View Full Version : lib Are Archers/longbowmen too weak or do they just need more ammo?
de la Valette
10-18-2002, 20:43
I don't think the problem with archers/longbowmen is that they are too weak (kills per volley) i think the problem is the number of volleys they get.
Putting there ammo up to 40 should make them much more useful.
Is there an easy way to do this?
AgentBif
10-18-2002, 21:03
In SP most people find current archer units plenty useful.
In MP, adding more ammo would not enhance their killing power nor cause people to try an archery dominant approach in the game. Missile units need more kills-per-second to be handy in MP.
bif
Papewaio
10-18-2002, 21:04
Go to Editing /Mods /Patches Forum
http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/ubb/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=Editing+/+Mods+/+Patches&number=5
and ask how to change the number... quite easy actually.
As for increasing the number of kills per volley. It may not be required in SP as the AI is not quite up to scratch.
But as it stands a lot of other missile units are more effective at the same cost.
So it may stand to reason to increase the damage per volley rather then the number of shots.
This would resolve both the SP and MP problem of the relative unit ineffectiveness.
Increasing number of shots would only make it more powerful in SP. As it stands in MP apparently most longbow units are running way before they exhaust their arrows in a archery duel... not exactly historical, maybe histerical.
FacelessClock
10-18-2002, 21:14
They are really just to weak in MP.
Supposedly they are supposed to draw out the enemy by making it impossible for him to just sit around.
In fact, the enemy can still just set around. It takes 3 or 4 units just to get a resonable amount of damage done.
Soapyfrog
10-18-2002, 22:08
More ammo wouldn't help at all in MP.
Problem is archers can't kill fast enough to pay for themselves.
I've never seen an archer exhaust it's ammo in MP.
Again, as always, it boils down to a necessity for separate sp and mp stats/costs for units.
That is the only way to solve this issue so that sp can stay the same but mp can be improved.
Dionysus9
10-18-2002, 22:23
Quote Originally posted by Soapyfrog:
I've never seen an archer exhaust it's ammo in MP.[/QUOTE]
You've got to be kidding me, my archers run out of ammo before the fighting is even 1/2 way over. Archers in MP do suck, but they still have some use. I think increasing ammo would help (me at least) a little bit, but the darn arrows bounce off most units in MTW, esp. anything w/ armor.
Arrows and muskets worked really well in STW, arrows killed FAST and over hills, but ran out quickly. Musks could fire for a long time but were really vulnerable to being rushed and getting rained on..
Oh, I long for the old days.
Orda Khan
10-18-2002, 22:27
I suppose in theory archers should not have a limit to their arrows for there is no historical account of archers running out of arrows in any battle they were involved in.
Do not under estimate the power of the bow.
Hmmm it seems in MTW they have...ah well
....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."
Quote Originally posted by JRock:
Again, as always, it boils down to a necessity for separate sp and mp stats/costs for units.
That is the only way to solve this issue so that sp can stay the same but mp can be improved.[/QUOTE]
I don't think so. Just because I can use Archer to an effect in SP doesn't mean that making them better would destroy the SP experience. Then I would actually have to be careful to engage enemies with lots of arhcers, right now I just think "Easy win". Also it would make the Turks more of an opposing force for most enemies, they simply get kicked out too fast (haven't seen them survive in early game) and Mongols would actually be something to fear a little.
Just give archers more power.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
I'm all for giving archers more ammo. Here is what I wrote about the subject in another topic:
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
I always run out ammo on all my ranged units unless I'm trying to stop an early rush. I think two of the main things contributing to the relatively poor performance of archers in MP is 100 man units and high armor on many units. To be worthwhile, the archer should, at the absolute minimum, have the potential to kill all the men in a lightly armored unit. That means being able to kill 100 men in a unit with armor = 1 and no shield. It can't do that. The best it can do on flat ground is 80 kills. The archer in MTW seems to come from STW where units were 60 men, and seems balanced for that size unit. The other point is that armor in MTW, on average, is heavier than in STW. Max armor in STW was 5, but that's just average in MTW. This means you can't use archers as a weapon of general destruction. It has to be targetted at the most expensive enemy units that also have low armor. Cav generally makes a good target. Longbows don't get more kills against lightly armored units than standard archers, but they do against units with medium armor.
Raising ammo on archers from 28 to 36 would move it up to 100 potential kills on a unit of armor = 1 on flat ground. FastCub is running an independent test for me on LAN to confirm these numbers. Thx FastCub. I don't think a 28% increase in ammo is going to throw the balance off in SP since the ai gets the increase as well and you'll still run out of ammo fairly quickly. So, it isn't like playing with unlimited ammo. What it will do is give the archer, in a non-rush situation, a greater potential to rout an enemy unit with ranged fire, and that's something that MP players are deathly afraid of due to the morale hit their other units will suffer. It is enough to make a player decide he can't afford to just sit there an take all the arrows. You can't afford to sit facing arbalesters, but that unit has the potential to kill 150 light to moderately armored troops. I don't say archers should have that capability, but they need more potential kills against lightly armored units to become useful in MP.
I am currently trying a mod that gives all missile units more ammo. Here are the changes:
Longbow: 48 (+50% and 6 extra). The reason that I give Longbow 6 extra is to have a sense that Longbow is better than regular archer and I believe that their ROF is higher.
All archer (foot and cav): 42 (+50%).
Crossbow (foot and cav)/Arbalest: 35 (+25%). I've never seen them use up all 35 rounds unless in a long bridge defense.
Naptha: 6 (+100%)
Javellin: 8 (+100%)
All siege engine and cannons: +25%
So far, missiles are more effective but none are too powerful.
More Ammo and/or more Firepower ... I would do a little more, I think !
More Ammo is only reasonable ... especailly after Coucys little research. Nice Job ! I think I will even improve the Ammo of Siege Engines.
Another Idea than to improve their Firepower could be to increase their range ... maybe a little of both would do well, since greater range means more voleys before enemy impact http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif .
Going even a bit further, I think increasing the effectivnes of shields would be an good idea. Large Shields are very usefull vs. Arrows, smaller are not so effective. I would increase the Armour bonus vs. Arrows of Large Shields and Pavise. That wouldn´t affect close combat but prevent Bows/Arbs from becoming uber.
Dionysus9
10-19-2002, 07:20
Great research Coucy, that makes a lot of sense. If you know you are going to have a big battle or a war, god damn, you'd make some arrows. And then some.
And another thing that bothers me-- how come my archers cant take ammo off the dead guys around my units? And enemy units too? Scavenging equipment could be a HUGE advancement for the game-engine.
Instead of HOLD or ENGAGE, give a SCAVENGE command.
It should break up the unit a bit as they fan out for supplies. Slow to change back to normal formation. They'd be vulnerable as hell to a suprise cav charge. But they could scavenge, say, 40% of the enemy's supplies...in this case arrows. Armor would get tricky, but the TW could stand some more embellishment. The game will get better as it gets more realistic, I think. A "close battle" was often a rarity, many armies were routed in a few hours.
As they rout they generally drop supplies so they can outrun their persuers.
Scavenging enemy supplies--even during an engagement-- has often been a part of war. At the battle of Shiloh the Confederates launched a suprise attack at dawn. The Union camp was taken completely by suprise and routed before they could eat their breakfast for the day.
Confederate supplies were low. Unable to turn up a free meal and some nice tents, clothes, powder, supplies, etc., the Confederate victory lost its momentum as war-weary soldiers stopped to pillage the Union camp. Fed themselves with Union food.
A much needed resupply, but meanwhile the Union army rallies and fell back to high ground.
By the time the Confederates general could reorganized his men, the Union was fairly well dug in. One of the bloodiest civil war battles ensued was the result.
If the Confederates had stayed on the Union's heels the day would have been won. But, of course, they were tired, low on supplies and morale was hurting inspite of the morning's successful assault.
Anyway they were forced to rest and scavengeto recover morale before carrying on.
You better believe I'd pull 40 arrows of some dead dudes -- friend or enemy-- if I thought I might need them in a minute.
[This message has been edited by Dionysus9 (edited 10-19-2002).]
ShadesWolf
10-20-2002, 01:45
I believe the main problem with archers is the unable to place stakes in the ground.
this would open up a whole new level of game play. Areas would be safe for the archers and therefore would be more realistic and historically accurate.
AgentBif
10-20-2002, 02:29
Quote Originally posted by Jaret:
More Ammo and/or more Firepower ... I would do a little more, I think !
More Ammo is only reasonable ... especailly after Coucys little research. Nice Job ! I think I will even improve the Ammo of Siege Engines.
Another Idea than to improve their Firepower could be to increase their range ... maybe a little of both would do well, since greater range means more voleys before enemy impact http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif .
Going even a bit further, I think increasing the effectivnes of shields would be an good idea. Large Shields are very usefull vs. Arrows, smaller are not so effective. I would increase the Armour bonus vs. Arrows of Large Shields and Pavise. That wouldn´t affect close combat but prevent Bows/Arbs from becoming uber.[/QUOTE]
I like all of these ideas.
bif
AgentBif
10-20-2002, 02:37
Quote Originally posted by Dionysus9:
Scavenging equipment could be a HUGE advancement for the game-engine.
Instead of HOLD or ENGAGE, give a SCAVENGE command.
It should break up the unit a bit as they fan out for supplies. Slow to change back to normal formation.[/QUOTE]
Heh, this sounds like a fun idea. Foot units could gain a couple sword and shield ratings this way if your opponent had those upgrades. Peasants and other foot units could gain inherent attack and defense points too. Imagine your unit of FMAA's picking up an armor piercing capability by scavenging axes as backup weapons from a squad of dead longbows http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
But it would have to be and after-battle thing.
I like it.
bif
AgentBif
10-20-2002, 02:40
Quote Originally posted by ShadesWolf:
I believe the main problem with archers is the unable to place stakes in the ground.
this would open up a whole new level of game play. Areas would be safe for the archers and therefore would be more realistic and historically accurate.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, battlefield fortifications would be a neat addition.
bif
ToranagaSama
10-20-2002, 03:06
Quote Originally posted by pdoan8:
I am currently trying a mod that gives all missile units more ammo. Here are the changes:
Longbow: 48 (+50% and 6 extra). The reason that I give Longbow 6 extra is to have a sense that Longbow is better than regular archer and I believe that their ROF is higher.
All archer (foot and cav): 42 (+50%).
Crossbow (foot and cav)/Arbalest: 35 (+25%). I've never seen them use up all 35 rounds unless in a long bridge defense.
Naptha: 6 (+100%)
Javellin: 8 (+100%)
All siege engine and cannons: +25%
So far, missiles are more effective but none are too powerful.[/QUOTE]
If this can be "modded" then rather look to the Devs to make changes, why not simply used the mod in MP?? Is this not possible?
In TA, all the participants just need the same mod and away they go?
Hakonarson
10-20-2002, 06:14
Quote Originally posted by Orda Khan:
I suppose in theory archers should not have a limit to their arrows for there is no historical account of archers running out of arrows in any battle they were involved in.
[/QUOTE]
Actually there are plenty of such accounts - especially for the English in hte HYW.
For example Agincourt - The English ran out of arrows before the French were defeated, and that is why many of the archers chose to attack the French H-H.
Hark is right.
At Hastings William's archers ran out of ammo quite fast because there weren't any 'counterbattery' fire to restock the supply. Later in the battle they were able to scavenge some of their arrows and fire at the Huskarls again.
Many sources say that many armies' archers relied on scavenging 'enemy' arrows during the intial engagements.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Coucy - your historical findings matches what I found also.
First, I tried unlimited ammo but it did not feel right.
So then I have modded my SP game to raise ammo for archers to 96 and it works well. The arrows last long enough for them to be used in what I feel is a historical manner - ie provide general background support and not just be used selectively against the juiciest targets. But the ammo does run out in a sufficiently epic encounter, so you have to think about possible resupply via introducing a reinforcement.
Longbowmen become the killers they should be and plain archers are worth their 37 per turn cost.
Simon
de la Valette
10-21-2002, 15:43
Thanks for all the advice and experiences am going to mod the ammo on missile and siege units tonight, will let you know how it goes.
Field fortifications, digging in and placing stakes were VERY widely used tactics in the late middle ages. I believe personally that our firearm troops in MTW suffer so badly and are considered so useless by us because they can't fight in the style they would probably have fought in the late middle ages - behind field fortifications, in fortified buildings or at the very least (this we can do though) behind a wall of pikes.
Gilbert de Clare
Quote Originally posted by Simon Appleton:
Longbowmen become the killers they should be and plain archers are worth their 37 per turn cost.
Simon[/QUOTE]
No doubt that is correct, and I would like that myself, but raising the number of arrows does nothing for MP... The ranged units have an inherent weakness and that is they don't kill enough fast enough for them to be worth it.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
I think raising ammo on archers would help multiplayer balance where 20 kills per archer with its arrows is about as good as I can typically accomplish. You would have to protect your archers for a longer time while they used this extra ammo, and that would enhance combined arms tactics. It's something that wouldn't drastically alter gameplay in either MP or SP. A problem with increasing rate of killing is that things may start happening too quickly, and many players may not have enough time to react before suffering so many casualties that they have lost the battle.
So you use up all your arrows????
Well, I have not experienced fights where I was allowed that, even when I fired into melee.
And from what I have read in other threads my experience is that that is what happens mostly if a player brings archers into a game.
Of course kills should not be insane, then we would just have fights where there was nothing but archers.
But kills raised about 40% would be good, as it would force both sides to bring some, much like in STW.
And in that case we would see a lot of repositioning as the vital units came under fire. And the melee would not be such a rushed experience, it would be a result of the repositioning. That is what I believe.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Kraxis,
The only time I don't use all my arrows is in a rush situation. In 90% of my MP games I use all ammo no matter what type of ranged unit I bring. In SP campaign battles, I use all the ammo when I hold the line. If I set up a balanced custom battle with all v0 units and make the ai the attacker, I use almost no ammo because the ai attacks and looses quickly.
Archers are not supposed to stop a rush. That's their weakness. The trajectory is chosen to overshoot oncoming troops for just that reason. If you can create a battlefield situation where the lines are stable, it's easy to use all the ammo. In MP, the question is how many hth units do you need to stop a rush by 16 hth units.
As the kills per volley are increased, an archer duel will more and more be determined by who lands the first volley. You run the risk in MP of players using the gamey tactic of finding the very edge of the range and manually firing at a target archer which doesn't activate the target's automatic fire-at-will. Archers are an armor = 1 unit. You can get 2.8 kills per volley on such a unit with an archer. (FastCub has verified this number with independent testing on LAN.) You have to react quickly to this threat at 2.8/volley never mind 4/volley which is what you suggest. In WE/MI v102, your musk unit was history if you took two unreturned 4 or 5 kill volleys which is what that unit produced. It was devastating, and firing rate there was 8 seconds which is slower than archers. Also, I've played hundreds of MP WE/MI v103 battles with archer ammo = 36, and they work fine.
We're both suggesting about 100 potential kills for an archer on an armor = 1 unit. I just prefer the more ammo approach rather than the higher kills per volley approach.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.