Longbowmen - 350 Florins for what?

[FacelessClock]

I just performed some tests. All units had no upgrades. All units operated in the stock formation, about 2 1/2 units deep.

Longbowmen vs. Jan Inf

The two units plucked away at each other until they were out of ammo. The Jan Inf always won the ranged war by a margin of about 20-10 kills, typically more like 15ish. Once out of ammo, the Jan Inf crushed the longbowmen.

The Jan Inf likely won because of a slightly faster firing rate and far far heavier defense and armour. The Longbow has -2 defense and 1 armour, the Jan Inf has 2 defense and 3 armour.

Both of these units cost 350 florins, but the Jan Inf is far superior. The Jan Inf can beat the longbow in archer duels, is FAR FAR superior in damage taking and melee, and can fight a spear unit to a standstill if used in the right formation.


Next test, Passive Arbs vs. Longbowmen.

BWAHAHAHA. A joke.

The Passive Arbs decimated the longbowmen. They typically lost 10 or 20 men, while the longbowmen routed from arb fire at about 15-10 men. In some cases the longbowmen ran out of ammo. The Arbs typically had half ammo left. Both units had the same range.

Archers vs. Longbowmen

Yea, the longbowmen beat the archers at range then charged to victory because the bow battle was taking to long for them.

In any case, the Longbowmen are NOT worth the 350 florins paid for them. In fact, these tests and other things show that NONE of the pure archers are worth anything at all. Arbs and hybrid archers have them beat hands down. Hybrids can beat up the enemy at melee, and arbs have a superior weapon in terms of accuracy.

All archers need to have the things which decide how they fire dramitically changed. Archers rain death down in a highly inaccurate way. Arbs are very accurate and have a excellent firing tragectory.

So, in summary. Longbowmen are no good, cost to much, and one of the worst units in the game.

[CBR]

Yes they cost way too much.. no doubt about that. The question is if they need to be better for the balance of the game or just need to be reduced in price or both.

AFAIK it was really only the English who kept using bows while most other european nations used crossbows. Easier to train and as technology improved crossbows became better than bows although they had a slower rate of fire.

Now I havent done any tests and only have limited experience with bows and longbows but as I see they are nice to have but only if the price is considerable reduced...dont think they need improved stats.

CBR

[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.

[shokaku76]

Anyone try out having all meelee units only? Yeah, you will suffer more casualties, but it could work... close in on the archers, bash their skulls in while flanking the enemy spearmen... then chase the routers with 1 or 2 calvary... Maybe make use of ceap peasants to soak up the arrows. Maybe I'll give this a try and save 350 florins not spent on the Longbows.

[FacelessClock]

I do that all the time in Multi-Player. it can be a problem sometimes, if your enemy has 4+ arbs and targets your low moral or low defense units. But then I remind myself I have 4 more units that can flank or hold the line then the enemy.

I figured their might be some problem with the AI. So I tested with my side as the longbows instead of the AI side. The kills were better, almost even, but the Longbows ran out of ammo WAAAAAAAY before the arbs. I tried to melee them, but by the time the longbows go to the Arbs, they had lost 8 or 10 more men....and then the arbs proceeded to beat the snot out of the longbowmen.

It seems all bow units need more ammo. Arbs always win outright missile wars because they can fire twice as long as the archery units.

And again, I did the same thing with the Jan Inf. Kill Ratio at range was similar, though a bit better for the Jan Inf. However, once out of ammo, the Jan Inf went over and melee the arbs no problem. Half the time, the Arbs just gave up and ran before the Jan Inf had hardly touched them with their blades.

[andrewt]

The value of a longbow lies in their AP, so your tests don't really reflect their strengths. Instead of the normal battle, try level 4 armor longbows vs. level 4 armor of the other guys. Longbows would probably do better than they do right now.

The difference between longbow and shortbow in the game is that longbow has a 0.5 modifier against armor. Against low armor units, they are almost the same as regular archers.

[CBR]

Quote Originally posted by shokaku76:
Anyone try out having all meelee units only? Yeah, you will suffer more casualties, but it could work... close in on the archers, bash their skulls in while flanking the enemy spearmen... then chase the routers with 1 or 2 calvary... Maybe make use of ceap peasants to soak up the arrows. Maybe I'll give this a try and save 350 florins not spent on the Longbows.[/QUOTE]

My most successful MP army is an army without missile units and some cheap alans...4 mostly. Its the army that has produced the highest amount of casualties and lots of times has given me the chance to quickly defeat one enemy army and flank one..sometimes even two other enemy armies. I never win a cheap victory if its a 3v3 or 4v4 but its a very strong army.

CBR

[CBR]

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]

Hmm Longbows are not in the early era in MP.

CBR

[Goodridge]

Yes, LBs are not in early, but in SP you can get them fairly quickly. You can bribe the Welsh and then build up the facilities quickly, well before end of century. I had at least two dozen Welsh LBs throughout my English empire by the time of the period switch.

However, I do agree. As it stands there is no way to recreate Agincourt the way it happened - the French cav took massive casualties from missile fire and routed back en masse, trampling the French MAA.

I'm not sure if this should be changed. Right now I think the balance is ok in SP because of the poor AI. Archers can get in a decent amount of damage. However, I would agree that archers should get boosted for MP.

I think that we should stick with the current ammo amounts, because they might not get a chance to use enough of it up by the time melee is underway. I would suggest a slightly higher strength, at least as strong as xbows. A longbow was good against armor, but anything that can punch through a metal plate is also going to be better at punching through some peasent's ribcage http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

Basically we need to decide if improved missile fire would greatly unbalance the game. I think that MP and SP is more fun when there are lots of melee units maneuvering and fighting than a bunch of missile units trading blows. The best situation is a combination of the two, but if we screw up the balance, this game will become a simple matter of line 'em up and shoot it out.



------------------
Kyle Goodridge

[NinjaKilla]

Right, I m gonna bloody test this myself! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif Will post my findings.


------------------
Clan Kenchikuka (http://www.totalwar.org/kenchikuka)

[CBR]

Quote Originally posted by Goodridge:
However, I do agree. As it stands there is no way to recreate Agincourt the way it happened - the French cav took massive casualties from missile fire and routed back en masse, trampling the French MAA.

[/QUOTE]

Well it was more the stakes than the bows that stopped the cavalry charge. They are ofc not in the game so its difficult to recreate the battle.

Quote Originally posted by Goodridge:
.....Basically we need to decide if improved missile fire would greatly unbalance the game. I think that MP and SP is more fun when there are lots of melee units maneuvering and fighting than a bunch of missile units trading blows. The best situation is a combination of the two, but if we screw up the balance, this game will become a simple matter of line 'em up and shoot it out.
[/QUOTE]

Yes it would be boring if missile units suddenly became the dominant unit on the battlefield. Missile units were always support units.

The best target for missile(the cavalry) is not strong enough so not much of that and pikes (with low armor and no shields) are not needed. If that is changed then missile units will become better even without changing any stats (price down ofc)

CBR

[Coeur De Lion]

i find longbows to excel in groups off 500+ im routed 400 byz infantry with 900 longbows once (in custom battle) but even so the only excel in 500+ i think you will see the differance do not go by, 60 longbows V's 60 Jan.inf it really doesnt show properly.

Coeur De Lion

[cart6566]

Well I guess the test is somewhat useful for a multiplayer, but really, how often does one see archer duels. I find that the way units are used makes a vast difference in their performance (kill to death ratio, and whether you win or lose the battle). Anyhoo, Longbows need a couple of valour points and some spears to run behind. Get those, and you will see how well they work, even with just two units. Hint: target armored opponents.

[CBR]

Quote Originally posted by NinjaKilla:
Right, I m gonna bloody test this myself! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif Will post my findings.


[/QUOTE]

Ermm does difficulty level in custom game mean anything for archers or is that just morale?

CBR

[FacelessClock]

Did some tests against target held stationary by some super duper ballista crews.

All units were 0 valour. I ran each test four times.

vs. FMAA
Jan Inf Kills: 33, 25, 36(Enemy Rout), 33 (Enemy Rout)

Longbow Kills: 28, 34, 42, 32

Passive Arb Kills: 38, 42, 31, 42 (Enemy Rout in every battle)

vs. Order Foot
Jan Inf Kills: 32, 29, 26, 22

Longbowmen Kills: 36, 42, 40, 37

Passive Arb Kills: 71 (Enemy Rout), 61 (Enemy Rout), 60 (Enemy Rout), 60

Now, I'm sure your asking "How in the hell did the Passive Arbs kill 60+?"

Its all about the ammo, stupid!

The Arbs simpily fire three or four times longer then the Longbowmen, and each volley takes out 2-6 men, unlike each longbow volley which takes out 1-3 men.

Plus, the Arbs could probley beat up the Longbowmen in melee.

So there are some tests vs. armoured targets.

[merlin]

i read that longbows in this game are hopeless and agree in mp this is the case patch should balance longbow as being the decisive weapon,especially against spearmen this would help to redress power of spear unit make it very weak against archers,i also read on another thread that a hit rate of only 1.5 men per volley. i read in richard holmes redcoat tha musket had a ten percent chance of hitting a target maybe not the one amed at but 10 percent all the same,surely for a skilled archer a similiar hit ratio should be applied especially to spearmen ,oh well only a suggestion,maybe reduce ammo but increase hit rate a bit like korean skimishers in shogun mi

[Spino]

I can't comment on the MP aspect of MTW but in SP please keep in mind that unlike crossbow, arbalester and gunpowder units archers can fire OVER THE HEADS of the units in front of them, and to great effect if your forces are situated on a large hill. Archers may not be able to hit the enemy units fighting your front line troops but any cavalry or support units in their rear or on the wings is still fair game.

[JRock]

Quote Originally posted by FacelessClock:
In fact, these tests and other things show that NONE of the pure archers are worth anything at all. [/QUOTE]


Yeah brother, we've established this several times now but apparently we're just talking to ourselves since it's not going to change CA's view of it.

If they would just enact separate units stats/costs for sp and mp, they could easily just make archers a little cheaper and therefore something worth considering taking in mp, instead of the almost-completely-uselessness they radiate right now.


Spino - the obvious downside is that archer units firing at attacking units tend to overshoot those units, so their arc'd shots have both a positive and negative side to them.

[AgentBif]

Quote Originally posted by FacelessClock:
Now, I'm sure your asking "How in the hell did the Passive Arbs kill 60+?"

Its all about the ammo, stupid!
[/QUOTE]

BTW, it's pavise arbaleste, not "passive". Also, Arbaleste and Longbow pack the same amount of ammo, so it's not "about the ammo stupid". The reasons arbaleste are superior to longbows is either they pack much more punch per hit, or they are more accurate, or both. The longbows just don't seem to get nearly as many kills per volley as the arbaleste do.

Otherwise, the longbow is supposed to have advantages over the arbies:

1) Improved rate of fire means you potentially inflict more casualties early in the battle (leaving the enemy more short-handed when the metal meets the meat).

2) They have armor piercing ability, so they supposedly shred heavily armored opponents more effectively... Such as heavy cav (not used in MP) and armored pikes.

3) Longbows use an arc trajectory so they can fire over the heads of your own units with less risk of inflicting friendly fire casualties and morale penalties.

Whether or not all these advantages actually work out in the numbers when you run tests is another issue. But it was the intent of the developers to give the longbows these advantages.

Personally, I think the longbows need more punch per volley. Unfortunately, this is not a fix that can be made in the units file... I think it would require a tweak in the code, ie, the patch.

And, I heartily support any move to make archery a viable tactical choice in MP... right now it is not viable. Infantry is the only viable tactical approach in MP. archery and cavalry need to be enhanced so that there are different ways to play MP.

Are you developers listening?

bif


[This message has been edited by AgentBif (edited 10-13-2002).]

[Gringoleader]

Longbowmen are the schiznit in SP. Unlike arbalesters and particularly pavise arbalests they can run away from ground troops, thus meaning they don't die nearly so much if things start to go eggshaped. If a worst case scenario does occur and your army does a runner at least you'll see most of the lads make it back in one piece.

Also in a big battle they can unload their ammunition in next to no time and be withdrawn quickly so a fresh unit can enter the fray.

Bear in mind that in SP you can improve the weapon and valour of longbowmen by simply building a master bowyer and sticking a good general to the unit. It's quite easy to get Welsh longbowmen to valour three or four without them having to have even seen combat. Stick about three units on a hill, group them, concentrate fire on a single target and they'll annihilate anything you put in front of them.

Testing units in isolation is pointless. Units work in synergy with other units, that's why the other units are there.

[FacelessClock]

"BTW, it's pavise arbaleste, not "passive". Also, Arbaleste and Longbow pack the same amount of ammo, so it's not "about the ammo stupid". The reasons arbaleste are superior to longbows is either they pack much more punch per hit, or they are more accurate, or both. The longbows just don't seem to get nearly as many kills per volley as the arbaleste do."

Zuh? Besides the spelling, thats EXATCLY WHAT I SAID, except you left out the part about arbs firing 3 or 4 times longer.

"1) Improved rate of fire means you potentially inflict more casualties early in the battle (leaving the enemy more short-handed when the metal meets the meat)."

Arbs are better at taking out enemies who charge then longbows. Also, arbs are armor piercing too. Also, you don't want missile units firing into melee. I've tested it, the missiles take out about 70% as many of your guys as the enemy.

"2) They have armor piercing ability, so they supposedly shred heavily armored opponents more effectively... Such as heavy cav (not used in MP) and armored pikes."

So do arbs......and Jan Inf......

"3) Longbows use an arc trajectory so they can fire over the heads of your own units with less risk of inflicting friendly fire casualties and morale penalties."

See above. Longbows firing into melee kill about 6 to 7 of your own men per 10 of the enemy.

ALL archers just need to be cheaper. You can't make them to insane, it wouldn't be much fun if half your army died before combat was engaged, nor to realistic. It would be nice if I didn't have to spend 225 for a archer unit that can take out peasents and urban milita, and 350 for a archer unit that can can only scratch an Order Foot by depleting its entire ammo reserve.

[FacelessClock]

Gringoleader - Perhaps things are different in SP, but at least in MP valour and weapon upgrades have no noticeable effect on ability to kill.

Single Player is not the issue. It is well known that the AI is so stupid that it will stand around and get shot at forever, espically if you distract it with some peasents. Multi Player is the issue.

[NinjaKilla]

Quote Originally posted by CBR:
Ermm does difficulty level in custom game mean anything for archers or is that just morale?

CBR

[/QUOTE]

You can't really test against the computer - it has all sorts of modifiers. Best to test in MP.

BTW just incase anyone is wondering, but honour/ valour levels do not affect missile damage (well it didnt in the last two games).


------------------
Clan Kenchikuka (http://www.totalwar.org/kenchikuka)

[TenkiSoratoti]

Longbows baaah, forget 'em.

------------------
"The good fighters of the old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an oppurtunity to defeat the enemy."

[Gringoleader]

Well I've only played a couple of LAN games in MP but the guys I've played against tended to crap their pants when half a dozen longbow units opened up on them. It's not a pretty sight when your expensive armoured Pikemen are annihilated before they even get into melee.

[JRock]

Quote Originally posted by Gringoleader:
Well I've only played a couple of LAN games in MP but the guys I've played against tended to crap their pants when half a dozen longbow units opened up on them.[/QUOTE]

Ah so you have no real multiplayer experience to judge from. Just one freak game where your opponent mismanaged his troops, giving you the false impression that your longbows were perhaps effective.

[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 10-13-2002).]

[anymapkoku]

pavise are better than limited ammo units because they can fire forever.

[maroule]

Quote Originally posted by anymapkoku:
pavise are better than limited ammo units because they can fire forever.[/QUOTE]

*embarrassed cought*
they actually have the exact same amount of arrows than normal archers (28). Only difference is the rate of fire, which make them seem longer. Have your archers not fire automatically, and they will last longer (but it takes a lot of micromanagement).

[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.

[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. Longbows can fire over the heads of other units and more importantly have enough speed to be able to skirmish away from anything of normal speed or slower.

[AgentBif]

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 http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

Who's gonna win the race, the snail or the hare? "The snail!" you say "because he can run forever!"

bif

[FacelessClock]

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.

[olaf]

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

[JRock]

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?

[FacelessClock]

"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.

[deejayvee]

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!

[Oda Matsu]

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.

[FacelessClock]

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.

[deejayvee]

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.

[FacelessClock]

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).]

[JRock]

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.

[clansman]

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.

[KampfBar Ritter]

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 !!!)

[FacelessClock]

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.

[AgentBif]

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

[NinjaKilla]

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 (http://www.totalwar.org/kenchikuka)

[FacelessClock]

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.

[AgentBif]

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

[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?

[AgentBif]

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

[TenkiSoratoti]

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."

[Soapyfrog]

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.

[JRock]

Too bad the point of this thread is Longbows, not Arbs. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif

[Cyricist]

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...

[FacelessClock]

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?

[Orda Khan]

My findings are that no archer unit is worth a stuff http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif

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."

[Arcsim]

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.

[JRock]

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."

[JRock]

Quote Originally posted by Orda Khan:
My findings are that no archer unit is worth a stuff http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif

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.

[Katasaki Hirojima]

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.

[AgentBif]

Quote Originally posted by FacelessClock:
"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?!
[/QUOTE]

Astonishing dude, you are almost totally impervious to logic.

By your reasoning, if CA were to give the arbies the same ROF as a longbow, that would degrade them! Afterall, their ammo wouldn't last so long any more.

CLEAR?

bif

[Kraxis]

Sadly Hiro... Longbows are actually better than SA. They have better melee stats, better range and their arrows have AP.

But the weakness of archers is because most units now have Armour 3 (many due to shields) or above, and that renders Archers very weak. Remember how Nags could soak up arrows, they only had Armour 5, now lots of units can do the same.

It wouldn't help to make archers cheaper, they would still not be worth it. Very weak in a fight and don't kill that many at range, because they take up a valuable spot in the 16 slots they would still be a liability.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

[anymapkoku]

Think of it this way. You've got 2 longbowmen (700) and an army on a hill. And I've got 3 pavise crossbowmen(600) and an army on a hill. Now we begin shooting eachother. Let's assume that your longbowmen destroy 60 men each, before they run out of ammo, and my pavise Crossbowmen kill 0 men each. So now after the ranged battle you're left with 0 ranged units, and I'm left with 1 crossbowmen. I begin shooting you to death laughing at you and telling you you have no chance, and you get mad and decide you don't want to take it anymore, and attack me. But my hill gives my melee an advantage. So your army loses because you had no choice but to either A) Attack uphill and die or B) Wait 23 years for me to run out of ammo and hope you can win with whatever you have left vs my full army. If you Choose B) I will eventually demoralize your units pretty badly, and we will have to fight it out in melee eventually no matter what you do. And to top it off, my pavise crossbowmen cost me less than your longbowmen.
You have to kill 100 order foots for longbowmen to be worth it. If all my pavise crossbowmen does is sit there and do nothing and let your longbow shoot it to death until it runs out of ammo, then I have won.

[FacelessClock]

"Astonishing dude, you are almost totally impervious to logic.

By your reasoning, if CA were to give the arbies the same ROF as a longbow, that would degrade them! Afterall, their ammo wouldn't last so long any more.

CLEAR?"

The words "in this case" are crucial, but you do not seem to understand them.

For the brain damaged, in this case means that because Pasive Arbs kill as many in a period of time, but shoot longer then longbows, then the longer ROF has become an advantage which, in the end, means the arbs can shoot and therefor be useful for twice to three times longer then the Longbowmen.

That is the case.

CLEAR?

[JRock]

It's perfectly clear to me, and I'm tired as heck after working 11 hours today.

http://www.acura-cl.com/forums/images/smilies/dunno.gif

[Soapyfrog]

Clock, it's not an advantage. Period.

If arbs had the same ROF as Longbows, then they would be absolutely insanely good and everyone would take them.

Having the slow ROF they do relegates them to uselessness on the MP battlefield. Period.

Ergo, slow ROF = DISADVANTAGE

If you don't believe me, wait for the patch, modify arbs to fire as fast as longbows, and watch the spectacular carnage commence.

So, arbs slow ROF disadvantages them to the point that they only kill as fast as longbows, and not 4 times faster.

It is NOT an ADVANTAGE "in this case" it is the DISADVANTAGE that brings arbs more in line with other xbow/longbow units.

*sigh*

[Dreyland]

If in the same amount of time Arbs and Longbowmen have the same amount of kills Arbs have more of an advantage because they have more ammo left after the Longbowmen have exhausted theirs. Which means they can continue to shoot after Longbowmen are all out of arrows and rack up even more kills.

[FacelessClock]

In this case. In this case. You're not getting this. Put this in context. In this case is the comparison to archers and longbowmen.

And how does it bring Arbs in line? IT DOESN'T.

But how about we get back to the main track, the fact that longbowmen suck? I didn't come here to argue english and how to read (OR REPEAT MYESELF 100x BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE CANNOT READ), and it sure as hell seems this isn't going to get through to you if you don't want it to.

[Arcsim]

Exactly. The bottom line is that arbs are more effective than longbowmen in 90% of situations.

[Gringoleader]

It's all a matter of how many points are available, what the terrain is and what formation you like to play.

Longbowmen can and do fire over friendly units without hitting their own troops if the targets are at distance. That's a fact. When your troops are in hand to hand combat with enemy soldiers then you do run the risk of hitting friendly troops depending on how disordered the fighting is.

A lot of longbowmen can thus be deployed to fire on a single target a lot easier than a group of direct fire arbalests can. You could have a line of about six units of longbows behind the main formation and if properly space they should all be able to fire upon any unit approaching the line at any point.

This means the high fire rate and indirect arc of the longbow is an advantage, units without shields can be broken before they even make contact with the main force.

I believe the contention here is that while some people have formed strategies using longbowmen that they consider to be effective other people have not. It depends on how one plays the game. Personally I think they are about right, and if you think they are too weak turn infinite ammo on. Soon sorts them out.

[Soapyfrog]

Argh... but it is not the ROF that is the advantage.

Their ADVANTAGES are accuracy, AP and range.

Their DISADVANTGE is ROF.

The fact they have shots left over is not relevant. Their kills per salvo is.

That it takes them SO long to get to their full potential is a DISADVANTAGE. This disadvantage does not unfortunately OUTWEIGH the arbs considerable advantages.

This disadvantage brings arbs into line with longbows becuase over the same time period they will kill the same amount. It's a balancing factor, a limitation.

This is the reason why, ignoring cost, arbs and longbows are equally useless in MP. Functionally, they are identical... i.e. unable to affect the battle significantly before it is brought to a decisive result.

Clock, I'm sorry you feel you have to repeat yourself. If you weren't repeating a wrong statement, I'd feel more sorry for you.

You are however quite correct in your orginal point. Longbows are quite useless in MP, and are outperformed by arbs in SP.

[Gringoleader]

It's not just kills per salvo that count, it's how many salvoes they fire. In a battlefield context they will be hitting the enemy hard and often. How this is a disadvantage is lost on me.

Just to add another handy use for longbows is when they run out of arrows you can use them to chew up the enemy arbs in melee. You might not win, but you can stop them shooting for a while.

[anymapkoku]

If you think that Longbows are uselss why are you saying they're good?

[cihset]

Just for the record, discussing and pointing out flaws in semantics usually get you more enemies than friends and is in fact rather childish.

Now, on to Arb's.

I've always belived in online communities in MP games to naturally sort out the weekest / best combinations and tricks in games, simply because people like to win. "survival of the fittest". This have been the case ever since I begun playing doom (prescendant to Quake for you newbies out there)
By studying what's the prefered choice of units online compared to the victories, you will get the real picture of what is good and not. (granted that the population of players is big enough)

[FacelessClock]

"It's not just kills per salvo that count, it's how many salvoes they fire. In a battlefield context they will be hitting the enemy hard and often. How this is a disadvantage is lost on me.
Just to add another handy use for longbows is when they run out of arrows you can use them to chew up the enemy arbs in melee. You might not win, but you can stop them shooting for a while."

Putting Longbowmen in melee sounds like a great way to start a rout.

Longbowmen can shoot over the heads of your troops. So? The kills they get will still be pathetic and the only enemy they can effect will be weak to missile troops. And if the enemy charges, the only way your troops are going to get more then a kill or two a salvo is if you have some kind of major terrian advantage.

[+DOC+]

Err, Longbowmen are better than Highland Clansmen in melee. Same stats but Longbowmen have morale 4 and armour-piercing axes. HC have morale 0 and no AP weapon, although i think they run faster. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

That's certainly worth considering.

------------------
=MizuDoc=

[This message has been edited by +DOC+ (edited 10-16-2002).]

[Kraxis]

It seems that all people have forgotten to mention that units under fire get a -2 to Morale... And some people have stated that your own guys don't get this penalty if it is Friendly Fire (undocumented). This would actually make archers a good deal better than most people think, but still not very good. Longbows with their higher ROF can keep up the penalty in melee so your guys get an advantage and perhaps cause a rout.

I think that was the arguements the devs came up with... The Morale penalty.

Now I'm off to test the Jannisary Inf and Longbows myself. I'll be back soon to post my results.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

[anymapkoku]

I've said it a fagging billion times. You can't compare a 213424234 florin unit to a 10 florin one.
Ranged units are good for getting the other guy to attack you. Does anyone deny this? If he is attacker then you have the advantage of fighting where you choose. Does anyone deny that choosing where you fight is important? If you chose a good spot for yourself, you will win. Therefore, ranged units can be useful. Longbowmen, however, are only ranged for as long as their ammo holds up. No ammo= not ranged. Does anyone deny this? Therefore, which is the better ranged unit? 1) A unit which is ranged(pavise due to nearly infinite ammo) or 2) A non ranged unit which cannot shoot(longbow out of ammo)? The answer is obvious, a ranged unit is a better ranged unit than a non ranged unit!
He who has the ranged units either 1) Shoots the other guy to death or 2) Forces the other guy to attack which is suicide.
Now a lot of the time it doesn't matter what ground you fight on, so ranged units either way don't matter. But I'm saying, if you need ranged units, you get pavise. It doesn't matter ifthe longbowmen get more kills or not. You don't get ranged units to get kills. Anyone who judges a ranged unit by how many kills it gets is clueless. If you want kills, you get melee. If you want to fight on ground which gives your melee the advantage, you get ranged.
--reaverlisk

[NinjaKilla]

Chill out Faceless, its better for us all if you keep those attitudes to yourself. Thank you. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Clan Kenchikuka (http://www.totalwar.org/kenchikuka)

[Didz]

Quote Originally posted by Goodridge:
As it stands there is no way to recreate Agincourt the way it happened - the French cav took massive casualties from missile fire and routed back en masse, trampling the French MAA.
[/QUOTE]

According to Keegan's research the idea that the French took massive casualties from the English Longbow may not be entirely accurate.

His research suggests that whilst the French found the hail of missiles disorientating and disruptive rather than lethal and naturally shied away from the source becoming bunched in front of the battles of men-at arms positioned between the archer wedges instead.

Most of the killing seems to have occurred when the men-at arms and archers then closed on the bunched horsemen and began hacking them down at close quarters.

It would be interesting to know if anyone ever did a wound analysis on the casualties after a medieval battle. Certainly those that were conducted after Napoleonic battles were very revealing particularly in respect of the number of casualties inflicted with cold steel.

As far as MTW is concerned it is sort of possible to recreate the Agincourt effect but it does need the use of spearmen or solid infantry to take the place of the stakes. I have certainly witnesses French Royal Knights dithering about in front of a line of massed archers screened by spearmen.

------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

[This message has been edited by Didz (edited 10-16-2002).]

[FacelessClock]

"Err, Longbowmen are better than Highland Clansmen in melee. Same stats but Longbowmen have morale 4 and armour-piercing axes. HC have morale 0 and no AP weapon, although i think they run faster."

You are wrong.

Highlander Clansmen have a better charge, and 2 better melee. They are quicker. They have weaker defense, slightly. And they suck badly after the intial charge, so I'm not sure if saying Longbowmen are as good as Highlander Clansmen in melee is a compliment.

[Kraxis]

Ok I have returned from my tests...

Agincourt, summer, hard.
AI has the archers.
Any rain/wind and the test was nullified.
All tests were carried out at maximum range.

First I tried to test Longbows (LB) against V2 (so they don't rout due to losses) Pikemen (100 men, 1 Armour, a good testssubject), that worked well enough, but I could not get the Jannisary Inf (JI) to work. They wanted to melee or at least close the range. So that went down the drain.

Then I tested the two against +3 Armour SAP (96 men, 7 Armour) and got some interesting results.
LB averaged at: 49,2 kills.
JI averaged at: 24,4 kills.
I did 10 tests with each (not counting faulty tests).
Besides this, LB has a good advantage in range (they begin firing at the end of the last farmingpatch while JI begin at the middle of the brown patch)

Because the problems faced against the Pikemen I tried to find a replacement unit that would kill about the same amount of Pikemen. So I tested Jannisary Archers (JA) (obvious choice) and Archers against the same SAP as before.
The results were indeed very interesting, because where the JI had an average of 24,4 kills the JA had an average of about 32 (5 tests) and the Archers about 30 (5 as well).
So normal archers are a little better at the ranged killing than hybrids, quite what I suspected.

Clearly the JI don't have the AP capabilities of the LB when we are talking about ranged.
I didn't test the ROF of the two though.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

[+DOC+]

YEah you're right FC, but with their shield:

LB have 3 att, -1 def = 2 melee points.

HC have 5 att, -3 def = 2 melee points.

Unforunatetly i can't remember if HC have a shield or not?! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Anyways, they're very similar but LB have much higher morale but are slower and have a poorer charge. Plus LB can shoot, lol. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Make of that what you wish...

[Bob the Insane]

Quote Originally posted by +DOC+:

LB have 3 att, -1 def = 2 melee points.

HC have 5 att, -3 def = 2 melee points.

[/QUOTE]


Hi, Could you explain what you mean by melee points??

Far as I am aware (from the Strategy Guide) melee combat goes like this. Unit A and Unit B fight. Soldier in Unit A's attack (with modifiers) is compared against Soldier in Unit B's defence (with nodifiers) to produce a percentage chance that Unit A soldier will kill the Unit B soldier. Then the reverse is done to to produce a percentage chance that Unit B soldier with kill Unit A soldier. Then the engine produces a random percentage figure for each soldier and if the random percentage produced id lower that the kill percentage that unit kills it's target. But as all the numbers are effective evaluated at the same time, it is possible for the soldier to kill each other.

Anyway, where does melee points fit into this?

[AgentBif]

Quote Originally posted by Didz:
It would be interesting to know if anyone ever did a wound analysis on the casualties after a medieval battle. [/QUOTE]

I don't think they would have needed autopsies Didz, if you see a mass of bodies way in the back that look like porcupines, you'd think "Damn, them longbows sure kicked ass!"

Both the English AND the French seemed to have this sort of reaction after Agincourt, Crecy, etc, so it's prolly safe to say that in fact the longbows scored significant casualties.

If the bulk of the casualties came from melee, then I think the English would have had a lot more casualties as well, since melee is dangerous for both sides. It seems to me that it is far less likely that the Agincourt would have had such a huge lopsided casualty count if the longbows weren't scoring a major fraction of the kills.

bif


[This message has been edited by AgentBif (edited 10-16-2002).]

[FacelessClock]

Question, though.....was it longbows, or bows?

I don't think the french had many bows in that battle.

[AgentBif]

Quote Originally posted by FacelessClock:
Question, though.....was it longbows, or bows?

I don't think the french had many bows in that battle.[/QUOTE]

I don't think the French had ANY kind of ranged capability at Agincourt. You may have misread my post somehow?

bif

[Soapyfrog]

Longbowmen would be far more worth it if their melee stats were better. History and their stats certainly warrants a small improvement.

[Arcsim]

Quote Originally posted by Gringoleader:
This means the high fire rate and indirect arc of the longbow is an advantage, units without shields can be broken before they even make contact with the main force.[/QUOTE]

I already said that longbow are great(better than arbs) against units that are weak against missile. However, if the enemy sees longbowmen in your force, only an idiot would charge his missile-weak units at the front of his force. Instead, he's going to send his armored units with shields(Order foot, saracens, byz inf, etc.) units in front. Arbs get many more kills against these units. The fact is that arbs will get you more kills for less money than longbows will in all but a few MP situations.

[FacelessClock]

Agentbif - What I am saying is this. Was it longbows that were such a help, or simpily bows in general?

[AgentBif]

Quote Originally posted by FacelessClock:
Agentbif - What I am saying is this. Was it longbows that were such a help, or simpily bows in general? [/QUOTE]

With their higher power and bodkin arrowheads, longbows had the capacity to penetrate full plate, which standard bows did not have at the time. This is one of the major reasons the English longbow had such an awesome reputation and is a major reason they had such a huge impact at Agincourt and Crecy.

The French relied on their heavy plate and the Longbows pretty much nullified that protection. Other factors were significant, but conventional bows would not have easily had their way against the French knights.

bif

[FacelessClock]

Not so sure about plate...
http://www.brothersgrymme.org/arador/forum/messages/28465.html
http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/university/longbow.html

But that is besides the point, since the seemed to decimate everything else. And by and large, most of an army is "everything else"

Plus I don't want a thread derail on real life penatration abilties of the longbow, an arguement which would end with the sentence "NO THEY CAN GO THROUGH 4.2 CM OF WOOD NOT 3.9 u FAG!!!"

[AgentBif]

Quote Originally posted by FacelessClock:
Not so sure about plate...
[/QUOTE]

That's good information, thanks. I'll have to check out my Hardy reference on the longbow in some more detail to see what he has to say about the AP capabilities.

bif

[Cyricist]

Quote Originally posted by cihset:
Just for the record, discussing and pointing out flaws in semantics usually get you more enemies than friends and is in fact rather childish.

Now, on to Arb's.

I've always belived in online communities in MP games to naturally sort out the weekest / best combinations and tricks in games, simply because people like to win. "survival of the fittest". This have been the case ever since I begun playing doom (prescendant to Quake for you newbies out there)
By studying what's the prefered choice of units online compared to the victories, you will get the real picture of what is good and not. (granted that the population of players is big enough)

[/QUOTE]

Which completely erases any fun for people who want to play something just for the sake of 'the historical feeling' of being a medieval commander. This is what is unfortunate when running this game through gamesspy. It stimulates the popular 'I know the best unit/combination to bash anything you throw at me' trend that many RTS players are used to doing. Anyone remember the Ogre Magi vs Crusader in WC 2? The Ogres won it in the end. Yay. You could predict who would win almost by playing a certain side with certain uberunits. This game should not be about 'winning with the best units', it should be about winning with the best tactical strategies and moves.
People here argue that 'it often becomes one big infantry brawl'. Off course it does, if the people you play with have no interest or the skill neccesary to use certain units correctly, such as (longbow) archers.
Apart from that, there is the fact that in the campaign game, you can view our adversaries armies by boder watch towers and all kinds of spies, so that you can PREPARE your own army to a certain encounter. You can't do that online. The only thing you can be quite certain of, is that 90% of your battles will be against total strangers using 'the best infantry unit maxed out', which, IMHO, SUCKS ASS. This is unfortunate for a game with a lot more potential to be more than 'just another RTS'.

If you really want to prove you can play well online, prove it with ANY unit and ANY army of VARIED composition. Proving it by maxing out the best unit available is not playing well, it's using the game engine to win and is in no way related to this type of game. Or it should not be. Or at least that is what I think. Playing over gamesspy ONLY = BIG MISTAKE people at CA!!

[JRock]

Quote Originally posted by FacelessClock:
I don't want a thread derail on real life penatration abilties of the longbow, an arguement which would end with the sentence "NO THEY CAN GO THROUGH 4.2 CM OF WOOD NOT 3.9 u FAG!!!"[/QUOTE]


Quote Originally posted by AgentBif:
I'll have to check out my Hardy reference on the longbow in some more detail to see what he has to say about the AP capabilities.
bif[/QUOTE]


http://www.wam.umd.edu/~jinman/no.jpg

[Kraxis]

Quote Originally posted by FacelessClock:
Agentbif - What I am saying is this. Was it longbows that were such a help, or simpily bows in general? [/QUOTE]

Did you mean that as historical (English bows or Longbows) or in gameplay (infantry with bows or Longbows)?

If it the latter then, I have pretty much in my tests made sure that the Longbows are superior to the Jannisary Infantry in a ranged role, and surprisingly so are other dedicated archers.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

[favedave]

Longbows are an important part of a SP army.

Remember, it's combined tactics that win the day.

(If you're talking about longbows in MP, well, I have no idea what use they are since I don't play MP.)

But if you're English SP, then longbows are one of the best units in the game.

You just have to use them correctly.

Group them all and have them fire OVER THE HEADS of your infantry at ONE ENEMY UNIT. They will decimate that unit so that by the time your infantry contacts it, they can make it flee.

They are also extremely effective against Royal Knights.

Their value over arbies is that arbies can't fire over the heads of your other units.

Arbies are GREAT for attacks across rivers, since the computer doesn't move out of range of arbies!

But if your army is heavy with arbies and the enemy has lots of cavalry, then the cav will stomp your arbies after they get only one shot off.

Arbies are great, but are not as versatile as longbows. If you know you'll be facing lots of slow moving infantry - use arbies! They'll mow them down.

As for all the people whining about longbow having poor melee - duh! They're missile units! If you get them into melee much - you're playing with poor tactics.


Again, this all applies to single player. I don't care for MP matchups since I like strategy as much as tactics.

[FacelessClock]

"the people you play with have no interest or the skill neccesary to use certain units correctly, such as (longbow) archers."

Their is no way to use longbows so that they will be effective enough to be worth their cost in a unit slot, at least in most MP games, which are late/high with 6000+ florins.

You can rack up the kills if you go around the flank and fire into the enemies back. But the same is true with enemy arbs, and they still arn't likely to be as effective as speedily throwing a cavalry unit into the enemy back.

[anymapkoku]

Cyricist, I take issue with you in some points you made. The game may be a fantasy world to you in which you love to warp back into time and impersonate some military commander in the 1200's but to me it's just a game. Game's are made to be won. If it takes brains and strategy to win, it will be challenging and hence it will be funner. If it does not take brains and strategy to win, it will not be challenging and therefore won't be fun. Saying it isn't fun to just use the biggest infantry unit maxed out shows me that you have been playing people that just use the biggest infantry unit maxed out, and those people aren't very good or challenging to beat. You are only has skilled as the players you can beat. If you have been playing vs people as you described, you aren't very good and therefore need to learn a thing or two. I understand and agree with you that if all anyone ever did was 1 thing every game, and it took no brains or strategy to accomplish, that that would be no fun. But I disagree that only the "biggest baddest infantry unit maxed out wins." It's one strategy out of many. Furhtermore, if you're so interested in military history and experienceing history, who are you to say that commanders and generals of the 1200's didn't exploit certain unit/troops types to overcome their enemies? Saying " it should be winning with any unit that shows your good and not just picking the best units" is an oxymoron. If you do not pick what you believe do be the best army, then you cannot claim to care about winning. If you cannot claim to care about winning, than you cannot say that you want to win by using a unit properly. Also, who are you to say that people picking the best armies aren't using their units properly? Suppose by 16 order foots I win by using them properly. You're assuming I don't use them correctly simply because they are the biggest, baddest infantry unit? Who are you to say that you have used longbows any more properly than I have used the biggest most upgraded infantry army? And also, as a general rule, if you are good at this game, you most likely know how to use each unit properly. So most of the players you criticise for using uber armies, are in fact likely to be good with longbows anyways. Lastly, perhaps using an infantry army requires even more knowledge/skill/strategy than using any other type of unit? Who are you to say that 16 orders take less skill to win with then 1 of each unit type?

[anymapkoku]

And just to defend War2, that was a game that was different than any other. It's strength was it's strategy, not it's tactics. What I mean is that it's not what units you made or how you played the battles that determined who won, but rather your overall strategy. So while I agree that it had almost 0 tactics in battles and not much unit variety, it was a great game nonetheless because it was challengeing as far as the "big picture" was concerned.

[Cyricist]

First, WC2 WAS great, I am not saying it wasn't http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif I just pointed out it's biggest flaw in multiplayer.

Second, I have battled against people who did use some form of tactics and won graciously. I've also had a 16 unit army lose from 4 units of gallowglasses maxed out, with the other player explaining me he maxed them out and they would either win or run, whatever I did didn't matter. I personally think that is a flaw. If I had won that one, it would have been luck. I lost it though, due to a lack of luck. No real skill was ever involved, just my army's fear for units with more than 5 valour points than them.
Third: Sure it's "a game" and you'd like to win. I like to win too. But not with seeing half my adversary's army laying in a bloody heap with half MY army. The art is to keep casualties down, which is hardly possible if everyone picks 'the strongest infantry unit'. You named taking 16 units of order foot. That's about 5000 men am I correct? 5000 men order foot could never be assembled in one army, not by themselves anyway. These guys were scarce! It's like having 3000 knights templar running around on the same field. It never happened. In my opinion it's no fun at all and just exploitation of the game mechanics and thus a sad waste of a good game. Of course commanders picked 'the best units' if they could do so (!), but often armies depended on a backbone of 'simple' troops, like peasants and spearmen/lancers. I think it would be fun if players kept that in mind when playing online.

Luckily, and you implied something that I will now defuse, we can all play the game how we want to play it! I'm not saying you HAVE to play it a certain way, I'm just argueing that certain bits of it are poorly picked up by other players in my eyes.

As for your question who am I to gripe about this: I'd rather not bring the subject up, because the medieval period was not exactly my forte, but I have STUDIED history and have a degree in it.

[anymapkoku]

Yes but I don't believe a 4 gallow army should have any chance. Perhaps the reason it won was because you "playing to have fun" as you put it, instead of "playing to win" as you put it. Perhaps if you had picked a good army it would crushed his 4 gallows. So I'm afraid you may be actually basing your conclusion on the an event which should not have occurred if you were playing to win with the best army. I think that if 4 gallows were really that great, people would be using them more. The fact that they aren't used more is evidence that they are not that great, and the flaw may be in the army you chose, not in how I or anyone else plays the game.

[Cyricist]

I had quite a few elite units myself, like knights templar (I was playing the French I believe).. the only difference was that he used 5 armor, 5 weapon en 3 or 4 valour gallowglasses and all my (16) units were on 0. I mauled his first unit fine, but then the other three (quite brilliantly, if I may add) assaulted my front elite unit and decimated them as they had with his unit (also using missile troops). Result: full rout. Even my remaining elite units took off like the wind. Now this was one of my first battles and it may also have been lack of skill on my side, but my adversary told me a different story when he explained how he'd done it.

[anymapkoku]

Also, I don't believe that just because 4 gallows or any other unbalanced army wins once, that that means that the game is unbalanced. The fact taht scissors consistently beats paper doesn't mean that scissors is the only strategy. Suppose someone used s/p/r all equally? If you haven't discovered rock yet, then of course anyone will always use scissors as that will dominate paper. There are currently counters to the unbalanced armies you speak of right now, but you and most people have not found them.

[anymapkoku]

Then I would have to say that it was your experience and skill which led him to win. I agree with your overall point that it's not fun if 1 unbeatable strategy is used repeatedly, but I disagree that 1 unbeatable strategy exists. I'll agree that kngihts templar aren't that good however. But the uselessness of some units does not mean that useful units don't require strategy to use when attempting to win. The best thing would have been to surround him and hit him all at once with all your units, using wedge(this will kill gallows fast with any units you have that he's not targetting.)

[Cyricist]

The point is, in singleplayer you can counter that on the basis of intelligence. In MP you lack certain knowledge beforehand. And beating a one-unit-type army of equal strength would not be a problem for me (in fact, I have done it). The biggest point here was that I had no AP against +5 armor, or at least not enough. I wrecked the first unit of gallowglasses with longbow shots and assaults from three sides. I had plenty ammo left for at least two of the three remaining units, but I never got the chance to shoot them since my entire army fled the field.

[anymapkoku]

I don't believe that you have to know what army he's going to use beforehand. Certain armies win in certain situations. You can predict what army he will bring depending on the situation. If he decides to be tricky and doesn't use the correct army for the corresponding situation, then he suffers for this as his army will not be as effective. It's like in Starcraft where you can have a good idea that a on Dire Straights a zerg player is likely to go mutalisks. Of course you can never know, but assuming he plays his best bet, if you know what his best chance is, you can be ready for it.

[Cyricist]

First off: Well that leaves room to cheat doesn't it? I would host in a desert area, with a 'potentially weak' desert army, and whatever European nation my adversary would pick would be in dire trouble, because I would know certain things he would not. It isn't realistic in any way nor is it fair play. It's not like you drop your army from a helicopter into unknown enemy territory. You marched there somehow and thus you could have SOME intel on where you are and what you are facing.
The same goes for unit choice. There is this thing called 'espionage'. Being able to view the battlefield beforehand would help. And NO, pressing F1 to see what army someone has 2 minutes before the fight starts is not considered the ideal way of gaining info on him.

Second: Have you read 'the art of war'? It states that intelligence beforehand is half your victory (strengthening my first point here). And it is true. Sure some battles took place blindly and in less favorable conditions, but most were planned ahead with intelligence and counter-intelligence, EVEN in the middle ages.

[Puzz3D]

Goodridge,

"Basically we need to decide if improved missile fire would greatly unbalance the game. I think that MP and SP is more fun when there are lots of melee units maneuvering and fighting than a bunch of missile units trading blows. The best situation is a combination of the two, but if we screw up the balance, this game will become a simple matter of line 'em up and shoot it out"

I agree, and that's precisely what I didn't like about WE/MI v1.02. At least now the hth infantry can move in the face of ranged fire. The problem is that, if the ranged is too weak, then in MP you will do better by taking all hth units and you loose ranged tactics as part of the game. I think ranged could be made somewhat more effective without tipping the scales the other way, such as more arrows for archers, but, because of the need to keep SP balance unchanged, the adjustment to MP ranged would probably have to be cost adjustments.

[Cyricist]

A clear and good solution I should think! Make them more attractive by cost adjusting and perhaps more arrows... Perhaps more people would bother having them around.

[Ligur]

http://toosa.net/~ligur/why_am.jpg

[Spino]

So the Longbow was less effective against plate armor than other types. Fine, point taken. But does this negate their effectiveness on the battlefield? Nonsense.

So the knight was well protected against longbow arrows but what about his horse? I'm sure the longbow did quite well against the unusually large horses that carryed these formidable knights into battle. Such animals were far more vulnerable to area effect weapons than the armored simians on their backs. And while many heavy warhorses were protected with various types of armor a horse laden in plate was an extremely rare sight back then. I would imagine protective coats of scale or chain mail were far more common (and most only covered the more critical spots like the head and breast). Why bother with the knight when a well placed shaft will easily penetrate the head, neck, shoulder or breast of his favorite battle pony, thus piercing brains, lungs, muscle, etc. Unhorse a knight in such a violent fashion (i.e. the French at Agincourt) and you leave him vulnerable to 1) gravity; 2) his fellow charging knights following closely behind him; and 3) enemy light troops carrying long sharp implements which they will use to stick into the vulnerable spots of his armor while said knight is stumbling about or lying on the ground, most likely suffering from a post-traumatic daze.

Stop thinking in terms of isolated laboratory tests and look at the bigger picture.

[Cyricist]

Because you can't spell or use grammar?

Spino: I made that point before. It's the horse that is most vulnerable here. Yet most of the horse's armor would be on top as well (barding they call it) and it would also be metal plates (just check the front of the manual), especially in later periods when horses weren't very fast anymore due to all the armor they had to carry. And since arrows usually come from above, this would grant the horse the same 'bad luck' for getting hit by armor piercing arrows as it's rider. The real weakness of the horse remains it's soft belly.

[This message has been edited by Cyricist (edited 10-17-2002).]

[anymapkoku]

Cyricist: I don't like your desert map example. It's not cheating and it's not even unfair. First of all the players know going into the game what the florins/map(atleast they should know this unless they don't care which in that case it doesn't matter anyways)/weather/starting locations/opponent's race/and period are. So that is enough knowledge before the game to be able to predict what you think the other palyer will do. You know his best options (assuming you are good and skillful) and based on what you know you can predict what he is likely to bring and where he will deploy, what his strategy will be, etc.
If I'm joining a desert game which you hosted and I see that you're egyptians, I'm going to know that I should pick units that fight well in the desert. If I pick a European army, assuming euros are even weak in desert, that's my fault, for consciously picking a faction which is weak in the desert. But european armies aren't even bad in the desert. Plus if I have knowledge of desertmaps, then I'm going to know what armies operate best in them. So I have a good idea of what you'll bring and what I should bring. While it's true that you may know the map better than me or whoever you're playing, that's the fault of the person who doesn't know the map very well. If I join a desert game and I'm an idiot and bring heavy armor units(assuming this would be a bad idea) then that's my choice and I'm to blame, not the game for being unfair.

[Cyricist]

I was in the assumption you couldn't actually SEE what kind of map people are hosting? Hmmm.. It must be because so far I've only hosted myself. Ok. I guess the map thing is a bad example.

[anymapkoku]

You can see the name but that's it. If push comes to shove I'm sure you can host one yourself and look at the window shot of it to get an idea or atleast look at it in single player. Generally if I join a game with a map I don't know, then it's because I don't care one way or the other and just wanta qucik game. So I know what I'm getting into and it's my fault if it turns out to be "deathmountainattackerdeploysinlava" or something unfair. Most of the time someone will know by the map name desertflat01 that it's probably a desert and probably flat.

[Cyricist]

Dude, you can (for instance) change Agincourt into DESERT COUNTRY if you change one single setting. It's easy. Thus 'knowing a map' isn't such a reliable piece of knowledge now is it?

[tomppb]

And the French had mercenary crossbowman at Agincourt. They were ineffective however because the French managed their army very poorly. They attacked on too narrow a front causing their large army to become packed together, the result being nobody could fight effectively.

[anymapkoku]

Yes, by hosting on agincourt and setting the architecture to islamic and season to summer, I believe you can change it into a desert with no trees and sanstorms, however I can see these settings before I join the game. The only thing that you will know that I don't know is what units you are going to pick, but you don't know mine.

[Cyricist]

In that case the system is fairer than I thought.. Thank you for enlightening me.

[Arcsim]

Quote Originally posted by favedave:
(If you're talking about longbows in MP, well, I have no idea what use they are since I don't play MP.)[/QUOTE]

The entire thread is about the merits of longbows IN MP. SP IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Many units that are useful against a computer are simply not useful at all against an intelligent human opponent. Don't crowd this thread about SP crap when the thread is about MP unit balance.

[Soapyfrog]

I think the key to improving archer units in MP is to:

a) increase unit size
b) decrease unit cost

One way of doing this, potentially, without throwing SP balance completely out of whack, is to offer a florin disocunt for the first 4 ranged units you buy (50% off or something).

Increasing size would neccessarily affect SP as well, so it's probably not as good an option.

[Coucy]

Quote Originally posted by Soapyfrog:
I think the key to improving archer units in MP is to:

a) increase unit size
b) decrease unit cost

One way of doing this, potentially, without throwing SP balance completely out of whack, is to offer a florin disocunt for the first 4 ranged units you buy (50% off or something).

Increasing size would neccessarily affect SP as well, so it's probably not as good an option.[/QUOTE]


What about increasing the ammo capacity?

I used Longbows for the first time a couple days ago in my Danish campaign (hired mercs), and quite frankly I was shocked at how they ran out of ammo after a minute of combat. 28 rounds ONLY? Historically, that did not sound right.

So, I've been doing some research. And this is what I've found so far:

1) During Edward I's conquest of Wales, English longbowmen were issued approx. 100 arrows each (NOT 28!)

2) Crossbowmen during the same campaign were issued the same amount of bolts (~100) as well, despite having twice the cost of arrows.

3) Moving decades later to Agincourt, just to give some additional perpective: English longbowmen went into battle with two standard quivers (24 each) on their belts, for a total of 48. BUT they also resupplied during the battle, either running back to the supply train for more arrows or having runners bring up more.

4) Experts say that the English shot a total of 500,000 arrows during the battle of Agincourt. They had 7000 longbowmen present. Doing the math, that means each longbowman shot about 77 arrows each...for more than 28!

I could probably dig up a whole lot more stats if I had the time, but I think this is sufficient to show that 28 rounds per archer in MTW is woefully innaccurate.

What I propose is to give all archers and crossbowmen an even 4 quarrels (96 rounds) each. An easy mod to do I would think, by just changing the Ammo stat in the Units txt file. Skirmishers I would just give 2 quarrels, or 48 (since they are not "pure" archers, it is reasonable to surmise their ammo requirements would be less). Improves gameplay, improves realism: win-win.

Coucy

[Cyricist]

Something concrete, at last. Thanks for the historical research, I hope it helps! And I still agree the amount of arrows should increase!

[Soapyfrog]

Oh dear, the poor, poor AI.

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif

Besides which increasing ammo would not help in the slightest for MP games, for reasons covered already quite abundantly in this topic and others.

[Spino]

Well if it is possible to adjust the ammo count for each individual missile unit then you could always give longbowmen a healthy increase in ammunition, say double or triple the current value. This would also help justify their greater cost.

Of course if ammunition loads are global values pertaining to all units of a given type (archer, crossbow/arbalest, javelin, etc.) then you'd have to deal with the consequences of giving everyone an ammo boost.

[Coucy]

Quote Originally posted by Spino:
Well if it is possible to adjust the ammo count for each individual missile unit then you could always give longbowmen a healthy increase in ammunition, say double or triple the current value. This would also help justify their greater cost.

Of course if ammunition loads are global values pertaining to all units of a given type (archer, crossbow/arbalest, javelin, etc.) then you'd have to deal with the consequences of giving everyone an ammo boost.[/QUOTE]

No, it does appear to be individual rather than global. There is an individual line for each unit in the unit txt file, and each has its own "Ammo" number.

Coucy

[Gringoleader]

It might sound like an odd thing to say but maybe if it's historical accuracy you are after turning on infinite ammunition is the way to go? After all the game doesn't take into account things like supply trains, taking arrows from fallen comrades or simply advancing, digging the arrows out of the enemy and firing them again.

[Soapyfrog]

Well, I guess that would be significant if the amount of ammo were ACTUALLY a problem, but it's not, since you'd be hard pressed to get a unit to fire off all it's ammo in an MP game, measly 28 shots or no.

I think upping the unit size would be a better solution.

[JRock]

Quote Originally posted by favedave:
Longbows are an important part of a SP army.

Remember, it's combined tactics that win the day.

(If you're talking about longbows in MP, well, I have no idea what use they are since I don't play MP.)[/QUOTE]


How many friggin' times do we have to say "mp" before you figure it out?

[Cyricist]

A LOT.. let's say it again..

MP!

[Slyspy]

Since changing the way in which ranged units work in MP will almost inevitably have a knock on effect on SP then both should be discussed. Plus the thread, as started in the original post, was merely about the relative strengths of units, not the arena in which they were used. IMO certain folks should be more temperate in their posts.

------------------
"Put 'em in blue coats, put 'em in red coats, the bastards will run all the same!"

[favedave]

so, what you're telling me is that this thread is about MP only?

Silly me! How could I have missed that in the subject line?

You know, that thing at the top that says what the thread is about.....

[Cheetah]

PAF

[FacelessClock]

This thread concerns MP.

Now you know, in case you missed the four million other times it was posted.

[JRock]

Don't mind that silly child.

Anyway, this and about a hundred other threads here just prove the point that the units need separate sp and mp stats/costs. It is truly the only way to achieve satisfactory balance/usefulness for all the units for singleplayer and multiplayer without one upsetting the other.

[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 10-18-2002).]