TEST: Crossbows, Archers, Arbalets, Arquebusiers..

[Longasc]

I test with Medieval: TW V2.00, Viking Invasion.

Battlemap:

Lush, flatinland01, Summer, Fair Weather

2 Stacks of each Missile Unit type were tested against

2 Stacks of (96 men) Swiss Armored Pikemen.

No Upgrades.


I marched against the AI with the non-general unit until the SAPs were down to 50 men.

First Test:
Crossbowmen vs SAP:
2,1,3,2,2,3,4,3,4,3,5,0,2,3,2,3,5
per Salvo of those two Xbowmen-Units
47 Kills, 49 left.
Time needed: 4:18min, 17 salvos.

Second Test:
Archers vs SAP:
3,2,0,0,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,1,1,2,1,0,1,0,4,2,2,2,1,1,1,2,1,1,0
per Salvo
48 Kills, 48 left
Time needed: 3:11min, 36 salvos

Third Test:
Arbalest vs SAP:
4,4,5,5,3,4,2,8,0,4,6,3
per Salvo
48kills, 48 left
Time needed: 2:25 min, 12 salvos

-> The arbalest were better than the archers, that were quicker than the crossbowmen. The Archers used up much more, most of their ammo, however.

The disappointment:
Arquebuses and Handguns. It was extremely difficult to bring the AI to line up both and fire both ranks, as only the front ranks fire of handgunners. the 2. unit often did not fire, but i managed it to get into position that both could fire.

Forth Test:
Arquebusiers vs SAP
0,0,1,0,0... stopped after 1:57 min

completely USELESS That's incredible

Fifth Test:
Handgunners vs SAP
2,0,1 - stopped after 1:30, rain started and well they ran around and maneuvered often for no reason and sometimes it said firing and no smoke appeared

BUGGED???

Sixth Test:
Crossbowmen unupgraded vs SAP Armor +3
4,5,0,1,0,4,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,3,2,0,1,2,1,1,3,2,1,1,0,2,1,0,1

5 minutes, 48 killed, 34 salvos needed

Seventh Test:
Archers unupgraded vs SAP Armor +3
2,1,1,0,0,3,1,2,0,2,2,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,2,1,2,1,1,0,1,1,2,1,2,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,2

2:28 minutes, 46 killed, 40 salvos...

ugh -> do they not only have 36 shots???
And they were faster than before vs worse armored SAPs.

May be that they were a bit closer, but...hmm



Conclusion: Distance plays an important role too, I think.
Firearms were a complete disaster - can anyone test this perhaps to confirm?

Crossbowmen were not too good either.

Arbalests on the other side did VERY well.

I would like other players to try this, too, to confirm my observations.

[Shahed]

Those are good tests.

I'd suggest running them again online, against a human player. That way the SAPs stay put for sure. Let me know if you are interested, by email/msn (below).

We could also try faction specific archers (LBs, Jannissary), and artillery, napthas.

[Kekvit Irae]

I'd love to see the tests with Longbowmen.
And I figure it's easier to test in MP with a friend, since the AI has this annoying thing about attacking you in the middle of a test. Guess they dont like to lose :P

[Kekvit Irae]

Quote[/b] (SeljukSinan @ May 24 2003,06:30)]We could also try faction specific archers (LBs, Jannissary), and artillery, napthas.
The only problem about Janissaries (and any other unique infantry bow unit) is that they use exactly the same projectiles as every other non-crossbow/arbelest foot archer: Shortbows. The only exception to the rule are Longbowmen, which have their own projectiles.

[Longasc]

My ICQ-UIN is:

8624167

I am already spammed to death, so it does not matter anymore... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Seljuk, never set up a Multiplayer game myself, only once in a LAN, a friend of mine did all the stuff.

Since it is Saturday and I have no time this evening, how about...

Sunday afternoon or evening perhaps Perhaps some other players can try this with you, but if really nobody is available, I will try it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I would appreciate if someone with more multiplayer experience could do these tests, perhaps someone who is already playing MP often. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Longasc]

If you are QUICK, we can probably do some tests right now

I would then suggest

1 SAP vs 1 Archer/Xbowmen whatever.

The General will not rout soo quickly, I hope. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Kekvit Irae]

I would join, but I have this wierd phobia of socializing and stuff in games, which is why I play SP only.
It would also explain why I like playing games like Counter Strike, BF1942, and other FPS games... to blow the heck out of anonymous people http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Longasc]

I hope the Ping from Alabama to Bavaria is not too bad, otherwise we can try. We should talk per ICQ about the setup etc... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

and well, I have never tried MP before, only one time, that does not count...

I was in many Clans and stuff as I was younger, now I avoid too much socializing in some way, too.

So do not be afraid, we will do the test and then continue talking on the forum as usual - no need to be afraid of getting msgs at midnight time for a game???, OK? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flirt.gif

[Shahed]

Sunday between 15:30-20:00 CET is fine with me. It's just a test so the only xperience you need is lining up and marching http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. I don't have ICQ, I have MSN (details under my sig).

I can't do one right now as I have to eat my breakfast http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Shahed]

I've played mostly MP since September 2002. It's much better tactical challenge, at times. I have no probs with getting msgs, thanks to the org, I've met about 50 people in the last 2 months. The ping between yourself and Luxembourg will be no more than 300, that's ok for a strategy game like MTW.

Tomorrow then for a couple of hours ?

[Longasc]

Uh, do not have MSN installed, or at least never tried it out.

Hm... lets see

Perhaps has this guy from Alabama, the one that told me that Crossbowmen do well against armor, hehe, ICQ and time? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Longasc]

Little communication problem Seljuk - MSN/ICQ.
The time would be okay.

[Shahed]

PS: I only go on msn when I want to devote the time to MP, socialisisng or chatting. If you don't want too much contact go on the chat programs only when you do have the time.

[Kekvit Irae]

heh thanks for the offer, but I must pass. I'm currently drawing a disability check for being too nervous and anxious, which are spawned from doing new and frightening things. Although I'd certainly love to get report updates on the Longbowmen. That, and reports on how well my new Welsh Longbow unit works out in my mod ^_^

[Shahed]

No problem. Just gimme a shout out in the VI lobby.
My online name is Sinan.

I'll be there tomorrow 15:30-20:00, and tonight from 18:00 -22:00 CET.


http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Shahed]

BTW you can also meet ppl and talk about the game, in the org chat room. There is a link on the top left corner, next to your control panel. I usually sign in everytime I'm browsing the org.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Longasc]

OK.

I will send you a private Message tomorrow

>> I'll be there tomorrow 15:30-20:00, and tonight from 18:00 -22:00 CET.

I will try to familiarize myself a bit with multiplayer setup today. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

We should both take the time from the first salvo that hits the Pikemen. And write the losses on a sheet of paper and then count how many salvos and so on... you will wonder how different two people can count http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

I will start as the SAP, you should start with HRE Crossbowmen.

Perhaps we have time to test those Longbowmen too, for kekvitirae -> BTW, your name is even worse to remember and type then mine, kekvitirae http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

[Longasc]

*Flood*

Will try the chatroom right now, thx.

[Kekvit Irae]

Most people just call me Kek or Kekvit, since that's my online persona's first name. Irae is the last name

[Longasc]

Kekvit fits.

If you are still there, join the CHAT (upper left corner), just want to see if it is right that i am the only one in the chat right now.

[Shahed]

Quick note from first MultiPlayer SAP vs XBOW test:

Volley----Kills
1 ---- 3
2 ---- 2
3 ---- 2
4 ---- 3
5 ---- 1
6 ---- 3
7 ---- 3
8 ---- NA (missed it)
9 ---- 4
10 ---- 5
11 ---- 1
12 ---- 3
13 ---- 5
14 ---- 3
15 ---- 5

Total Kills were 46.

Suggestions:
Do more tests with
*Limited Ammo on
*Fatigue on
*continue till archers are out of ammo

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Shahed]

now how 30 men shoot and kill only 1 is a big LOL, methinks.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Longasc]

exactly the same numbers that I got, opened a new thread with the results.

Thanks for the patience, glad that we could play finally after some ... many... minutes.

BTW, your crossbowmen killed better than those two ai controlled... only one unit, and they did better than two of the ai.

I am really looking forward to the archer results tomorrow
Thanks for your time.

[Kekvit Irae]

It's pretty obvious from looking at the stats that the Arquebus and Handgun are one of the worst weapons to use. They have a 7% and a 5% chance to hit. SEVEN PERCENT Compare that with the crossbow's 70%. Early gunpowder weapons were bad, but not THAT bad

This is, of course, speculation that the number 1 in the Accuracy represents 100%. I dont have any details on this.

I'm going to include in my mod a fix for the gunpowder units to give them better accuracy, about the same as a mountedlongbow (0.55, or 55%).

[Makkadam]

Could you do some tests in viking as well?

Archers
Pictish crossbows
And of course welsh bandits

A very good test btw. I have also found gunpowder to be useless in medieval.

[Longasc]

I do not know -> I will first test the more common units of Medieval. VI will follow afterwards.

But these tests are quite easy to do. I think there are many MP players on the Org, it would be a shame if others would not test different units or the same, too.

The more, the merrier. The more participate, the sooner we have good results.

[Kanuni]

Hi all,
Let me share with you the conclusions I have come up with after making many many tests with archers. I probably spent many more time with tests than playing online.

Quote[/b] ]We could also try faction specific archers (LBs, Jannissary), and artillery, napthas.

The only problem about Janissaries (and any other unique infantry bow unit) is that they use exactly the same projectiles as every other non-crossbow/arbelest foot archer: Shortbows. The only exception to the rule are Longbowmen, which have their own projectiles.

I have concluded that this is completely wrong because of various reasons. Yes all the non-longbow archers use the same projectile BUT there are some other factors to be considered.
1. The formation of the archer unit:
I have seen that the formation of the unit is very important. The archers need to have a clear line of sight with the target to get the best results. The default formation of archer units may not always be the most efficient one, so if tests are made with default formations you will see that some archers are more accurate than others. Think of Ottoman Infantry or futtuwwas for example. Their default formation is 4 ranks deep so fewer men in those units will have a clear line of sight when firing thus they will perform worse than some of the default 3 ranks deep archers. In my tests I have seen that archers in 2 lines close fire most accurately, but this is not the best way to finish ammo quickly. (I think the best strategy for an army with archers especially when facing pav arbs or pav x-bows is aiming at the enemy infantry instead and finish the ammo as quickly as possible then attack with infantry. I have found this to be most useful to counter pavs, because the faster reload of archers will let you kill more than you lose even if the pavs aim at your infantry as well.) In order to finish the ammo quickest all the individual archers in the unit need to shoot. In two lines for example all the units DO fire if the enemy is somewhat distant, but if the distance gets smaller you will see that only the first line fires, so this shows us the second important factor: distance.

2. Distance:
As I have said earlier to kill quickest all the individual archers need to shoot. On a flat land, the rear ranks lose their line of sight if the distance becomes shorter. But if you put your archers in loose formation all the archers will shoot even if the enemy distance is at minimum. So I have concluded in my tests that eventhough in a distant shoot out 2 lines close fire slightly more accurately three lines loose for archers is much better as all the units will fire from any distance. But you may ask why 3 lines loose? How about 2 lines loose or 1 line close? They will also have a clear line of sight. So this brings out another factor; the width.

3. The width of the unit:
I have seen that while in 3 lines loose al the individual archers fire, in 2 lines loose or 1 line close all the archers may not fire because some individual archers at the very sides may be too far away to be within range. Also (although I'm not 100% sure about this) just like pavs, archers fire most accurately if all archers are parallel to the target. In too wide formations the sides definitely won't fire to a parallel target, instead they will turn. So although not sure this can be considered as a 4th factor.

4. The angle:
If archers are left at auto fire and not ordered to fire to a specific target they will fire while preserving their formation. If the enemy marches to a point let's say 45 degrees to the direction archers are facing, the archers will still fire while preserving their formation and fire less efficiently. So I believe that the angle needs to be watched out as well.

5. The armor of the archer:
Maybe this can only be a factor in a shoot out, it definitely is a factor. With less armor archers suffer more from enemy fire. Fewer archers means fewer fire power so less kills.

These are the factors that come to my mind at the moment. There may be more, so feel free to add.

In my tests I have concluded that turcoman foot are the best archers with their natural loose formation because even in close formation most archers in the unit have a clear line of sight. I think their line of sight is better than all archers because every individual archers' front is almost empty. They are also like in practise horse archers vs cav, because they are fast and they can be used in skirmish vs other infantry. Try them yourself and try different formations for archers to see it yourself that some archers ARE better.

[Kanuni]

Oh btw, I guess valor can be considered as a 6th factor. Eventhough the difference is very small to be even considered, higher valor archers fire more accurately.

[Kekvit Irae]

Distance and Angle are in the projectilestats.txt, not the unit files, so every shortbow unit will fire the exact same max range and the same min/max angle. Longbow units use the same angle as well.

[Shahed]

Kanuni, thanks for that very informative post.

I think that most people do tend to believe that becuase most archers have the same projectile, they will perform the same. According to about a week of tests I did online in September last year, I found this to be false. Much because of the reasons you stated in your post.

By the way I suspect that the xbows in this test, performed better than the AI Xbows because I did not use default formation. I used two rows deep, exactly parrallel (to the cm) to the target.

Kanuni let me know if you are available for some tests.
Another thing I'd like to confirm is if missile units really are better in VI than MTW. It seems so, but I have done no tests on that so far.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Kanuni]

kekvitirae,
I think if you read once more you'll see better what I meant.

SeljukSinan,
Sure, we can do some tests, I will be online tonight...

I think the projectilestats shows that archers are only slightly better in VI and most people said that they didn't even notice any difference at all. However if you use a 7-8 archer army like me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif that small difference may be notable. We can do tests to see how it is. Cya online soon...

[Shahed]

Ok Kanuni, sounds good.

I hope to be able to make about 1.5 hours between 18:30-20:00 CET. I cannot confirm for 100% right now (depends on how the work day develops), but will inform you by 16:00 CET.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Longasc]

I hope that the results will be presented with numbers and facts.

To be honest Sinan, the last tests with ShadesWolf might be very interesting, but no results were posted here.

I know that writing down the casualties per volley is boring and taking time, but it adds some meat to plain opinion, I think this is a sensible thing to do.

[Shahed]

Hey Dude

I did not write down the info for the tests with Wolf. I will try to write what I can from memory, tonight.

From last year's tests Giskard from www.respawn.co.uk, wrote up the results in two massive posts on .com forums.
We did a whole series on SAPs. I don't mind testing again since we did those tests in 1.0 and now we are 2.0.

Unfortunately the .com forums were hacked and information was lost.

Btw Longasc, I missed you the other night. My apologies.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Longasc]

Perhaps can you find the old postings and repost the Link here?

Would be GREAT

BTW, you need not to be sorry, I have a lot of things to do and was often interrupted even while playing online, brr...

I am planning to invade Luxembourg, try not to get killed and tell my soldiers the secret phrase Uroshnor to be brought to my camp. Please do not consider them rough, it is just because we have to keep up our merciless reputation. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Shahed]

LOL

Good Luck mate, you'll find this nation's valleys and streams, and forests are venom to any invaders.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Shahed]

...but I look forward to entertaining you if you do survive. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

EDIT: btw like I said the .com forums were hacked and a lot of information was lost. Therefore the links are no longer available. I'll contact Giskard he may have saved a copy. It will only be marginally useful since that was v1.0, but the basics will still apply.

[Crandaeolon]

Kanuni, there really isn't that much difference between Turcoman Foot and normal archers. Here are a couple of test results I got earlier in a MP archery test against ordinary Spearmen, each archer shot one unit until ran out of arrows:
http://personal.inet.fi/private/jonsu/00000001.jpg
(One unit was excluded from the test because my opponent deployed his general unit behind his main line)
http://personal.inet.fi/private/jonsu/00000003.jpg

Standard archers actually performed better in these tests than the special versions, but it was only due to statistical error. Fatigue was disabled in the second test, so average kills were slightly higher. The tests were conducted at about 3/4 of full range, but accurate measurements were not taken.

Edit: I cropped and shrinked the images, 1024x768 screenies looked pretty ridiculous in the post...

[Kanuni]

Turcoman foot should be no different than other archers (let's say trebizond archers) if both of the units had equal or close line of sight. In my tests (sorry I have no screenshots to back this up) I have seen that any archer unit has a pretty good line of sight at 2 close lines and all s-bow units will perform about the same.

However (sorry maybe I couldn't explain well in my last post) under different circumstances this changes. For example if the shoot out distance is close the back line of the two line won't fire because they will lose their clear view of the target. However the turcoman (because of their natural loose formation) will have most of its individual archers clear view of the target, therefore they will kill faster and finish ammo quicker. If you compare the total kills after they finish their ammo (like you did), yes the results will be similiar, two line archers will kill slower but the 1st line has a clear view anyway. But I think in my last post, I explained my opinion about the most efficient use of archers is finishing the ammo quickly. I tried to mean in my previous post the turcomans are the best IMO if you compare archers in default formation.

But, yes as a result all archer units will be the same if you can form all of the individual archers to have a clear view. And I wrote the factors which I experienced that will cause some archers to perform better.

For example for my playing style, a 3 line loose formation archer is much more useful than 2 line close and it makes a very big difference. Because I usually use 7-8 archer units http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif my opponents want to rush me, and all the individual archers firing just until contact time is vital for me.

[Longasc]

geez, interesting

I will continue testing Archers and Crossbowmen against heavily armored Targets.

Those Archer vs Archer shootouts are nice, too, but my interest is the effectiviness against different degrees of armor. In those shoouts PAVISE XXX whatever are supposed to win everytime, right? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif


One conclusion: Longbowmen rock. They do a lot of damage quickly, BUT they run out of ammo VERY quickly.

Archers do quite well, Crossbowmen use up less ammo, but I am still not sure which one to prefer

One Thing is SURE: Arquebusiers and Handgunners SUCK, they are not worth their powder http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif

(Pavise) Arbalest, yea, they really hurt the enemy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif

Little hint: Upgrading only weapons +1 and valor+1 on normal Archers makes them REALLY strong in Multiplayer matches in Viking Invasion.

[Longasc]

Kanuni, I rarely rely on Archers too much even in Single Player, but playing as the Byzantines I really liked those Trebizond Archers, they were great against Horse Archers and even later on as enemy nations began to outclass my Byzantine Infantry.

The good thin in VI is the new Byzantine Cavalry unit, I really missed that. Kataphraktoi are not available early, as are Varangian Guards and Proionai Allagion, Byzantine Cavalry and those new Lancers really balance this a bit.

Not that they were need, playing the Byzantines in the Early Era is really the easiest faction you can chose.

I have never encountered the Archer Types you mentioned as more than a single unit, but I can tell you that I like the idea of bow-armed light Infantry a lot, those Sipahi are a nice concept, too

I personally prefer them to my Gothic Kinghts, I always found them slow and boring, preferring Chivalric Knights because of their greater flexibility.

[Shahed]

Cran, it's good to see you in this thread. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Longasc, there is a discussion on Muslim, Turk units and Sipahi which you may find interesting. It's a lengthy read, but I would recommend it, highly:

Turkish & Muslim Units in MTW (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=15;t=6420;st=75)

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Crandaeolon]

Quote[/b] ] I tried to mean in my previous post the turcomans are the best IMO if you compare archers in default formation.

I did read the post thoroughly (very nice and informative, BTW) and hopefully understood it too. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif I forgot to say in my post about the test that all units were in a 4-deep formation. There wasn't _much_ difference in ammo consumption rate.

I will again stress that even the first rank bonus doesn't make _much_ of a difference. In an Archer against Turcoman shootout the archers will of course lose big time, they are vulnerable to missiles and in a denser formation than the armoured Turcos.


Quote[/b] ]Little hint: Upgrading only weapons +1 and valor+1 on normal Archers makes them REALLY strong in Multiplayer matches in Viking Invasion.

Err... as far as I know, valour has a very minimal impact on ranged combat and weapon upgrades don't affect ranged attacks at all. Perhaps someone should do some tests? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif


Quote[/b] ]Cran, it's good to see you in this thread. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

ROFL, hey it's a thread about archery... I don't often miss those http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

We should get Yuuki here, he knows a lot about the actual to-hit and kill chance calculations. If we knew the mechanics, we could make some nice tables based on the theory.

[Shahed]

Quote[/b] (Crandaeolon @ May 26 2003,16:30)]ROFL, hey it's a thread about archery... I don't often miss those http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
hehe http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif I thought you were fed up with the archery discussion by now.

In your tests you found that there is no difference in the killing capacity of archers (SBOW), right ?

[Crandaeolon]

That's right, Sinan. Kanuni listed many good points about archery, but most of them can be applied to _any_ archer. Ordinary Archers in loose are very similar in firepower to Turcoman Foot in loose, but the Turcos can take more punishment.

One more thing to consider is the tiredness of the archers, I believe it has a negative impact on accuracy and reload time. The armoured Turcos may actually have less firepower than regular Archers in a desert/winter/heavy rain environment because the armour makes them tire faster.

The differences of SBOW-using archers are in their hand-to-hand ability, armour and morale levels, their ranged aspect has very little difference.

[Longasc]

Crandaeolon, personal question:

You certainly have a lot of battle experience in multiplayer and against the AI and it seems that you like doing a lot of testing, too.

The reason I started this thread was my disappointment about my Crossbowmen to kill heavily armored enemies.

I found Archers to do better curiously in the first posting and have not checked this again, but they must have nearly run out of ammo, while the Crossbowmen had still over 50% ammo.

Now TELL me about the holy grail, which missile unit type do you prefer, unupgraded and with no bonuses.

Crossbowmen, Archers, Arbalests, and of the Xbow-Versions, do you recommend a Pavise Version as strongly as I do?

Speak honestly and clear, or I will send you even worse than the Inquisition or an Assassin, my daughter Anne, she's so ugly that even my most loyal generals refused to marry her... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[Crandaeolon]

Wow, that certainly wasn't an easy question.

But, just the thought of marrying someone who looks like the ladies in Viking Invasion scares me enough to make me attempt an answer.

The answer is: Depends. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

If I were a cruel man, I'd leave it at that without offering an explanation. However, I'm not, so I'm gonna try to offer some pointers. Most are MP-related.

I'm not sure which missile units I'd prefer without upgrades, I almost always upgrade them a bit. A point of valour and some armour usually.

The 16-unit limit makes it important to not waste unit slots, so all units gotta have a use. One thing that's attractive with missile units is their low price. A unit of Pav X-bows with 1 valour and 3 armour upgrades costs something like 525 florins. Not much compared to a typical v3 CMAA or v4 Militia Sergeant that cost about 1.2k each. So, dedicated missile units are cheap.

Hybrid units, i.e. archer units that are good at melee combat, are attractive because they certainly don't waste unit slots. Hybrids are very versatile. But, and it's a big but, they are expensive because they need upgrades to be useful in hand-to-hand combat. This is bad because 1) they drain florins from other units, 2) if they engage in a shootout against a dedicated archer unit, every dead hybrid is worth his weight in gold for the enemy. 3) when the hybrids shoot, they get tired and may take casualties from enemy fire, which makes them less useful in melee combat.

Janissary Infantry are a very good hybrid-type unit. They're like Catholic swordsmen, similar in price and melee ability, but with the bow slapped on top for free. There's not much reason for the Turks to _not_ pick Jan Inf, really.

Longbowmen for the English are a bit like Jan Inf for the Turks, though Longbows have a better ranged attack and worse hand-to-hand ability. Still, they can double as shock infantry with their good, armour-piercing attack and high morale.

Arbalesters were almost a must in 1.1 because of their range and power. I sometimes used normal Arbs instead of Pavise Arbs, they're good when attacking and in hilly terrain because of their mobility if there are hilltops to snipe from. When attacking an enemy camped on a mountain Pavs are probably a better choice. (Often it's better to just leave missile units at home in such situations.) On plains and flats and when defending I considered Pavs to be more useful. In general, I think my vote goes to the Pavs.

If Arbs aren't available, Crossbowmen can fill the role. Both offer good lethality per volley, good resistance against arrows and they usually last for the duration of the battle because of their slow reload rate. Pre-VI archers couldn't hit moving targets well, so Arbs and X-bows were useful in fending off cavalry. In VI, archers can lead their targets and can actually hit galloping cavalry at long distance if the cavalry don't change direction while the arrows are in flight.

One more thing in favour of the arbs/x-bows is that they don't need as much micromanagement as archers. If left on Fire at Will, archers shoot all their arrows rather quickly, and it's often better to micromanage the fire to pick juicy, low-armoured, expensive targets. This is especially true with Longbows.

Back to the question. I don't like ordinary Archers; they're too flimsy compared to some of the better types. Catholic factions are better off using Arbs (and crossbows, if Arbs are not available). So are the Byzantines, IMO. Trebizonds or Brigands are not worth the unit slots when there are Byz Inf and Varangians to pick. The Muslim factions that have access to Arbs should mostly use them, but Nizaris can sometimes be a handy flanking unit, they have a wicked attack rating. As stated before, the Turks should pick JI in any case, but IMO even the Turks benefit from using some cheap Crossbows to soften up enemy archers before sending the elite guys in. (I'm not going to discuss the Turk rush-strategy here... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif)

I think I'd rate Pav Arbs on top, upgraded or not. They combine accurate, long-lasting, armour-piercing firepower with good resilience against missile attacks. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

Did that answer your question? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Crandaeolon]

Quote[/b] ]The reason I started this thread was my disappointment about my Crossbowmen to kill heavily armored enemies.

I found Archers to do better curiously in the first posting and have not checked this again, but they must have nearly run out of ammo, while the Crossbowmen had still over 50% ammo.

Archers do generally kill faster, even armoured targets. But IIRC they have 28 ammo, not 36. AI sometimes won't fire a volley even if the unit description says it's firing. It's a bug.

Crossbowmen (and the armour-piercing Longbows) definitely kill more per volley, just like you found out in your test. I'd like to know the actual mechanics, someone should guide Yuuki to this thread... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Longasc]

Seems as if the AI Archers had infinite ammo, as they fired around 36 salvos and still had ammo. They did really fire those 36, or some of the Pikemen suffered a heart attack between the attacks, that might be possible, too. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

But for High and Late periods, I just conclude with a simple saying:

The ARBALEST is simply the BEST

The only miracle left is why handgunners and arquebusiers are so abysmal bad...

[Crandaeolon]

Sometimes all individual archers don't fire and ammo is tracked for each man separately, but 36 salvos sounds a bit much like the later 40. I haven't observed the AI much, so can't really say anything certain. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[motorhead]

*bump* -- as someone in main hall were asking where this excellent thread was