Archers (something different - not LB v Arb!)

[TheLastEuropean]

Ok, I keep pondering about archers in this game and, to state the main point up front, I basically think they are not modelled correctly. Now, everyone is familiar with (and tired of) the Longbow Vs Arbalester debate (me too!) and this isn't about that so please don't switch off just yet!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

The thing that nags me is why archers in more than 2 ranks deep have a penalty for the third and subsequent ranks. I'm no history expert but I've read enough to know that archers (definitely Longbowmen - somebody else more knowledgeable will have to answer for me regarding the other archer types) were trained to fire without direct LOS by copying the trajectories of a master-firer (hope you realise what I mean, don't know the proper title). Indeed at Agincourt the English had archers in WEDGE formation. Wedges - can you believe it? It's not so crazy in real life, in fact it makes ultimate sense - maybe not wedges but deep formations certainly. The game is totally at odds with this concept by requiring archers to be in looooong double lines to maximise firing efficiency. Why is that?? If archers are trained to follow trajectories of the front firing men who have direct LOS then why does the game prefer long double lines? Wouldn't this make archers slightly more useful ie. by removing the penalty for third and subsequent ranks and maybe take a small step closer to being more useful. So, there really should be no penalty (maybe a slight accuracy penalty but I should think it wouldn't be much at all - almost negligable) for deeper formations providing the front ranks do have a LOS. Maybe if the front ranks don't have a clear LOS then accuracy could be dropped some more - but I cannot see why rear ranks should NOT fire, it makes no sense from what I (limitedly) know. This way with ALL archers in the formation firing simultaneously they would rack up kills quicker. This obviously means ammo runs out quicker but it makes the difference between archer units and arbalester/crossbow units more marked and thus gives rise to more difference in tactical usage.

To sum up, I believe that archers should be just as effective in either wedge formation or deep square formations. Whether this would fit/help with the tweaking deemed necessary to render them usefull in MP I do not know - it's just an idea atm. So, opinions please - what do you think? Even if it would not address the MP problems of archer usefulness I believe it would be more realistic.

[FacelessClock]

I do agree, and it would be nice to see archers given their own special formations, like the staggered formations the English Longbowmen often used.

[Puzz3D]

TheLastEuropean,

I just took a close look at that and you're right. While the unit can give indirect fire, most of the men don't shoot when they can't see the target unit. Also, when shooting from a reverse slope they can't hit any men in a unit coming up the other side of the hill due to the trajectory of the arrows which carries them all over the heads of the enemy unit.

The archers work fine when firing down from the front slope or on the flat when they have an unobstructed view of the target. All the archers do fire when in deep formation on the flat as long as they are in range. If you have back men in a wedge not firing, then the unit has to be moved closer to the target for all of them to shoot. Keep in mind that deep formations make better targets for ranged units because projectiles that miss the primary man have a better chance of scoring a secondary hit.


[This message has been edited by Puzz3D (edited 10-19-2002).]

[longjohn2]

A few points.

Firstly all archers in a unit do generally fire, unless they're out of range, or they'd be required to fire on a trajectory that'd take the arrow through the back of the man in front of them. This latter case may well happen when shooting at enemy below them, or who are very close.

Men in ranks after the second rank (third if in loose order ) do get an accuracy penalty. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you're going to shoot better if you can actually see the target, than if you're just trying to copy someone elses firing angle. If you disagree, then maybe you can consider the first couple of ranks as containing the master archers who set the trajectory for everyone else, and that the ranks behind simply aren't as good.
If shooting at massed or moving enemy, this loss of accuracy may not matter much anyway.

Also English archers didn't use the wedge formation that is modelled in the game. Instead they had lines of archers angled out from their men at arms. Where two of these lines met and were angled opposite ways, then a point or wedge was formed.
If you select a force with a 2:1 ratio of archers to men at arms, and then choose the "English" historical formation, you'll see what I mean.

[CBR]

And one has to remember the scale of battles in MTW. We dont play with the same amount of men compared to back then maybe 1/10 or something. IIRC at Agincourt the English archers stood in 8-10 ranks. Same thing with swords/spear. Historically they used deeper formations than we normally use in MTW.

CBR

[Kraxis]

Don't worry about the depth of the archers formations too much.

Many kills don't come from the single archers actually hitting the intended target, but from hitting another man. So with less accuracy there is less of a chance to hit the intended target but you are still likely to kill secondary targets.

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

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