All changes are documented in the summary. If you (or anyone) is not sure of the current Pocket Mod 1.0.6b stats of a unit, they can ask and I can post them up.

Well my understand is that most HA units used a smaller version than their foot-based counterparts, as full-sized bows were too cumbersome on horseback. I don't know that they would be less accurate, however. I *do* seem to recall reading they had lesser range (because of their bows' smaller size), but don't quote me on that.

I have heard this also, but I'm not sure as to whether the foot units used the same bow. I'm also unsure as to which used the compound and which used the recurve. The terms seem to be used interchangeably quite a lot but I'm sure that they weren't the same thing. I'm almost sure that the the eastern bows were usually composite recurve bows and not compound bows. I'm not sure where this term has crept in.

To be honest, I would say pretty much all of them should have compound bows. My impression is that just about every group that developed cavalry archers as a part of their battle tactics adopted the compound bow fairly quickly, less they be outclassed and defeated by their enemies. However, I'm definitely no historian in this respect.

That is what I'm thinking, but we really need to work on the various bow's stats to ensure that each is a reasonably accurate representation, and that they are balanced against each other.

I didn't realize there *was* a difference, to be honest. I'd always thought the main difference between the Mongols and other peoples with horse archers was that the Mongols were generally better at concentrating their fire (from their missile cav). I don't know.

A big difference, the Mongol recurve bow would be the best bow in the game IMHO, and arguably better than the English longbow, with a longer range. The Turks would also qualify to use this bow, as the Turkish bow was on a par if not better later on (certainly after the Il-Khanate had absorbed the Seljuks (yes there should be two Mongol factions in MTW, but it can't really be done - and have them both emerge. The only alternative would be to rename the Golden Horde as simply "The Mongol (Successor) Khanates")).

The way I see it, there probably need to be two types of composite/recurve bows. A standard one for most eastern factions that use them such as the Hungarians as well as for the Steppe cavalry units, Desert Archers/Horse Archers, Futuwwa, Nizari units and [Eastern] Archers, and a specific one for the Mongols and Turks.