Missile troop accuracies

[Cebei]

Even if it is longbowmen firing at peasants or Nizaris firing at Hobilars; the kill ratio of missile troops is very low. Is there a patch for that, or is this ratio deemed realistic?

[Hakonarson]

Archery was not very lethal - evan against unarmoured opponents such as at Hallidon Hill in 1333 - 10,000 English - maybe 6000 of them archers (24 arrows each = about 150,000 arrows) caused 4500 casualties among the attacking Scots - 500 of them on nobles, 4000+ on essentially unarmoured and unsheilded pikemen.

the English probably didn't use up all their arrows, but assuming they used half (75,000) that's 1 casualty per 19 or so arrows.

At Agincourt vs armoured opponents about the same number of English archers did pretty much run out of arrows, and the French suffered 7-10,000 casualties, mostly hand-to hand.

Assuming the archers caused 3-4,000 casualties that's one per 40-50 arrows - the French being much more heavily armoured than the Scots had been.

[The_Emperor]

The purpose of archers is to soften up the enemy before moving into melee... typically the winner of the archery duel will go on to win the battle (but as we all know its not conclusive)

Still i am quite fond of archer units and they can really cause some panic in the enemy ranks prior to a charge

[Shahed]

If we are talking about the game, then I have to say that missile units should have more power. In MTW unlike in STW missile units are far less lethal, perhaps accurately so. In terms of gameplay the missile units should be upped a notch, only in terms of gameplay, not historical reality.

[Gregoshi]

Hi Cebei. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif Welcome to the Entrance Hall.

I think most of us would like to see the archer effectiveness increased a bit - unless we are on the receiving end. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Queen Daenerys I Targaryen]

I agree with SeljukSinan on the historical aspect, but not the gameplay. Everything shouldn't be just right for us because in my view MTW is too easy to win already.

[Cebei]

Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ Aug. 29 2003,20:32)]Hi Cebei. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif Welcome to the Entrance Hall.

I think most of us would like to see the archer effectiveness increased a bit - unless we are on the receiving end. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Hi

You reminded me one more thing, when cpu uses archers it kills more men then my archers..

[mosborne]

Cebei is right. It does seem that the AI has more effective missle fire, all factors being equal. I have noticed lately that height not only extends missle range, but also increases killing power. It makes sense, but I don't remember seeing this identified anywhere. Not only does the enemy open fire from greater range, it is more devastating. I am seeing things?

[LCJr]

No your not seeing things. Works the same way in STW. Any height advantage you can get increases range and accuracy.

Can't say for certain but I think that only the accuracy increases with height. You're not doing more damage just getting more hits.

[Red Harvest]

Search around, there should be a guide somewhere to ranged missile effectiveness. I know that there have been some technical discussions about it by CA staff before. Height is a big factor. Extra height extends your range (in the game as well as in real life). Also with sufficient height plunging fire is a factor. It will be more lethal because it is more likely to penetrate armour. Armour is particulary important when the fire is coming from archers. Shields are important to. I don't know if you lose your shield bonus from plunging fire. I believe that you lose it when fired on from the flank or rear.

You can see these effects in the game. When units approach archers on a hill they get chewed up badly when they are subject to plunging fire (say 30+ degrees downward into them.) If the hill is steep enough and the archers are back just a little, then the attacker will eventually reach a position of defillade where they cannot be targeted directly by the archers because the archers are blocked by the slope. As they reach the crest they are then vulnerable to flat trajectory fire again.

To effectively use your archers, target light mounted or lightly armoured/unarmoured/unshielded infantry primarily. Focus on units that are compact and stationary. If they go to loose formation or move, then switch to another fat stationary target. The AI does some of the same thing although it preferentially often targets the closest unit. If you fire at units at extreme range you won't hit much. There are some sweet spots in the targeting and it just takes practice to identify them.

[Fragony]

A well placed unit of longbowmen can rip a unit up, terrain is key. A well positioned longbowunit with decent honour can have 5 to 7 casualties a volley, once they are close enough to attack any infanteryunit will chew up the remains.

[Shahed]

Hello Queen Daenerys

Thanks for your post. I understand perfectly your opinion.

I have always been one of the most fiercest proponents of historical accuracy in the TW series, here at the org. I probably bore some people it.

In this case however, I feel if the missile units are too weak then it makes it less of a strategy game. We really do need a unit that make an attacker (specially in multiplayer) think twice about crossing open terrain or coming under fire.

The missile units at the mo are fine for my tactics, usually I use masse missile units....6 longbows, 6 nizaris, 8 mix of Janissary Infantry and Ottoman Infantry, 6 serpentines....etc So in my case the effectiveness is much increased. Six longbows in volley fire at the same CMAA unit, the CMAA unit lasts about 90 seconds before it's down to 12 men, and then the longbowss can target another unit, and so forth.

While I agree that archers (generally) in Medieval Europe were largely inferior to their Samurai counterparts. I do believe that at least some of the units should be more proficient at the trade, on a unit vs unit basis. e.g Mongol Warriors, Mongol Horse Archers ( ) Janissary Archers, Mamluke Horse Archers, Turcopoles, Faris ( ), Sipahi of the Porte ( ).

In STW I found missile units more effective than in MTW. That's about accurate historically, but we can't reduce the effectiveness of Mamlukes, Mongols, Janssiaries, Longbows...as this is not even historically correct.

*bows*

[Kraxis]

Archers were vastly better in STW due to two factors.

Firstly there were no shields.
Secondly the average armour was around 2 in STW as opposed to around 4-5 in MTW (shields included).

Remember how great the Naginatas were at soaking up fire? They had Armour 5, the same as FMAA frontally. See my point?

[Cebei]

Actually I've come up with an interesting experience today. I was defending against Byzantines (3560 troops with emperor leading them who has 7 stars) with Turks (2200 troops with a 3 star general leading them) on expert mode. Byzantians tried to lift my siege of constantinople. Byzanties threw everything they got at me, lots of Kataphraktoi, lancers, trebizond archers, varangian guards and byzantine infantry; I had no spearmen, only camels, turcoman horse and armenian heavy cavalry. Anyway it took me an hour to decimate Byzantians (probably greatest victory I've ever achieved) with 750 men lost and 2887 men killed- 600 captured (Byzantine emperor fled).

During one phase of the battle Byzantines attacked with only one Kataphraktoi. I defended with massive arrow fire of Turcoman horse. I focused the camera on Kataphraktoi. At first I was shocked by my Turcomans' low accuracies, but later I began hearing Kataphract's horse moaning. I zoomed the camera and realized that actually my Turcomans were hitting the unit. But the horse simply wasnt falling. After 10 moans (probably 10 arrow wounds) Kataphract died.

This is still a low accuracy, but I realized that units dont fall after being hit with just one arrow (depends on armor-shield too). Listen to enemy units' sounds to see whats happening with your archers. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

[ChErNoByl]

I always thought that archers were extremely effective in history. There are always stories of how english longbowmen tear apart the french knights, and how they win against an army twice as big as them thanks to their longbows. Plus i heard that a longbow shot can go through all that heavy armor that people wore those days.

As for in game, i think it's decent. Could be slightly more damaging, maybe up the casualties by a couple troops. I usually get a large amount of ranged units to shoot at not only the opposing archers, but the units behind them as well. And i like to do hit and runs with short-ranged light cavalry before we both start running out of ammo and send troops at eachother.

[karmastray]

Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ Aug. 29 2003,20:32)]Hi Cebei. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif Welcome to the Entrance Hall.

I think most of us would like to see the archer effectiveness increased a bit - unless we are on the receiving end. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif Gregoshi, how do you always manage to have something funny to say to the new people?? That's too great

[Shahed]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Aug. 31 2003,14:28)]Firstly there were no shields.
Secondly the average armour was around 2 in STW as opposed to around 4-5 in MTW (shields included).

Remember how great the Naginatas were at soaking up fire? They had Armour 5, the same as FMAA frontally. See my point?
Yep I see it.