Solution to weak missile units!

[JRock]

Well if CA isn't going to fix it, why don't we all just agree on some improved stats for the missile units and then post the finalized unit files here which we can all download and use online. As long as everyone's stat files are the same, we can play without any problems.

It would be nice to have archers actually damage 30% of a unit before either the unit reaches them or the archers run out of ammo.

Most recent example is a battle I just played where a unit of Nizari (60man unit with bows) shot most of their ammo at a stationary 100man unit of Order Foot in tight square formation and they killed SIX of them. SIX. SIX MEN TOTAL. Wave after wave of arrows did JACK SHIT. That's so unbelievably nerfed as to be ridiculous.

So anyway, what if we all got together and determined an ideal set of stats for the missile units? We could solve the problem without having to bother CA.

We could do this for any other unit issues as well, right?

[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 10-11-2002).]

[FacelessClock]

No doubt, archers are so bad I never ever even take them anymore. For one, they don't do much damage. Two, anything except gunpoweder units has such a big arc that they end up always hitting behind their targets. Archers in great in SP, but in MP, the enemy doesn't just stand around and let himself get pummled, for some strange reason.

[Earl of Sweden]

Im not going to debate with you JRock but hasnt Order Foot a rather good armour and a big shield? I mean if you were the order foot wouldnt you crunch behind the shield every time you saw the archers fire a volley?

I dont have the experience yet too say what is right and what is wrong but I do would like to see the archers lead their targets a lot more than they do now...but that aint fixed with altered stats (not saying its a bad idea though as soon as all agree)

[SA_Pointman]

I have to agree with EoS. Sure, bodkin arrows can pack a punch, but firing a volley (not a sniper shot) against a prepared, experienced and well armored enemy shouldn't yield seriously many casualities.

Another scenario, where the knights were attacked from behind, or while fighting another unit the arrows would probably be more fatal to the knights. Are they in the game?

just my 2fl

But i agree, archers are all but worthless.. they just serve purpose as a sparring partner for the enemy archers. I rather bring light cavalry instead, to hunt down enemy archers.

[This message has been edited by SA_Pointman (edited 10-11-2002).]

[Dorkus]

Missile units aren't worth it in SP either. IMO, you're far better off getting a (cheaper) light cav unit to run down enemy archers, and flank enemies at their weakpoints.

THey simply do way too little damage (other than naptha throwers -- 15 SAPs in one shot... wow!!).

[JRock]

You are right that Order Foot are armored, but regardless of that fact, archers are pretty much useless and need a bump in killing power.

[anymapkoku]

Arbalesters/crossbowmen are key to beating spears.

Hi,

Well, there's one simple solution already available. Turn off limited ammo. Except for javilins and a few other units, like the naptha throwers it's actually MORE realistic to have unlimited ammo available. Regular bow and xbow exqipped archers almost never ran out of arrows, even in protracted engagements.

There was an excellent program on History International about the history of the bow that ephasized just this point, which had been my opinion, having read a great deal of history when I was in school and after.

Playing that way I have no complaints about any archers, though I only play SP. Anyone playing this way will definitely revise their opinion of Longbows.

Heck, I just won a battle (on Hard) with 4.5 horse archers, 4.5 steppe cav and 1.25 spearmen (total 400 men) verses 1500 French and Novgorods.

I placed my spears on the bridge, gathered my HAs around and peppered the heck out of anyone trying to cross. I lost 138 men. They lost c700.

They didn't ignore the second bridge, either. After a while spent trying to force the bridge where most of my units were, they sent units across the second bridge AFTER I'd withdrawn half of the pitiful few defenders I placed there.

Suddenly I had some of my HAs start to flee and didn't know what was going on until I saw that some French Hobilars had made it through my bedraggled steppe cav remnant guards and were charging my HAs from the rear. (I guess that's what I get for concentrating too long on one section of the battle.)

I used 2 full steppe cav to chase them off, but they created chaos in my rear for some time and nearly broke my spearmen holding the bridge.

Best battle I've had since getting the game. I really felt on the edge.

On a footnote, it is a bizarre situation. I'm playing Egypt in the 1097 mod and FRANCE! FRANCE, for pete's sake, has taken Khazar and two other provinces in "Russia" (the Byz have Crimea). My little force is a bunch of rebels I bought while fighting the Turks that retreated into one of the interior steppe provinces before I got full control. (Argh.)


Con brio,
V'ger gone

[Gringoleader]

A unit of longbowmen will decimate anything you put in front of it, end of story. The trick is to get the enemy bogged down in a long fight and just pour arrows onto their back ranks. Even basic archers can make a difference this way.

If you use archers in isolation then they are likely to get hammered, but if you protect them with light cavalry and stick them behind the main heavy infantry line more often than not I've found they can be invaluable in tipping the odds in my favour. They also tire out enemy units and act as quite an annoyance to opposing players.

PS Anything that says "vulnerable to missiles" or words to that effect on it's description is going to die on its arse against bowmen period.

[Muneyoshi]

Im against this idea more then you can imagine, anyone remember when we did this in MI? IT SUCKED!!!! "You on 1.02 or 1.03?" "1.03" "Crap, never mind" . Making our own "patch" is a stupid idea, what player thinks is fine anotehr will think its totally jacked up

[CBR]

Well I wouldnt mind if they got more arrows. Its the price that hurts. Basic archers cost 225 florins for 60 men but take a look at their stats...they are of the same material as the basic spear unit just with bow and arrow instead of spear and shield. So if we say they have equal value/cost an archer unit would cost only 75 florins... 1/3 of the original price.

As I see it CA has determined that if a unit is a missile unit, it is better than a h2h unit and therefore more expensive. But missile units should really be counted as a support unit only and be a lot cheaper

Same thing with horsearchers 250 florins compared to 175 florins for Alans and they have worse morale and less h2h skill price should be half of the original value or something.

CBR

[ElmarkOFear]

Hey Pointman, did you ever play Panzer General 2 and were you a member of Team Puy in Gettysburg? If so, this is Team Puy Elmarko. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif Let me know and I will make sure I get your addy and you get mine! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[maroule]

I understand your point guys,
BUT it looks pretty logic to me that archers lack punch, in terms of game balance (hum, I think we had that discussion somewhere else yesterday).

My 2 cents :
- Archers are an early unit, they are actually effective against other early units (with low armour, and even against valuable units like horse archers - try archers against horse archers, and see the expansive horses dies). As armour increases, they loose their relevance and pavise arb or arb become standard missile, making archers obsolete.
- making archers more powerful would disqualify the use of arbs, which are indeed very powerful against armour, but of course fire slowly. Better archers would rubbish the justification for using arbs.

So I'm against rebalacing them in SP.

As for MP, it looks we should have a completely different game to satisfy everybody, so I won't even try to have an opinion here. Maybe make an expansive uber missible unit (the robin hood commando), available only in that mode?

[GilJaysmith]

I'm going to repost in this thread something I just added to another one:

I just tested Nizaris against Order Foot in a custom battle with the retail version, and they scored an average 1.5 kills per volley.

I don't see that archers should have the right to kill 30% of a unit which is charging at them. The test above suggests that they can easily achieve that when shooting at a stationary target before running out of ammo.

Gil ~ CA

[Michael the Great]

Quote Originally posted by Dorkus:
Missile units aren't worth it in SP either. IMO, you're far better off getting a (cheaper) light cav unit to run down enemy archers, and flank enemies at their weakpoints.

THey simply do way too little damage (other than naptha throwers -- 15 SAPs in one shot... wow!!). [/QUOTE]

Art thou romanian?

------------------
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.

[FacelessClock]

1.5 kills per volley!

This means, by your own words, that Archers cannot do any significant damage to a moving unit, and only moderate damage to standing unit.

Why, oh why, would I ever want to bring archers?

[maroule]

Quote Originally posted by FacelessClock:
1.5 kills per volley!

This means, by your own words, that Archers cannot do any significant damage to a moving unit, and only moderate damage to standing unit.

Why, oh why, would I ever want to bring archers?[/QUOTE]

remember it's a test against highly armoured. try archers against early/low armour units, and the use will be obvious (higher kill rate, depleted units easier to rout). If you plan high or late, then go for arbs.

[JRock]

Quote Originally posted by GilJaysmith:

I don't see that archers should have the right to kill 30% of a unit which is charging at them. The test above suggests that they can easily achieve that when shooting at a stationary target before running out of ammo.

Gil ~ CA
[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't expect 30% of kills when being charged, but I would expect 30% of a stationary unit to die and in my experience it's more like 5-12% of a unit dies from the arrows, which seems a bit wrong considering the thickness of the arrow volley and the density of the troops being shot at.

[Cyricist]

So? They use shields and armor? Then arrows don't penetrate that well..

A possible solution may be (I do this quite often now) upgrading the bowmen's weapons to level 2 and possibly give them some valour. They shoot better and with better arrows, thus hitting more armoured guys.

If using missile troops in MP is your plan to take on armoured guys, upgrade them http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif. Who cares about cost effectiveness, when your plan works out. After all, planning ahead on how to gain advantage is what this game is all about. Plus the archers ALSO make good against non armoured units, should the need arise. Aiming at concentrations of men (particularry the front unit of such a concentration) hits ALL of them. I do THAT a lot too (if indeed I use archers at all).

[Puzz3D]

On flat map, fine day, stationary units, custom battle, normal difficulty, archer in 3 x 20 close formation, Order Foot in 4 x 25 close formation, Pikemen in 5 x 20 close formation, target near max range:

v0 archer vs v0 Pikemen: 79 and 84 kills
v0 archer vs v0 Pikemen(side shot): 93 kills
v0 archer vs v0 Order Foot: 32, 33, 40 kills
v2 archer vs v0 Order Foot: 39, 38, 39 kills

Pikemen have armor = 1
Order Foot have armor = 3 + 2 shield = 5
The shield only protects to the front so you can do better shooting from the side or from behind.

It's my understanding that it's part of the intended design that, if the target moves forward, the archers will overshoot. It's probably better to use manual targetting so you can select stationary targets rather than waste arrows trying to hit something that's moving.

I don't want to see a return to the projectile wars of WE/MI v1.02, by bumping up kills to 3 per volley on something like the Order Foot. A few more arrows for archers would probably be ok, but I would be very wary of doing more than that.

[Protoman]

GilJaysmith,

Thanks for the response\.

If historically archers were no good for 1.5 kills per volley then so be it. But if you are doing that for balance reasons or because you just "don't think it's right" for archers to deal signifigant damage then that is not the best way to go IMO.

I say model it historically and let it fly, balance be damned, nobody cared about "balance" when waging war against someone.

The problem is we find it hard to believe this is historically accurate. Why did the commanders of the day bother with archers when we ourselfs can't find them that practical? That would logically imply something is not historically accurate if our tactics are not lineing up with history.

Maybe the problem is not even with the archers? Maybe something about the rest of the forces is historically inaccurate. Either way I hope it can be fixed, whatever it is.

[This message has been edited by Protoman (edited 10-11-2002).]

[Spino]

Sorry, I like missile units the way they are and believe their performance is reasonably accurate with respect to history. I stock up on archers in SP and they certainly have their moments. Keep in mind basic archer units use SHORT BOWS, not long or compound bows, there's a HUGE difference in range and penetration power between those types. Basic archers wreak havoc on lightly armored units, making them especially effective against the Muslim factions. Horse archers and especially those camel units which can negate your expensive cavalry are dead meat to a basic archer unit.

[CBR]

Quote Originally posted by Protoman:
GilJaysmith,

Thanks for the response\.

If historically archers were no good for 1.5 kills per volley then so be it. But if you are doing that for balance reasons or because you just "don't think it's right" for archers to deal signifigant damage then that is not the best way to go IMO.

I say model it historically and let it fly, balance be damned, nobody cared about "balance" when waging war against someone.

The problem is we find it hard to believe this is historically accurate. Why did the commanders of the day bother with archers when we ourselfs can't find them that practical? That would logically imply something is not historically accurate if our tactics are not lineing up with history.

Maybe the problem is not even with the archers? Maybe something about the rest of the forces is historically inaccurate. Either way I hope it can be fixed, whatever it is.

[This message has been edited by Protoman (edited 10-11-2002).][/QUOTE]

Well one reason they bothered with them was becuase they were cheap. Imagine if Archers would be 75 florins and arbalesters perhaps 125 florins heh.

Units being historically correct is IMO important but if some units cost arent changed we will still have problems (Speaking about MP as that is what I play)

CBR

[JRock]

Again, the issue I have is the uselessness of missile units in multiplayer. Of course against AI in singleplayer you can probably get a decent level of kills.

The problem is that they need beefed-up stats for multiplayer. Again, this goes back to needing separate unit stats for sp and mp.

No one uses missile units to the level they should in multiplayer because they are mostly useless, ESPECIALLY for their cost.

[Protoman]

Quote Originally posted by CBR:
Well one reason they bothered with them was becuase they were cheap. Imagine if Archers would be 75 florins and arbalesters perhaps 125 florins heh.

Units being historically correct is IMO important but if some units cost arent changed we will still have problems (Speaking about MP as that is what I play)

CBR[/QUOTE]

I wasn't talking about basic archers though. When I said "archers" I meant missle units in general.

Even fully upgraded longbowmen don't cut it in my expierence.

[CBR]

Quote Originally posted by Protoman:
I wasn't talking about basic archers though. When I said "archers" I meant missle units in general.

Even fully upgraded longbowmen don't cut it in my expierence.[/QUOTE]

Ohh yes missile troops in general. I just gave basic archers and arbalesters as an example. Longbows...costing more than chiv men at arms??? they should go down in price too ofc

CBR

[Soapyfrog]

So, JRock, why is there such a strong discrepancy between your test's and Gil's?

Gil managed to kill @42 Order Foot from 70 yards with Nizari's on a flat map, you claim you got negligible kills.

What's going on here?

[AgentBif]

Quote Originally posted by Soapyfrog:
So, JRock, why is there such a strong discrepancy between your test's and Gil's?

Gil managed to kill @42 Order Foot from 70 yards with Nizari's on a flat map, you claim you got negligible kills.

What's going on here?[/QUOTE]

I'd say Gil's test demonstrates that archers are nearly worthless. Nizari have about as bad a missile defense as any unit. If an archer squad can at best take out 2/3 of one enemy unit and then they are spent, why ever buy them?

And when you consider that the target must stand there for a long time for the archer to achieve even that, why ever buy them??

I find missile units _very_ handy in SP but MP is another story. Adjusting them in MP to make them cheaper, give them a better rate of fire, and/or make them accurate against moving units would improve MP a lot by adding a new tactical approach to the game.

BTW, can crossbows/arbies shoot over a friendly screen to hit the unit engaging the screen?

bif

[Earl of Sweden]

Quote Originally posted by AgentBif:
If an archer squad can at best take out 2/3 of one enemy unit and then they are spent, why ever buy them?
[/QUOTE]

Because then you can use another troop to punish the remains of his archer-decimated.

If you were to show up without archers and get known for it your opponent can take this into account when selecting his troops and you will run out of tactical measures.

[Soapyfrog]

AgentBif, you have a point, but arrows also have a morale effect which is not being factored in these test, frex a unit that is being threatened or engaged in melee AND is taking missile fire will probably lose the melee.

[AgentBif]

Quote Originally posted by Earl of Sweden:
Because then you can use another troop to punish the remains of his archer-decimated.
[/QUOTE]

So then your two guys take out one of his, what does he do with his second guy? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

bif

[Protoman]

Quote Originally posted by AgentBif:
So then your two guys take out one of his, what does he do with his second guy? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

bif[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Sure a 1, 2 combo of archers and melee could take out ONE melee. But TWO melees could have taken them out just as easily. Why hassle with the archers in that case?
At least with TWO melees half your force won't be spent after one encounter.

By the way. I went and tried using those hinishians (However you spell them) and even with fully upgraded armor/attack/morale/general in MP I only killed 4 byzantine infantry before I was overrun and killed!

That is ridiculous for such an insanely expensive unit! For their price (and stacked full of upgrades) you would EXPECT at least 6 kills a volley. They are all suppose to be uber leet marksmen aren't they? I sure as hell didn't pay 8000 something florians (after upgrades) just so they can hide and die the moment they pop up.

[Soapyfrog]

You'll take less losses with the archer/melee combo...

OTOH if he has the same number of units as you, ick... hope you're defending on a hill.

[Tuidjy]

Archers were never cheap. As a matter of
fact, the unit that should take the longest
to train would have been longbowmen.
As for knights, you simply should not be
able to train them, period. Every province
with a lord, castle and the prerequisit
infrastructure should pop a few knights
every now and then, and that's it.

But back to archers. Archers were extremely
hard to train, because using a bow is much
harder, and requires much more strength and
coordination than, for example, a spear.
Furthermore, an awful lot of archers would
cripple themselves or develop strain injuries

Why did people use them at all? Well, a
couple or reasons. Not because they could
decimate heavy infantry, that is for sure.
A large, iron-bound shield of ply wood would
sneer at arrows. Not so armour, though.
Not only were armoured units extremely rare,
but the most widespread type of armour,
chainmail pretty much worthless again bodkin
and similar arrows. And in addition to this,
most shields were not particularly good
against arrows either - the ironbound/plywood
ones are heavy.

The reason that archers were used is that
in the early years, the mass of troups were
not armoured, that people without a
shield (i.e. two-handed spearmen) were
dead meat, and that horses could not be
armoured heavily enough. The reason that
archers were not heavily used is that they
were hard to train, that manufacturing good
bows and arrows was surprisingly hard and
expensive (do not ask me why, I read it,
but cannot explain it either)

And of course, in the end, gunpowder kicked
armour's ass... there was one famous battle
where the French cannon drowned the
'invincible' Swiss pikemen in blood.
But in order to make the game relistic, a
few things would have to be introduced.

1. Different armour for hand to hand,
arrows/bolts, and buttle. No armour save
against boulders/cannonballs.

2. Some units will not be trainable, but
instead generated as time goes by (nobles
producing knights for the liege)

3. Armoured/upgraded units would be very
expensive. Higher level upgrades only at
iron deposits.

4. Extended training times for hard to train
units, i.e. longbowmen, pikemen, etc...

All together, a different game, I'm afraid.
Oh yeah, and cavalry should have higher
charge bonuses, and a rider+horse should
count for 1.5, or 2 men for moral
computations, and frontal charges against pikes and spears should carry a chance to
impale the rider... And yada, yada, yada...
all Warhammer has been doing for years, and
then some.

[Protoman]

I agree with above mostly.

With all M:TW's greatness the one thing it fails to simulate is the variance between training, displine, and skill.

Even the lowliest of spearmen come out of the barracks fully trained in moving as a unit and displined.

THAT is why calvary charges were TRUELY used is because well displined troops were not that common because of the fuedal vassel/patron system.

It wasn't until the governments because more centralized that armies could be funded and universally trained by the state.

For M:TW to be a proper sim they would have to tack on a lot of building and make it take effort to earn the right to build centralized armies. That is another game altogether of course because they would have to rework everything to fit with a fuedal type supply system.

So what can they do in the expansion pack instead?
I would say that they can implement a kind system of "training level" whereby units are more realistic in the time it takes to train. You can lowe the training level to produce inferior troops though... as time goes and you upgrade buildings you should be given access to higher levels of training so that players wont be picking the highest level training in the early ages.

[JRock]

Quote Originally posted by Soapyfrog:
So, JRock, why is there such a strong discrepancy between your test's and Gil's?

Gil managed to kill @42 Order Foot from 70 yards with Nizari's on a flat map, you claim you got negligible kills.

What's going on here?[/QUOTE]

First of all, there aren't. I didn't do tests, I used actual gameplay experience.

Second, as I've said several times already, I'm talking about multiplayer uselessness, not singleplayer. It's easy to make archers somewhat effective in singleplayer because the AI can be taken advantage of. That doesn't change the fact that archers are too weak for their price in mp.

[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 10-11-2002).]

[FasT]

Archers Suc.......Cav A 2..........They should kill more.A waste of florins for the price........AgreeD!

[Hakonarson]

IMO the problem isn't that archers suck - it's that players (and hence their units) can react far too quickly to them.

The command and control system for MTW allows instant changes of orders - even for troops that are out of sight of hte gneral and hundreds of yards away - he (you and I) can see whatthey see and react in a flash.

That's not realistic.

What to do about it is another matter and probably deserving of another thread and lots of longs posts that I don't have time for right now.... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif