archery tests (are Samurai archers worth it? etc)

[econ21]

Hypothesis: I wanted to see if Samurai archers were worth it compared to Ashigaru ones. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in their missile kill rates. It has been suggested that Samurai archer fire is "armor piercing", unlike Ashigaru fire, so I wanted to test for differences against targets of different armor.

Method: I tested one unit of archers under my control against one melee unit under AI control. I used the Crossroads map, which is fairly flat - deploying my archers back near some trees and allowing the AI to fire at will. The AI melee infantry started running when it got into range. I paused as the melee infantry hit the archer line to record how many had survived and how many had died to archery. I repeated each trial four times, comparing bow ashigaru and bow samurai against, variously, yari ashigaru, katana samurai and naginata.

Results: Ranged kills in each trial (e.g. 34 Yari Ashigaru died to missile fire in the first time I had them attack Ashigaru archers).


Discussion: There was considerable variation in the results - sometimes this was due to the contest involving one more or less whole volley. This may have been partly due to minor differences in the set up of the tests (the location and alignment of the archers; possibly even the weather). The number of trials is too small for statistical testing but the results are interesting.
The Samurai archers had 22.6% higher missile kill rates than Ashigaru archers against Yari Ashigaru, but 39.3% higher against Katana Samurai and 58.9% higher against Naginata.
Conversely, the Katana Samurai (armour=5) suffered 34.7% fewer casualties than Yari Ashigaru (armor=2) against Ashigaru archers and 25.8% fewer against Samurai. The Naginta (armour=9) suffered 54.1% fewer casualties than Katana Samurai against Ashigaru archers and 47.6% fewer against Samurai.

Inferences:
Despite the smaller unit size (90 vs 120), the Samurai archers kill more than Ashigaru archers. The difference is modest when fighting virtually unarmoured Yari Ashigaru, but substantial against armoured Samurai and even more, the heavily armored Naginata. Subjectively, I would conclude that Samurai archers are "worth it" in your main armies by the mid to late game when most of your enemies are samurai. Added to this, Samurai are much more melee capable (they always beat the Yari ashigaru whereas the Bow Ashigaru always lost).

The comparison of targets by armor suggests that armor upgrades (e.g. from smith provinces) are valuable. The +3 from an armorsmith could cut the ranged casualties of your Yari ashigaru by a third.

Finally, naginata rock - taking about half the casualties of katana samurai to missile fire.

Possible further research
I tried using fire arrows (Ashigaru vs Ashigaru) but observed no discernible difference in kill rates. It may be their main (only?) effect is to lower morale (and burn structures). Usage appeared erratic though - sometimes only one full volley of fire arrows went off, another time, three volleys. It may be that it is better to press fire arrows when the enemy target is in mid-range to maximise time on target (I pressed when they were just out of range).

It would be interesting to see the effect of experience upgrades.

I wondered if manually targeting arrows might give better results than auto-fire. Typically, at maximum range, only one or two archers appeared to fire. The first big volley comes quite a while after the target has passed the red maximum range line. I wonder if this is an unavoidable delay or if autofire has additional lag.

[Monk]

I've been wondering this since day one of release.

I agree that much more testing is needed, but at least, initially, it appears samurai archers are best suited for an anti-armor role.

Good work econ!

[Leptomeninges]

Out of curiosity, what about monk archers? Was there a reason you didn't include them or is that just the subject of another discussion?

I've also noticed that only a couple archers in a group will fire at long range. My interpretation was that the archers in range fired first (in the front rows) but in fairness, I'd only noticed it in passing and hadn't paid a lot of attention.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

These are Samurai Bow archers we are talking about,they can be far useful if used properly,the bow ashaguri are excllent archers(They make a good killing)Katana Samurai are a bit useless,the Cavalry is of the Takeda is great.

[drone]

From the 'pedia, missile stats are listed:
Ashis: Accuracy 25, Reload 20, Range 150
Samurai: Accuracy 40, Reload 60, Range 150
Monks: Accuracy 50, Reload 65, Range 175

Do we know how the Reload stat relates to time between shots? The Samurai reload is considerably greater than the Ashis. Can you run the same test, but base it on number of volleys (pause after X volleys have been fired)? That would give you a better indication based on total shots fired (volleys x men in unit).

[katank]

I'm also a bit curious about how upgrades change the equation. In a fully developed crafts province, you can easily get 60+ accuracy bow ashis.

I have a feeling they may well be more cost effective once upgrades are factored in.

[econ21]

There's no doubt about the cost effectiveness of bow ashigaru - even without upgrades, they cost half the upkeep and are only 28% less effective than bow samurai against katana samurai. But for your main army, you may want to pay extra to get the best you can.

Right now, I'm thinking of going for a mix of bow ashigaru and bow samurai in my mid to late game frontline armies. Say 3 ashis to skirmish in loose formation and take the casualties; and 3 bow samurai behind the lines to add weight to missile duels. Monk archers might well be even better in the latter role (because of the extra range).

To investigate many stats like accuracy upgrades, you'd have to start modding the unit stats. I would not be averse to doing that (e.g. I'd be very curious to compare the smith upgrades for melee, armor vs attack skill), but don't know how at the moment. If anyone with modding skill can explain how or point me in the direction of a "how to..." thread, I'd be grateful.

[RedKnight]

Econ, very cool work... it must take a lot of painstaking attention. Everyone here thanks you for the time spent on it!

One factor not being mentioned is, the quality of troops in a given space. Your 90 bow samurai only take 75% of the space of bow ashigaru on castle walls, or in your formation on the open field. IF all things were equal, this means they're 33% more effective, at least in one sense of the word. Then we can add Econ's findings on top of that, and they really start to look good. After all, why would the designers make smaller units (in terms of people) cost more?

As a bit of an aside, and contrary to what I said above, my impression is that bow warrior monks are not worth it (bow samurai are the happy medium), but naginata warrior monks ARE worth it, relative to spear samurai or ashigaru.