Archers

[PoLsKa_HuSaRiA]

Just curious on other ppl's opinions: i think the archers are too weak. They should be killing more enemy troops per volley.

[ToranagaSama]

Gosh, I wish the org had a bigger archive. This subject has been discussed twice before.

Curious, how many kills do you average (from arrow fire)?

It is quite sensical that archer performance would differ from Shogun given the variety of armour and its effectiveness to be found on European troops.

Your poll also needs to be more specific, are you talking MP or SP? Since, you posted in the Main Hall rather than Jousting Fields, it must be assumed your talking SP.

Two things to keep in mind to obtain maximum effect: Archers need to be protected from the outset, and Archer fire needs to be player directed.

Below is a copy of a rant I posted in the Dungeon:

On the subject of Archers:

There is NOTHING wrong with them as they presently exist. I say again, NOTHING. This subject had been debated more than once by experienced players.

With SP, the consensus is that most people fail to learn to use them properly [(and/or use them the same as Shogun)].

With MP, the consensus is that the nature of MP, precludes their effectiveness.

One of the things, that I believe modders need to guard against is modding changes to eliviate player skill deficiences.

At the least, it should be discussed what is the goal? What archer results are desired and/or acceptable?

How many man do archers need to be capable of taking out, to be considered effective? 1 unit, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10??????

Should archers have stopper artillery effectiveness? Using a few euphemisms, should they be the equivalent of, German 88s, Mortars, Grenades or M60 machine guns??

I dunno know, but technique/skill development is a HUGE part of the TW experience, quite obviously in MP, but ALSO in SP.

End of Rant.

[SmokWawelski]

The life goes in circles and everything is a rerun... just listen to rock love songs http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

I think that they should be more deadly, not because I do not know how to use them, but simply I look at them, there is a gazzilion of arrows flying and none of the enemies drop dead...

But then I saw Tears of the Sun this Sunday and Bruce W. was getting shot at from point-blank by some rebel troops and nobody was dying (except the bad guys) so I guess that this is the way things are done here in US http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Baron von Beer]

Bruce Willis? Ahh... well, when you read the books.. coincidentaly, you will find that every character Bruce Willis, Sylvester Stalone, etc. play, carries an atmospheric particle destabilization projector. This causes the very air around them to ripple and become unstable, causing any inbound objects to swerve around their bodies, or even be sent back to where they originated from... hence the number of baddies dying is half from the heroes, and half from their own returned bullets. This device also jolts their own munitions at their targets at thrice the normal speed, and with the precision of a surgeons scalpal. Just one more detail these friggin Hollywood types omit when transfering a tale from book to the big screen.

[SmokWawelski]

BvB, you should have a spot on Saturday night on FOX http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[ShadesWolf]

I believe they are to weak by far.

Arb's should cost a lot more money, and the higher class earchers should be more powerful.

Maybe they only really need to increase the fire rate, so you get more volleys per minute.

[baz]

what i will say is that archery is too weak by a long way .. an archery unit inflicks very little damage onto other units

try it for yourself in a custom battle in comparison with a pav arb ...

[Azrail]

Hello folks,

The effect of a volley of arrows vs unarmored or lightly armored units with no shields were pretty devastating, but in mtw usually a volley of 60 arrows kills/incapacitates only 4 or 5 out of 60/100 unarmored, shieldless men: this effect should be doubled in my opinion.
Shields were mostly used to deflect/stop arrows, usually with good results: units carrying a shield should be able to suffer 3 times less casualties than units without shields.
Heavy armour could efficiently deflect arrows: units wearing heavy armour should suffer twice less casualties than units without armour or wearing light armour.
Heavily armoured troops carrying a shield should be almost immune to normal arrows, thus suffering 6 times less casualties from a volley than an unarmoured, shieldless unit.
For example, 60 archers firing a volley of arrows against a unit of peasants or gallowglasses, should score about 10/12 kills; the same volley should score about 3/4 kills vs spearmen (due to their shield and light armour) and about 1/2 kills vs feudal foot knights (shield and heavy armour).
Archers should fire about 3 volleys per minute (considering draw-time, aiming and firing coordination)

Crossbows were easier to aim and had slightly better penetration, so their effect should be about 50% better against both armoured and shield-carrying units.
For example, 60 xbowmen firing a volley of bolts against a unit of peasants should still score about 10/12 kills; while the same volley should score about 5/6 kills vs spearmen and about 2/3 kills vs feudal foot knights.
Crossbowmen should fire about 2 and a half volleys per minute.

Arbalestres were as easy to aim as crossbows (if not easier due to their support) and had great penetration against even heavy plate armour, so their effect should be twice as good as the effect of arrows against armoured and shield-carrying units: still scoring 10/12 kills vs peasants, but killing about 6/8 spearmen and 2/4 feaudal foot knights each volley.
Arbalestres should fire about 2 volleys per minute.

All the above in my humble opinion, of course ... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif



[FF]Gryphon
(previously known as Azrail)

[KurnoustheHunter]

Hi guys.

I haven't Played MTW all that much but my observation is that they are slightly underpowered.

I played as english and was suprised how little even 3-4 longbow units in 2 row formations could do b4 the battle was joined.

Normal archers plain suck against just about everything.

I have 2 ideas. a) mod longbows to have slightly better range 20 metres or 1000? in the code? Apparently you must increase velocity to 180 for this to work properly. Increase accuracy to .7 add .05 to lethality and all will be ok with the longbow unit (Add at least 25 GF to base cost&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Second Idea is to have a second archer unit in late/high era's. General archery HAD to improve by then Bow making would have had to have gotten alittle better and they would have also had to have had some extra training and equippment. I believe add +1att Def and Armour to current archer, add a touch of accuracy, lethality and maybe a smigion of AP.

Actually I also have another idea....let dedicated foot archers get 48 ammo instead of 28. longbows and standard bow men wwould then be more useful.

[SmokWawelski]

Gryphon-

I would like to see the changes that you are talking about in action. Have you modified your game or is it strictly a theoretical conversation by now? Please let us know here...

As to myself I did, a log time ago, modify the archers. I upped the LB range and lethality, same with archers. For Xbows I lowered the reload time, same for arbs, without doing any other changes: in the original files it took the same amount of time to reload an Xbow and ballista http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

Also, I doubled the arrows to 50 (not exactly doubled but close). I think that this is it, I have a file that has all my changes recorded in it. The game plays a lot better.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

I have mixed feelings regarding missile.

Nearly all MTW MP games feature pav arb or arb. It's difficult to argue that those are underpowered. I would bet that pav arb are THE most commonly used troops in MTW MP.

X bows are not used because they can't compare with arb.

Archers are somehow effective vs light troops, but don't scratch armor.

I am wondering if I prefer;

- neatly separated missile per era; 1 / archer in early vs mainly low armor troop in this era kind of deliver. Very slight upgrade would be welcome 2/ X bow in High 3/ arb (and pav arb) move to Late. Automatic upgrade of those when era change?

- or more unit differenciation. Like faster reload for archer + more missile vs more effective low speed arb. Or more price difference.

The question is either we say that missile just keep up with armor building with era or we want to see archer used in late for a different purpose than arb.

I think unit differenciation is difficult to balance. 1st option is very easy.

My 2 cents

Louis,

[HalfDone]

I think there should be a way higher kill rate than taking out 4 or 5 and most of the time my archers kill none.

[ErikJansen]

Quote[/b] (Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe @ Mar. 11 2003,13:59)]I am wondering if I prefer;

- neatly separated missile per era; 1 / archer in early vs mainly low armor troop in this era kind of deliver. Very slight upgrade would be welcome 2/ X bow in High 3/ arb (and pav arb) move to Late. Automatic upgrade of those when era change?

- or more unit differenciation. Like faster reload for archer + more missile vs more effective low speed arb. Or more price difference.
I prefer the latter, though I would also bump Arb availability to late and push the florins up a bit.

Missile unit impact is too weak as it is now (arbs excepted), that needses a fix methinks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Kensai Achilles]

its been discussed b4 but just for the fun of it, i'd like to reiterate a few things.

I'm abstain since my choice isn't available. I think archers volleys are okay, correct me if i'm wrong they do inflict morale damage on fighting troops underfire, and that's a big help not to mention morale damage from being depleted

if u insist on changing consider adding something like these in the poll:

-Archers/arbs/xbows volleys are okay, but their melee needs to be stronger.

-Archers/arbs/xbows volleys are okay, but their morale needs to be higher.

[econ21]

I think archer damage is fine, but one sheaf of ammo is way too small. Serious archers, like longbowmen, Turcoman horse and Mongols would have many more arrows. 3 sheaves would be ok, even 4 is not excessive.

[oblivious maximus]

When Archer units are being used against my troops,they are too powerful in this game.

When im using Archers,they are just too weak.

[NewJeffCT]

I think they are pretty good the way they are. I've used Treb Archers and Bulgarian Brigands to great effect as the Byzantines, and love to crank out longbowmen when I'm the English. Put the longbows on a hilltop and you'll get off several shots before the enemy archers are in range to fire back.

I like Pavise Arbs only as defense. Too slow for my armies on offense most of the time. I often keep them in a province as part of a garrison there.

[PoLsKa_HuSaRiA]

Glad to see that nobody thinks that archers are too strong http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Znake]

About Archers by era's:

Early era: i think archers are good in early MP.

High and Late era: archers are too weak. but arbs pavs should be moved to late only.

[Azrail]

Quote[/b] (SmokWawelski @ Mar. 11 2003,10:51)]Gryphon-

I would like to see the changes that you are talking about in action. Have you modified your game or is it strictly a theoretical conversation by now? Please let us know here...

I'm not a big fan of custom, unofficial mods since I play MTW almost only MP. My opinion is just based on historical research and field testing of various range weapons.
Unfortunately what MTW really lacks is some realism in how range weapons can and cannot be used: archers firing volleys at meleeing troops would kill as many friends as foes and xbows or arbalestres positioned behind friendly lines and at a similar height would just kill friendly troops. If implemented correctly, making range weapons more realistic in their damaging potential and their use on the battlefield, would definitely make the game more intersting and varied, opening up more tactical and strategic choices that are currently denied or just simplified too much.


[FF]Gryphon