View Full Version : Archers Underpowered in MTW
Are archer units underpowered for their cost in MTW?
I think so, it seems to me the average archer unit is lucky to take 2 kills per salvo, especially if the opposing unit is armoured, if archers really were this poor on the battlefield surely they would not have been used very often. Even armour piercing units like Long Bows take very few kills on armoured units. Given the high cost of the archer units they don't seem to be worth it.
torsoboy
12-01-2003, 16:09
It's not the killing power that justifies the cost, it's the striking range. Obviously, when you train an archer unit you are paying premium for the ability to project its killing power over a distance.
This striking range I'm talking about can be used to force the opposition into advance or retreat. If the archers can shoot at the opponent, he will have to react by closing in or moving out of range. By forcing the other to move, you could potentially create exploits in their battle line.
Hence, missile units can validate the investment, depending on your ability to use them correctly.
I agree with torsoboy. I rarely use archer units in an offensive situation (short of creating a spearman/bowman screen to flush my enemy towards). However, defensively I find them invaluable. This is especially true early in the game when I face a number of moderate or poorly armored units. When an enemy is advancing on me, I usually focus my arrow “firepower” on a single week unit (i.e. peasants). With 3 Trebizond archer units, 2 Byzantine cavalry units, and one horse archer unit all firing together, it isn’t long before the peasants are beating a hasty retreat. Often if there are other weak and poorly-moralled units nearby, it takes little to convince them to leave once they see their comrades running. If I have flanked and surrounded their units, the combination of being surrounded, and having arrows raining down their heads, really seems to send many units packing.
However, my favorite use of archers is to target the general. Once he turns and runs, most other units (during the first age of the game) will follow. Those who don’t, find themselves horribly outnumbered by my flanking soldiers and men on horseback. In the last two defensive battles I fought, the general was just a single mounted unit. Both times I killed him shortly after he and his cronies were within range. I was able to kill the few units who stayed using my foot soldiers, and sent my mounted units to cut down those who fled. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Historically they were cheaper than the melee soldiers which isn't reflected in the game. I agree that they can be effective, especially in the the Single Player version where after paying for them intially you get to keep them, but in the multiplayer you are not really getting value for money.
Quote[/b] (Rivelin @ Dec. 01 2003,10:54)]Historically they were cheaper than the melee soldiers which isn't reflected in the game. I agree that they can be effective, especially in the the Single Player version where after paying for them intially you get to keep them, but in the multiplayer you are not really getting value for money.
I was under the impression that bows and arrows, were quite expensive to make. I know that historically certain bowmen received a great deal of training. English longbowmen, for instance, were selected at birth and trained from the earliest possible age. Perhaps the cost of the bow units is meant to reflect this time-dedicated expense.
Surely not as expensive as giving someone a suit of armour and a sword. Guaranteed they need some training, and sometimes long periods (Longbows) but so would the Chivalric Men At Arms - who cost approx a 1/3 less. It just seems wrong to me that armoured troops would cost less than archers. Edward I took a large contingent of longbows with him to Scotland because they were cheaper than taking footsoldiers.
Anyway rant over....
The_Emperor
12-01-2003, 19:39
Archers are not meant to be war winners, they are meant to harass and deplete the enemy formations from long range before the melee carnage begins.
Most of the time whoever wins the archery duel will go on to win the battle...
Do not neglect the use of archers, they do have an impact and in the right places they can really cause the enemy some pain before the Coup De Grace.
At any rate Archers were cheaper than Armoured Men At Arms. Medieval English Armies often had more archers than any other type of unit.
Somebody Else
12-01-2003, 21:02
Personally I think it would be great to have archers (and other ranged units) icorporated into units such as spearmen - as they did in the Civil War [not the silly one with blues and greys (or was it grAys?)]
They'd be amongst the spearmen, and be able to discharge right into enemy lines directly than over the heads of a unit of melee infantry or whatever.
I admit that would make the game unnecessarily complicated, but it would still be more sensible.
We use cavalry against archers right? Well, apparently at Agincourt etc. the cavalry didn't want to charde the archers, as a) that meant charging into levelled aimed arrows from very powerful bows, b) the archers had planted nastily spiked stakes in the ground in front of them.
Now there's an idea - being able to position barricades or some such defensive equipment when fighting a defensive battle...
I'm rambling now. I'll stop. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
dwarven_eagle
12-01-2003, 21:07
I'm not the one to be talking but they are overpriced. With the amount of metal used in armour one could make 100's of arrow tips.
But how effective they are really depends how stratigicly you place them, they do kill your own units to
1. Hills, slow down enemy troops giving your archers more shots at the enemy
2. Trees, can be used as a shelter against enemy archers (don't know if this efects how effective yours are)
3. If your defending they can be used to divert the enemy and get them at the flank (or the oppisite)
Don't know if this is true or not but archers were morely to injer the enemy, if your hit in the arm your not going to die (if a sword cuts off your arm and you'll bleed to death)
I agree with what torsoboy wrote as well. The advantage of the Archer units is that they rarely are in melee , if protected properly, and so suffer far fewer casualties than h2h units do. So they may only kill a few per salvo but can kill 40+ for little or no loss in a battle. I often have early production of Archers and then hardly need to build any more or the occaisonal top up when expanding, other units need to be constantly rebuilt.
Many of the later Archer units are also hybrids, like Trebizond Archers, Futuwwa, Nizaris, Longbows, Janissaries etc. They are quite melee capable and cost much more, the basic Archer is moderately priced at 225Fl.
Archers suck in MTW. They were much better in STW, and look like they will be better in RTW.
Sjakihata
12-01-2003, 23:13
I only use archers if either:
a) they are on horse back
b) it is early
Just use pavise xbow men they will get you some hefty kills
Brutal DLX
12-02-2003, 11:57
They are not underpowered. But on the flip side they are not as elite as the Samurai archers of STW. Also you have to consider what unit you are firing at. Heavily armoured units are hard to kill with normal archers, that's why crossbows and arbalests can be built later on in the game, and you should switch to that.
I recall having four desert archer units when defending Egypt against numerous invasions, and they were the main reason why the enemy was repelled each time. Against lightly armoured units, they can achieve a lot of kills.
Also archers get a bit better the higher valour they have, but it's only marginal.
I used to think archers were underpowered when I was starting the game (memories of STW), but have come to value them in SP.
On the defensive, archers are good for turning the tables a little in your favour - their damage lowers the enemies morale, giving you a little edge in determining who wins a melee. They are great at killing cavalry (esp. annoying horse archers) if you can hold off the cav with a wall of spears.
With the right force composition, I find I can win defensive battles against the AI with low casualties - a melee-only army might give me more raw power, but I suspect it would lead to higher casualities too. The archers ability to kill without being killed should not be under-estimated.
On the offensive, they are great for getting the defenders to move from their chosen position.
Their arrows do run out quick, but this is not a big deal under VI. I always bring 3 more archers units as early reinforcements for defensive battles. On the offensive, you'll be lucky if the shooting phase of the battle lasts long enough to exhaust your arrows.
Of course crossbow and arbalests are far better. Arbalests in particular seem a game-winning weapon in high period SP. (I thnink they should just be in late).
Black Arrow
12-02-2003, 14:55
Speaking as a real-life archer (OK I use a modern recurve bow and carbon-fibre arrows but the technique is the same) there are aiming problems an archer has to face. Most bows don't come with a range-finder so your bowmen are going to be less succesful against moving, spread out or shallow targets. It will be easy to over or undershoot in such circumstances. Against static and deep (ie several tightly packed ranks) targets the kill rate should rise sharply. Best of all if you can protect the archers using stakes ,a palisade or screening troops and have them hold their ground they will do progressivly more damage as the opponents close.
What I do find strange is the rate of fire. a reasonably good archer should be able to loose an aimed arrow every 10-15 seconds, so a group of 60 longbowmen should be firing off around 350 shafts a minute. Both the TW games seem slower than this so you may have a point.
As noted above the archers give you the chance to disorder and reduce the enemy from a distance but you then have to capitalise by using melee troops to utilise this advantage.
In multiplayer, you determine this by having one player take an all hand-to-hand army and the other take an army with some archers. The question to be answered is, How many ranged units can you take and still have a chance of beating the all hand-to-hand army?. In other words, can you stop a rush if you take ranged units? At less than 10k florins, it doesn't seem that you can take many archers and expect to stop a rush. The more archers you take, the worse your chances get. At 5k florins taking 4 ranged units probably means you can't stop a rush. So, at low florins the archers seem to be overpriced if you can't take 4 and maintain reasonable winning chances. This problem balances out if both sides take archers despite the overpricing. At around 15k florins, the upgrade discounts make the combo (archer/sword) units the equal of single purpose sword units in hand-to-hand at around the 1250 florin unit cost level. So, there is a shift of balance favoring the combo units, but I would say the standard archer is still lagging behind in cost/benefit ratio even at 15k if you try to upgrade it. Of course, you might get some mileage out of a standard archer at 225 florins when the average hand-to-hand unit costs 1200, but at 15k the game is more about attrition due to the high morale, and that hurts the archer because the -2 morale it induces by inflicting casualties isn't a factor when morale is high and you won't get much attrition due to the limited (28) arrows. The upgraded combo units can win in the hand-to-hand fighting after inflicting moderate casualties on the enemy hand-to-hand units. Here basic archers might be put to good use by inclicting casualties on the much more expensive upgraded combo units.
Is 2 kills for 60 arrows realistic though? It seems awfully low. Sure they are brill against milita or peasants, but for the cost of the unit ( 350 for longbows and often not much less for other units - ordinary archers are 225) they are too weak. Compared to Arquebuisers (175) they are ridiculously expensive. Are we really saying that a wooden longbow is more expensive than a metal gun.
Maybe this is only really a problem for the Multiplayer side of the game, but it seems to me that the archers have been dealt a raw deal.
I think the high cost would be justifiable if the archer units were made up of 100 men. What does anyone else think to this idea?
Ja'chyra
12-02-2003, 18:13
Archers were also used for keeping your enemies heads down. If you're under a shield they're a mere nuisance, but you can't see what's going on around you, and if you put your shield down you get a sharp pointy stick in the face. I would imagine this is quite effective. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
As I recall, tests I ran of standard archers shooting at stationary 100 man pikemen (armor = 1) on flat ground at max range achieved about 80 kills total. That's about 3 kills per volley, but in actual MP battles you never get that many kills for a variety of reasons. Some of the reasons are that enemy units don't stand still, they go into loose formation, most units have more than armor = 1 and your archers usually take some casualties which reduces their total ammo. If you get 30 kills with an archer in multiplayer, you're doing well. Are those 30 kills worth the cost of the archer? I guess it depends on the value of the 30 men the archer killed.
Ikken Hisatsu
12-03-2003, 00:13
your average archer would certainly cost a lot less to train and equip than a swordsman, but they have to make the game balanced after all, and I think they did a fairly good job. although archers are very difficult to use in an offensive (for me anyway)
Brutal DLX
12-03-2003, 11:19
In SP, upkeep costs are far mor important than building costs, therefore it is my opinion that archers are still a fairly cheap unit to have around, given their potential.
As for MP, Yuuki has given a very detailed analysis already.
Could you put a link up to Yuukis analysis please as I would be interested to read it.
Brutal DLX
12-03-2003, 12:22
Yuuki is the MP name of Puzz 3D. See above for the analysis. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
In my opinion no army is complete without missiletroops. If you have no missile troops you narrow down your tactical options. On the other hand if the enemy has no missile troops you can to some extent define the terms of battle to him.
I don't know anything about MP, but in SP I feel naked without at least 2 missile units in a full stack (preferably 3 or even 4).
Oh
As far as I can see archers are rarely used successfully in MP, and the reason for this surely is that the discounted valour upgrades do not entirely compensate for the high starting price. The only combo unit that I have seen used successfully on a regular basis is the Jannisary, which starts off with decent defence. The rest of the the archers - even the LB have such poor defence that the upgrades are usually wasted. Because of the high price of LBs a CMAA can have a +1 defence upgrade and be cheaper than a non upgraded LB.
I have tried upping the number of men in the unit for the longbows and got some funny results when doing upgrades. The cost actually went into minus figures after a few upgrades, does anyone know why this might be?
torsoboy
12-03-2003, 16:00
Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Dec. 02 2003,16:46)]In multiplayer, you determine this by having one player take an all hand-to-hand army and the other take an army with some archers. The question to be answered is, How many ranged units can you take and still have a chance of beating the all hand-to-hand army?. In other words, can you stop a rush if you take ranged units? At less than 10k florins, it doesn't seem that you can take many archers and expect to stop a rush. The more archers you take, the worse your chances get. At 5k florins taking 4 ranged units probably means you can't stop a rush. So, at low florins the archers seem to be overpriced if you can't take 4 and maintain reasonable winning chances. This problem balances out if both sides take archers despite the overpricing. At around 15k florins, the upgrade discounts make the combo (archer/sword) units the equal of single purpose sword units in hand-to-hand at around the 1250 florin unit cost level. So, there is a shift of balance favoring the combo units, but I would say the standard archer is still lagging behind in cost/benefit ratio even at 15k if you try to upgrade it. Of course, you might get some mileage out of a standard archer at 225 florins when the average hand-to-hand unit costs 1200, but at 15k the game is more about attrition due to the high morale, and that hurts the archer because the -2 morale it induces by inflicting casualties isn't a factor when morale is high and you won't get much attrition due to the limited (28) arrows. The upgraded combo units can win in the hand-to-hand fighting after inflicting moderate casualties on the enemy hand-to-hand units. Here basic archers might be put to good use by inclicting casualties on the much more expensive upgraded combo units.
I like this approach to unit analysis.
I like archers, or longbows at least, for the reasons stated above: On attack, they are good at moving the enemy off that hill, and on defense, I find that they can disrupt the approaching lines. If 3 or 4 units of longbows focus on a single enemy unit, that enemy unit might be decimated if not well armored. In addition, the enemy's approach is slowed enough for my cavalry to get into their rear.
My problem with the longbows is that they often seem to forget to skirmish. They're out in front of a wall of spears, doing their damage. As the enemy approaches, they turn, and ho hum, maybe we out to back up a wee bit. While they stroll backward, the last archer is caught by the charging enemy, and they're engaged. That's no help. Skirmish, you blockheads
My question about archers is: Does anyone know what their commander is shouting? It sounds like: Hey there Indemnity and Comstock
Archers very useful in the SP game both offensively and defensively, but they are difficult to use sometimes and require some practice.
When you are selecting the missile units you must balance rate of fire with killing ability. Pavise arbs hit hard but take forever to reload. Think how many times can a missile unit hit its enemy between the time that the enemy comes into range and makes initial contact with your line and you have to stop firing to prevent friendly fire. The more times that you can hit the enemy in that interval the more damage you do, however if the weapon is terribly weak you can hit them ten times and not do too much damage. Longbows are the best balance that I have found: they are quick firing and relatively good against armor.
The basic theory of getting the most from your missiles is concentration and to think about your battle as having stages: softening, breaking, and pursuit. This goes for offense and defense. Bridge battles are slightly different and I won't discuss them here. This is all hypothetical but still based on my experiences with the SP game.
This thread Archers the Weakest Arm? (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=15;t=10845;hl=dhepee) will also clear up a lot about archers and their usage.
Since this is all based on my experiences please everybody add your own experiences with battles and your own ideas.
Offensive Use of Archers
In a multi stack battle you can play with your army composition more. If you go onto the field with an army of say:
8 Longbows
4 Cheap spear units
4 Tough mounted/melee units
And then have elite cavalry and elite melee units in reserve.
Spread out the spears in a single line and stack the longbows behind them.
Leave the tough units in a strong defensive position and put the rally point right behind them. They are your reserve in case something unforseen happens and will keep your army on the field while you are assembling reinforcements.
Advance the group of spears and longbows so that they are just in range of the enemy and concentrate all of the archers on a single target. Go for a weak unit in the front of the line, they will rout fairly quickly as they rout through the lines it lowers morale then start going for tough defensive units nearby, pikes etc. When you are about half out of arrows aim for the general. If you can take the general out you can probably win the battle. With whatever ammunition that you have left aim for any other units that you might want to weaken.
The most important thing whenever using missile units is concentrating your fire. One unit of archers won't do much damage, 4 or 5 or 6 or 8 will do huge damage quickly. Take the archers off of Fire at Will This is historically accurate. The English army at Agincourt did not have 2 units of 120 men each firing at random target. They had all of their archers firing all at once at the two columns of advancing French knights. You want to replicate this as much as possible.
The cheap spear units shield your archers, they take the hits from the AI's archers, and can hold off limited counterattacks. Have the archers work over units one at a time.
Use missiles strategically. Think about what you want to accomplish. 1) Weaken morale and remove units from play 2) Kill or rout the general
Once you are out of ammo withdraw the archers and the spear units used to cover them, bring in your elite units and then go after the weakened enemy. Archers can gain a lot of valor, do a lot of damage and take few if any casualities in the process.
Defensive Use of Archers
Using archers defensively is a lot like buying real estate it's all about location, location, location.
When you are on the defensive you have a wide latitude in picking your location. Pick a location that is easily defensible, the top of a hill or ridge line is best, that has a clear line of sight, and that is near the edge of the map so that you can swap units easily.
Think of the defensive battle as having two distinct stages: breaking of the enemy and pursuit. The battle is won in the breaking of the enemy, the war is won in the pursuit of the enemy. To that end in a multi-stack battle begin with an army of:
8 long bows or similarly powerful missile units
8 powerful foot units.
In selecting your foot units you should probably go with a heavy preponderence of spears, the best being the Swiss Armored Pikemen, with a few melee units thrown in.
What you want to do is be able to hold your line intact while the archers do their work. To that end arrange the spears/melee in a semicircular line close to where the reinforcements come on. Make sure that you can protect your flanks from cavalry because they will make a mess of archers if given the chance. Tightly group the archers in the center of this semi-circle.
Like I said above fire at will should be turned off. It will waste ammo in inconsequential volleys. Think of the English at Agincourt. Pick the most dangerous unit that is closest to you and begin firing as soon as they come into range. Do not stop firing until they either rout or make contact with your foot soldiers. Once contact is made let the foot soldiers do the work, you don't want to take any friendly fire casualties. Start firing at another unit, and repeat. The key again is concentration, a high volume of concentrated fire on one unit will rout it or severely deplete it in almost no time at all.
Once you are out of arrows withdraw the archers and start to bring on reinforcements. This is where location comes in, you want this process to be done quickly so make sure that you pick a location that is easy to defend and close to the map edge where you troops come in. Bring in strong melee and cavalry units. This is where the breaking ends and the pursuit begins. Once your reinforcements are on the field you can begin hammering on the enemy. Use the original foot soldiers as a center, with some of the reinforcements behind them propping them up and the rest out on the flanks. Sweep in on the attacking enemy and then forward. Once the sweep begins you might want to withdraw the original foot soldiers because they are exhausted and bring on some more cavalry.
If the enemy has reinforcements - you do have intelligence out there don't you - only pursue up to a point and then hold your army in place to tackle the reinforcements. Reinforcements come in drips and drabs and can be taken a piece at a time. The AI rarely assembles a full army and then attacks. You want to give yourself room to maneuver, so stay at about midfield. Also if you break a unit too close to its map edge it will run off mostly intact, you want to cut it from 120 men to 12 not to just 90.
You want to not just push the enemy stacks off the field you want to maul them so badly that those stacks are never a threat again. Soften them with arrows, wrap them up with infantry, and kill all the prisoners and you'll never see those sorry sons of bitches again. Nothing feels better than reducing 4 enemy stacks to little more than a weak garrison force.
That's how I use archers. They are imho historically accurate and powerful if you use them in a historically accurate manner. They were, and are in the game, most effective when they are used as a large concentration protected by a line of spears, as we don't have barricades, to be followed up by a strong infantry strike and pursuit. Alone archers are almost worthless but part of an overall multi-stack strategy they can win a battle and wipe out the enemy's stack.
Remember 120 archers firing at you is one thing 960 firing at you all at once is something else entirely.
Gregoshi
12-04-2003, 06:26
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif Hello Canute. Welcome to the Org.
About the languages, there has been discussion on this. From what I recall, if you are talking about English units, I think they use Latin to issue orders.
Many thanks, Gregoshi. I have only played as the English thus far. Once I score a win (soon now) then I will move on and play one of the Islamic factions.
Is it really Latin? I suppose that makes sense, if you're a Norman speaker of French and need to issue orders to Welshmen. The level of attention to detail in this game.
Also, many thanks to Dheepee, for one of the most informative posts that I have seen thus far, after several weeks of lurking.
Quote[/b] (Canute @ Dec. 04 2003,10:07)]Also, many thanks to Dheepee, for one of the most informative posts that I have seen thus far, after several weeks of lurking.
Thanks, I try to pass on info when I can. I am an archery fanatic in this game. I'll put something up about bridge battles when I get a chance. I have a surefire method for winning on the offense without losing too many men.
My unfinished sentence ought to read:
The level of attention to detail in this game has astonished me.
The_Emperor
12-04-2003, 19:31
Quote[/b] (Canute @ Dec. 04 2003,15:07)]Is it really Latin? I suppose that makes sense, if you're a Norman speaker of French and need to issue orders to Welshmen. The level of attention to detail in this game.
In medieval England Latin and French were the languages of state and official business.
Of course during the hundred years war this was changed to English as a means to rally the population against the French. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] (Canute @ Dec. 04 2003,13:16)]My unfinished sentence ought to read:
The level of attention to detail in this game has astonished me.
It astonishes my wife too, I think it annoys her a little bit but hey she's married to a guy who has conquered Europe at least 15 times, how many women can say that?
Cruelsader
12-08-2003, 13:17
I find archers very useful in single player early era. Much more so in defensive. However, as pointed out earlier, they can be useful in offensive by forcing the enemy to attack or relocate.
Do not forget to switch the skrimish mode off if your archers are close behind spears. Otherwise they try to run when the spears are engaged in melee and this messes everything up.
Quote[/b] (Cruelsader @ Dec. 08 2003,06:17)]I find archers very useful in single player early era. Much more so in defensive. However, as pointed out earlier, they can be useful in offensive by forcing the enemy to attack or relocate.
Do not forget to switch the skrimish mode off if your archers are close behind spears. Otherwise they try to run when the spears are engaged in melee and this messes everything up.
Found this out the hard way. Several enemy units came up from the right flank, causing my archers to move to the left. As my spearmen were in a bit of a semi-circle, the archers walked passed the spearmen, and were unable to turn back before they were engaged by the enemy flanking on the left. I lost most of my ranged units. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Quote[/b] (Shamus @ Dec. 08 2003,12:11)]
Quote[/b] (Cruelsader @ Dec. 08 2003,06:17)]I find archers very useful in single player early era. Much more so in defensive. However, as pointed out earlier, they can be useful in offensive by forcing the enemy to attack or relocate.
Do not forget to switch the skrimish mode off if your archers are close behind spears. Otherwise they try to run when the spears are engaged in melee and this messes everything up.
Found this out the hard way. Several enemy units came up from the right flank, causing my archers to move to the left. As my spearmen were in a bit of a semi-circle, the archers walked passed the spearmen, and were unable to turn back before they were engaged by the enemy flanking on the left. I lost most of my ranged units. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Yes, archers should always be in a hold mode with a screen of spears to protect them. Skirmish is useless, an unit of archers being hit on the flank cannot retreat fast enough to avoid the attack. They can only get away if the attacking unit is parallel to them, an angle at all and the attackers will close the gap at the narrowest point and hit the archers at the vertex of the angle formed by the two lines. Besides the amount of time spent skirmishing and reforming the lines is such that they have no time to impact the enemy with their volleys.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-08-2003, 18:38
Relating to that most informative post by Dheepee:
I couldn't said it better myself. In fact those are for attack and defense the techniques that I use. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] ]Do not forget to switch the skrimish mode off if your archers are close behind spears. Otherwise they try to run when the spears are engaged in melee and this messes everything up.
Except for this one. I always use skirmish. Seems one keeps learning every day... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Another Archer how to. I always use archers in my armies. One of the most difficult places to fight is on a bridge. You can get some of your biggest victories and some of your worst defeats in a bridge battle.
This is by no means definitive and is only based on my experiences. Please feel free to add any critiques to this as you see fit.
As in my earlier post I use longbowmen because they reconcile rate of fire with killing power: simple archers don't hit very hard and arbs have a slow rate of fire. The more times you can hit someone hard within a given range the more damage you can do.
Bridge Defense
This is one of the simplest defenses in the game but if your execution is poor you might well find your king executed.
There are two types of bridge battles: single and double.
Single Bridge Defense
In this case there is only one bridge on the map. This is also the most difficult bridge battle to fight. If you let the enemy across the bridge mostly unharmed then you will probably lose the battle. Why is this, well because you have half the room to maneuver in that you normally do. The river cuts the battlefield in half. At the start of the battle each side controls the half of the field that their army is on and their objective is to control the whole field. Not much different from a normal battle except that once you control the bridge, by crossing it or bypreventing the enemy from crossing it, you have mastery of half of the map and are encroaching upon the other half. For this reason the whole game rests on dominance of the bridge. Lose the bridge and more than half the field is under the enemy's control. Now your only hope is to fight with your back against the wall. I'll show you why this is a problem in a moment.
First thing to do is set up three lines:
1) The plug (set to Hold) - these are the units that are at the mouth of the bridge and on it. They keep the enemy from getting past the middle of the bridge by fighting them toe to toe. The best unit here is a spear unit that fights best in deep ranks. I usually use a Swiss Armored Pikemen (SAP) unit on the bridge. In the plug unit valor matters from the get go more than it does in other battles. This unit will take heavy casualties and it will fight fighting throughout the battle, if it collapses you are in trouble.
Put your best spear unit, that does not contain your general, on the bridge. It won't be all the way on the bridge, gold box it so that it is narrow enough to fit, and then position it so that it is at the mouth of the bridge. Put two more units directly behind it, one on each side. so that it looks like this:
-
- -
2) Missile Units (Set to Hold turn off fire at will) - These are the key units in the battle. While the plug units hold the enemy in place the archers will destroy the enemy. I use 6-8 longbows.
Array them so that they are along the banks of the river beside the bridge and directly behind the bridge. I usuall stack three thin lins of archers directly behind the bridge, these units can fire directly at units coming across the bridge, and the rest on the edges so that they can put flanking fire on advancing units or so that can harass units that are lining up to try and cross the bridge.
Your first priority is to clear off enemy archers on the opposite banks. For this you might need to split your fire so that the furtherest away units from the target don't try to move into range. It is important that everybody stay in position for a bridge battle. If you have to waste time repositioning archer units then you are putting undue pressure on the plug units and they will be cut to pieces and possibly rout.
What I usually do is have 3 directly behind the bridge and only use them on troops coming across the bridge. The units on either side of the bridge can fight the archers and keep them busy and then have one roving unit that supports one side to drive off the archers and then does the same on the other side. It is also good to have this roving unit if the enemy has siege weapons on the opposing banks. Use your roving archers to deplete the siege crews, after awhile they won't have enough men to fire the weapons anymore.
3) Tactical Reserve (Out of bowshot of the bridge and set to hold) - These are your pursuit troops and your emergency troops. I use a lot of cavalry and then a mix of melee and spear infantry. If the enemy breaks through the plug units the units that made the breakthrough are probably in pretty bad shape, charge your cavalry right into them and they might retreat again, giving you time to reform the plug and the archers, use your melee to support the charge and bring the spears in to replace the routed plug unit. Also if the enemy breaks and runs their units will be in really bad shape and you can top off the victory with a harsh pursuit, take a lot of prisoners and kill them, that army will never bother you again.
The battle will unfold one of two ways: Good or Bad. Pretty simplistic but it's true.
Bad
Here how a bad single bridge defense will come off. Your units are not properly aligned. The plug units are mixed in with the archers and the archers have to move around to get into range.
You want to have your archers ready to fire at the first possible moment. The closer the enemy get without feeling a volley of 8 120-man archer units the more pressure on your plug units. The more pressure on your plug units the greater the chance that the battle will go bad. I can't stress this enough. If your rely to heavily on your plug units then you are exponentially more likely to have your battle go bad.
So here goes: The misaligned archers can't get their fire on the enemy soon enough. The enemy has several stacks worth of soldiers to throw at you and the plug starts to waiver. All of a sudden a white flag comes up on your unit roster. Where ever your archers are you need to put fire on the enemy troops at the forefront of the advance. Forget about friendly fire, that plug unit is probably toasted by now, 200 Feudal Sargents ground down to 50 and those 50 won't stop running. At this point you need to keep the enemy in place. That leading unit is probably hurt pretty badly if it was fighting on a bridge, your arrows might save the day.
Now, if any of your archers are ahead of any of your plug units then replugging the gap is going to be nasty. The spears have to elbow their way through the archers and then both have to reform their ranks to fight. This takes time. The enemy is advancing. You do not have time. Align your troops properly ahead of time.
Your archers and plug units were horribly mixed up and you have a gigantic tangle of nervous soldiers. Now you have two choices. I have tried both and both work sometimes.
You can try to charge your tactical reserve through the tangle and beat the enemy back on the bridge. This is not a good idea because it only makes things more confusing. The archers and plug units are in the process of turning and moving back, while partially engaged. When you tactical reserve charges into them they will only get more tangled. Unit cohesion breaks down, people are afraid of being flanked, and a rout is more likely. Sometimes it works, but it is always costly.
Better option. Keep your tactical reserve out of bowshot of the bridge. Align as if it were an offensive battle. You want to drive the enemy back. Move your plug units and archers out of the way, send them running along the banks of the river, you can bring them into the fight later.
Let the enemy come into your territory, this is a tactical retreat. It is not ideal but you have already let the enemy across the river and have less of the field to work with for your counter-blow and that is not ideal either. Let the rules of space work to your advantage. The more space the enemy has the more spread out they will be and therefore you can destroy them in detail. Destroying the enemy in detail is ideal. So you've let them in a little bit, now charge Hit them hard with your foot soldiers and with that space you've sacrificed try and flank them. Now is the time to break the army if you can. You have one thing going for you: the enemy that came across the bridge is weakened by the bridge fight your tactical reserve is fresh. You can now use those plug units that are still intact and the archers to pounce and cut them off from the bridge. That might save you.
Here is where you might come apart and there is nothing that I know of that will help you out here. As I said above the map is split roughly in half at the beginning of the battle. Whoever gets across the bridge immediately has more than half of the map. Once the enemy has broken through more likely than not you have a big mess of soldiers getting cut up, captured, and running or about to start running. Your morale is slipping, even if you beat the first few enemy units back across the bridge you have lost most of your archers and your plug units. Almost half of your force is gone. The enemy is on the other side of the river and now you have to attack. The enemy has tactically retreated across the river and you must advance to win, either that or they are going to come across again for round two while you are still disorganized and can't arrange your plugs and archers (if you have any viable archer units left). The enemy has room to work in and they have room to force you to act. You never want to have your hand forced like that, you never want to be in a situation where your only two options are a hastily thrown together defense, one that is patchworked and very poorly aligned or to attack against an enemy that is stronger than you and who has better morale.
To prevent this align your plug and archer sections well and this will happen.
Good
Your plug units are properly aligned in front of your archers like so.
P
AA P P AA
A
A
A
P is a plug unit and A is an archer unit. The diagram is a little bit misleading because it reality it would be more compressed. The leading P is half on the bridge with its tail hanging off, the following two are right at the mouth of the bridge, there are three lines of archers directly behind them and strung out in a thin line. The remaining archers are along the banks. I didn't include the roving unit. You can vary the composition and positioning as the terrain and unit availability requires, but that is an ideal starting position.
You harass the enemy archers off the banks, take care of the siege weapons and then the enemy comes into range of your three lines archers stacked behind the bridge. At this point volley everything that is in range into the leading unit, probably 2/3 of the archers on the field, until it breaks or makes contact with the plug. As soon as it makes contact with the plug fire on the next unit (try to avoid friendly fire), and the next, and so on.
At this point your plug is fighting hard, however each unit it comes into contact with is pre-chewed. The plug will take heavy casualites, that is why it needs to be high valor, but make sure that the general is in the tactical reserve, a dead general can end a battle pretty fast especially on expert. Pretty soon the bridge will be littered with those little flat corpses, mostly the enemies and there will be a trail of them that tapers off leading up to the bridge.
This point in the battle is the most difficult, at this point you counterattack and claim the field. There is no honor in letting the clock run out on defense, I always fight them hard and if I lose I lose. If you lift your fire and charge too soon then you get chewed up, this is the most likely outcome. The other possible outcome is that you charge too late and the enemy's is prepared to defend, less likely because the AI likes to keep on charging.
I usually charge when I am out of ammo or when the only intact enemy units are weak ones that can't take a charge well. At this point group your archers into one group and your hand-to-hand units in another. In a quick sequence of events pull your archers out of the way, especially the three lines that are stack behind the plug, they'll get in the way of the charge. Once they are moving and you are confident that the tactical reserve won't get tangled up in them, select the group of hand-to-hand units, take them off of Hold and set them to Engage at Will, and order them to march towards a point well across the bridge and behind the enemy lines.
In the time that it takes the plug units to get across the river the tactical reserve will have caught up to them. At this point the enemy is on the verge of fleeing the field, more than likely, keep advancing but fan your line out so that you a) don't get flanked b) so that you can give chase, i.e. break them out of column and into a line abreast. If the enemy sends out reinforcements then you may fight meet them head on and destroy them piecemeal, as I described in the previous post, follow up and take prisoners, then kill the prisoners.
The day is yours
Double Bridge Defense
In this case there are two bridges on the map. This is the easier of the two defenses in my opinion. Unless stated otherwise the settings, selections, and tactics are the same as in the single bridge defense.
The set up is the same, however the execution is a little bit different. Also, it is harder to get this one wrong. Place your plug and archer units as before.
The difference is in the tactical reserve. You want to go with more foot and fewer archers in this type of battle. I usually field 3-6 archers instead of 6-8. In the tactical reserve make sure that you have at least 4 large, 80 man, cavalry units and the rest melee.
As soon as the battle starts take all of your mounted units, and using Shift to set waypoints send them towards the midpoint between the two bridges. Here we are exploiting a vulnerability in the AI. Unless you are right by a bridge the AI won't send troops to it. What you want to do is engage on the bridge with the plug and archers and wait for the majority of the AI units to line up to attack it before you get too close to the second bridge. That bridge will be unguarded.
Once the enemy has committed to the brige with your men on it, set some more waypoints using the Shift key so that your cavalry is charging into the flanks of the column that is crossing the bridge. The cavalry will move faster if you group them and put them in a column formation while them move and then switch to a single line abreast before they charge.
Once your cavalry gets close the enemy they will start to start to pull men out of the attacking column and try to array the to defend against your charge. This weakens the men attacking across the bridge and concentrates (Fewer enemy in a smaller space increases your kill ratio) your targets. A few volleys should loosen up the men remaining in the attacking formation. This gives you an opening to attack across the bridge with your plug and the tactical reserve that was on foot.
Generally it takes awhile for the cavalry to make it all the way down the river, across the bridge, and into the enemy's flanks. This is good for you because it gives your archers plenty of time to soften up the attacking columns. The men who are detailed to meet your cavalry charge are generally the ones who were not in range of your archers so the remainder is pretty tired out and you can be pretty sure that they will not put up too much of a fight. Remember you don't have to lift fire and charge across the bridge just because the cavalry is in contact with the enemy. You can continue to fire on them and hold position on the bridge because each volley lessens the damage done to your infantry coming across the bridge.
The charging cavalry should not have much trouble with the units that are coming out to meet them. Those units are usually pretty disorganized and you can get them tangled up and pushed back towards the attacking column. As your troops come across the bridge the enemy is caugh in a right angle where the men are falling back onto one another and the lines must retreat into each other before they can break away. This right angle trap and the subsequent confusion is to your benefit, you can use it to wipe out some units and rout the others. Once the enemy collapses on itself you can proceed as if it were any other infantry battle, see my previous post in this thread.
The guiding principle is that you want to fire on the enemy as long as possible before charging. On a bridge you can stand 4 or 5 abreast in a deep column. Only those four or five men are in contact with the enemy, that means that only those four or five men can be killed. Now if you have a strong unit on the bridge, SAP for instance, it will take a lot to kill them. The enemy is in the same situation, men 4 or 5 abreast grinding into your line. That alone is a stalemate, but you can break the stalemate with your archers. Your archers can hit men that are nowwhere near your infantry on the bridge. While the infantry only have 20 men at the most in play at any given moment on the bridge (SAP fight best in ranks of 4 deep, therefore 4 deep times 5 abreast is 20 in play), constantly being replaced, but only a few are actually fighting the full force of the archers is in play as long as they are in range and have ammo at no danger to the archers. Those 20 SAP in play are always in danger and are constantly being recylced as they die, the archers are not in any danger once you clear the banks. They can hit the enemy and cut a unit down to nothing before it even hits the SAP on the bridge, once a unit has been ground down by the archers they are much easier to fight hand-to-hand because their morale is so low. This is why in a defensive bridge battle it is key to maintain your fire as long as you can. This is how the archers can take a situation in which you could lose a whole army and turn it into a case of only one plug unit being hit hard and you destroy the enemy's army in detail.
Anyway, that took longer than anticipated to write, so I will add attacks tomorrow. Hope this helps.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-09-2003, 03:38
Relating to Dhepee:
Although I think that in your first article you're absolutelly correct, in this one, about bridge defense, I have to disagree in several issues...
Single Bridge Defense
Quote[/b] ]This is also the most difficult bridge battle to fight.
I disagree. In fact, if you do not commit mistakes, it's easier.
Quote[/b] ]If you let the enemy across the bridge mostly unharmed then you will probably lose the battle.
Correct. We want to harm him as much as we are able to.
Quote[/b] ] Not much different from a normal battle except that once you control the bridge, by crossing it or by preventing the enemy from crossing it, you have mastery of half of the map and are encroaching upon the other half. For this reason the whole game rests on dominance of the bridge.
Wrong. The mastery of half the terrain or half the bridge isn't important. What's important is to allow three factors to be explored:
1-Attract the enemy to a disadvantageous position where he can be traped, attacked and destroyed.
2-Maximize the conditions (terrain or otherwise) that allow your enemy to work in a unsustainable situation and your army in a morale-boosting one.
3-Preserve the morale and the numbers of your troops to allow you to make an efective counter-attack.
Quote[/b] ]Lose the bridge and more than half the field is under the enemy's control. Now your only hope is to fight with your back against the wall.
As I said before, it's not the AMOUNT of terrain you dominate that is important, it's the TYPE of terrain that you dominate that is.
In fact, it's you who is fighting with your back against the wall, if you move your plug units into the bridge. By doing so you're giving up your advantage.
Quote[/b] ]1) The plug (set to Hold) - these are the units that are at the mouth of the bridge and on it. They keep the enemy from getting past the middle of the bridge by fighting them toe to toe. The best unit here is a spear unit that fights best in deep ranks. I usually use a Swiss Armored Pikemen (SAP) unit on the bridge. In the plug unit valor matters from the get go more than it does in other battles. This unit will take heavy casualties and it will fight fighting throughout the battle, if it collapses you are in trouble.
Just as I said above. NEVER on the bridge.
Why?
Because a plug unit on the bridge is vulnerable to two factors:
1-Enemy missile fire.
2-With shorter room to manouver, your plug units can't make a Localized Superiority move (overwhelm by numbers).
I'll elaborate.
In the bridge they fight 1-1. Outside they fight (ALL YOUR HAND-TO-HAND UNITS):1 or 2 enemy units at the most. In most cases it will be: (3 of your units):(1 of the enemy). This allows you to hit the enemy units that just left the bridge on 3 sides. One engages from the front holding your opponent, other from the right (bonus for flanking) and another from the left (bonus for flanking). The enemy units that follow it will be stuck inside the bridge, beeing slowly grinded by your archer fire. So, in this situation you have three advantages:
1-All your army (except reserves) is fighting, while the enemy has only 1 unit fighting.
2-All the enemy (except their archers) is taking a beating. The engaged unit beeing cut to pieces by your 3, and the rest of the enemy army, on the bridge, beeing hit by your arrows.
3-Your engaged melee units, as they are on this side of the bridge, don't sufer from enemy missile fire.
Quote[/b] ]Your first priority is to clear off enemy archers on the opposite banks.
Hardly necessary with my tactic. They don't have anything to fire upon...
Quote[/b] ]Use your roving archers to deplete the siege crews
Again, hardly necessary. Never been through a situation were enemy siege units could reach my men.
Quote[/b] ]3) Tactical Reserve (Out of bowshot of the bridge and set to hold) - These are your pursuit troops and your emergency troops. I use a lot of cavalry and then a mix of melee and spear infantry. If the enemy breaks through the plug units the units that made the breakthrough are probably in pretty bad shape, charge your cavalry right into them and they might retreat again, giving you time to reform the plug and the archers, use your melee to support the charge and bring the spears in to replace the routed plug unit. Also if the enemy breaks and runs their units will be in really bad shape and you can top off the victory with a harsh pursuit, take a lot of prisoners and kill them, that army will never bother you again.
Correct. Except I only use spear or pike units if the unit that broke through is a cav unit.
Quote[/b] ]Bad
I agree with most parts of procedings and precautions, except that with my method you don't have the problem of a wavering unit in the bridge or a confusing replacement for that same unit.
As for the domination of the terrain, I've already explained that part.
Quote[/b] ]Good
Again, I agree with most parts of the tactical procedings and precautions. As you said, the right timming for the counter-attack is very important. Not too soon, not too late. I also counter-attack when all my missile units are depleted.
But the rest concerns the implementation of your process. Since my process is different, I have nothing to say.
Double Bridge Defense
I use the cav encirclement tactic just like you described, but with the different implementation of the plug units, as I said before.
Quote[/b] ]The guiding principle is that you want to fire on the enemy as long as possible before charging. On a bridge you can stand 4 or 5 abreast in a deep column. Only those four or five men are in contact with the enemy, that means that only those four or five men can be killed. Now if you have a strong unit on the bridge, SAP for instance, it will take a lot to kill them. The enemy is in the same situation, men 4 or 5 abreast grinding into your line. That alone is a stalemate, but you can break the stalemate with your archers.
Precisely my point. It takes a lot to kill them, but they don't kill a lot too. With my method you'll always have local numeric superiority (3:1) allowing a better kill ratio and lower casualties on your melee units. You will have the same number of kills by archers, but much more by your melee units.
Another advantage:
-Melee units don't need to be High honor.
Quote[/b] ]Fewer enemy in a smaller space increases your kill ratio
In relating to archer efectiveness, it's the exact opposite.
But having fewer men on the bridge, means your melee units will kill more men (weaker enemy).
If you'd like, I will post bridge battle pics and explain my method. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Brutal DLX
12-09-2003, 11:08
Good post Aymar, just two points:
1) It is possible that your men can be fired upon even if they stay on their side and fight at the bridgehead, hence it is desirable to take out enemy archers if it is easily possible, for instance if there are two bridges.
2) Especially on attack it is often a good move to sacrifice one of your own units to lure the enemy onto the bridge. In that case, that unit must often stay on the bridge lest the enemy gives up the pursuit and assumes their former positions. The decoy unit should therefore be one that has a lot of men and a good defence, but also is expendable, so that suggests using spearmen or armoured pikes.
Cruelsader
12-09-2003, 16:19
Wow, some people really devote a lot of time to give advice Thanks
Just a few points:
1) I find the bridge defense the easiest battle. First, the AI just marches his men to death. Second, the AI does not know how to attack two bridges the same time and focuses only on one. On the other hand, I find bridge attack one of the most difficult battles.
2) Plugging the bridge is costly because it invites enemy fire. It is also risky because if your plugging unit routs it may rout your whole army. On the other hand, waiting on your side of the bridge does not gurantee that you will not be fired at: some bridges are indeed so short that the enemy archers can shoot to the other side, especially when their side has higher ground. Also, waiting on the other side can be very risky if you have much less men than the attacker. The enemy could eventually break through and then you are in real trouble. Finally, once the first enemy unit routs your men try to follow and this may result in a mess and high casualty rate.
3) If your enemy has a lot of missile units the following trick can be helpful: place a small well armored unit at the steep inlince of the bridge at your side. You suffer the height disadvantage against melee attacks but the effectiveness of enemy archers and crossbows is sometimes drastically reduced because they tend to miss your unit due to the angle and cover of the bridge.
4) If you are an attacker and the enemy has few or no archers I found the following tactics helpful. Line up your missile troops so that they can shoot at the bridge. Walk a well armored cavalry over the bridge. At certain moment the defending AI will rush forward to attack your cavalry. Retreat immediately with your cavalry. The enemy will be lured on the bridge where it will take casualties from your missile troops. The AI will usually turn aorund once it realizes that it cannot catch you and walks back still taking fire and this time from behind where the shield does not help. Repeat the decoy attack until the AI unit is severely weakened, then rush its back at the moment it turns around. Watch it rout. Sometimes the routing unit routs the whole opposing army because it has to flee right through them.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-09-2003, 17:00
Quote[/b] ]1) It is possible that your men can be fired upon even if they stay on their side and fight at the bridgehead, hence it is desirable to take out enemy archers if it is easily possible, for instance if there are two bridges.
Yes, in some situations. But most of the time the enemy has no range.
Whenever a enemy melee unit is crushed and routs, I retire my melee units out of archer range (if they are beeing hit), luring the next enemy melee unit to the killing zone.
Of course, with two bridges I crush them using my cav. But that's a different scenario.
Quote[/b] ]2) Especially on attack it is often a good move to sacrifice one of your own units to lure the enemy onto the bridge. In that case, that unit must often stay on the bridge lest the enemy gives up the pursuit and assumes their former positions. The decoy unit should therefore be one that has a lot of men and a good defence, but also is expendable, so that suggests using spearmen or armoured pikes.
He was talking exclusivelly for DEFENSE. So was I.
I always let the enemy attack several times. It's only when most of his units are battered to a pulp and my archers are depleted that I counter-attack.
I will write about attacking later on.
Quote[/b] ]1) I find the bridge defense the easiest battle. First, the AI just marches his men to death. Second, the AI does not know how to attack two bridges the same time and focuses only on one. On the other hand, I find bridge attack one of the most difficult battles.
True. That's almost my opinion about it.
In growing order of difficulty:
1-Single Bridge Defense
2-Double Bridge Defense
3-Double Bridge Attack
4-Single Bridge Attack
Quote[/b] ]Plugging the bridge is costly because it invites enemy fire. It is also risky because if your plugging unit routs it may rout your whole army.
Very true. I agree.
Quote[/b] ]On the other hand, waiting on your side of the bridge does not gurantee that you will not be fired at: some bridges are indeed so short that the enemy archers can shoot to the other side, especially when their side has higher ground. Also, waiting on the other side can be very risky if you have much less men than the attacker. The enemy could eventually break through and then you are in real trouble. Finally, once the first enemy unit routs your men try to follow and this may result in a mess and high casualty rate.
But not often do my men recieve missile fire. As I explained above, after the first enemy unit is routing I move them back (out of range) waiting for the next. This preserves them from missile casualties and from engaging on the bridge.
If you have much less men, any battle is always risky. But in fact my method still preserves those few units the better. You just got to keep 1-2 enemy units engaged at the most. More than 2 and you're inviting disaster.
Quote[/b] ]3) If your enemy has a lot of missile units the following trick can be helpful: place a small well armored unit at the steep inlince of the bridge at your side. You suffer the height disadvantage against melee attacks but the effectiveness of enemy archers and crossbows is sometimes drastically reduced because they tend to miss your unit due to the angle and cover of the bridge.
Didn't know that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Does it really work? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Quote[/b] ]4) If you are an attacker and the enemy has few or no archers I found the following tactics helpful. Line up your missile troops so that they can shoot at the bridge. Walk a well armored cavalry over the bridge. At certain moment the defending AI will rush forward to attack your cavalry. Retreat immediately with your cavalry. The enemy will be lured on the bridge where it will take casualties from your missile troops. The AI will usually turn aorund once it realizes that it cannot catch you and walks back still taking fire and this time from behind where the shield does not help. Repeat the decoy attack until the AI unit is severely weakened, then rush its back at the moment it turns around. Watch it rout. Sometimes the routing unit routs the whole opposing army because it has to flee right through them.
Very true. I use the same tactic on attack. But I was talking about defense on my previous post.
Cruelsader
12-09-2003, 18:26
Thank you for interesting comments Aymar My original post wasnt't really meant as a critique; I just wished to point a few related things. Some remarks:
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Dec. 09 2003,10:00)]
Quote[/b] ]On the other hand, waiting on your side of the bridge does not gurantee that you will not be fired at: some bridges are indeed so short that the enemy archers can shoot to the other side, especially when their side has higher ground. Also, waiting on the other side can be very risky if you have much less men than the attacker. The enemy could eventually break through and then you are in real trouble. Finally, once the first enemy unit routs your men try to follow and this may result in a mess and high casualty rate.
But not often do my men recieve missile fire. As I explained above, after the first enemy unit is routing I move them back (out of range) waiting for the next. This preserves them from missile casualties and from engaging on the bridge.
If you have much less men, any battle is always risky. But in fact my method still preserves those few units the better. You just got to keep 1-2 enemy units engaged at the most. More than 2 and you're inviting disaster.
*I agree. Most of the cases I use the 'wait on the other side' tactics because it is more effective. I only plug the bridge if the enemy does not have archers or I have only spear units.
*And yes, the enemy fire usually cannot reach over the river.
*Ordering men back from the pursuit is certainly possible but the timing may be difficult if you do not use 'pause'
*Of course, it is risky to fight when you are outnumbered. I should have been more specific: I had a situation in mind when you have a few melee units and most of them are spears. Since spears fight in formation, the enemy might be able to sneak past if you do not stand on the bridge. It might be better to plug your side of the bridge and rotate the plugging unit. The unit on bridge will not kill many of the opponents but no enemy sneaks past either. It is also guranteed that enemy piles up and suffers a lot of casualities from archer fire.
Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ] 3) If your enemy has a lot of missile units the following trick can be helpful: place a small well armored unit at the steep inlince of the bridge at your side. You suffer the height disadvantage against melee attacks but the effectiveness of enemy archers and crossbows is sometimes drastically reduced because they tend to miss your unit due to the angle and cover of the bridge.
Didn't know that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Does it really work? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
I have not specifically tested it. However, I once attacked a bridge and the enemy had a lot of missile troops. So I sent an expendable unit to the beginning of the bridge to make the AI to deplete its arrows. After a while I noticed that the air is constantly think with enemy fire but my unit has lost very few men. Then I zoomed in and saw that most arrows just wooshed overhead because the unit stood almost the same angle as the arrows decended. It aslo seemed to me that enemy corrssobow men where aiming at my unit but most of them did not shoot (I guess because my unit was behind the curve of the bridge and they did not have clear line of sight).
I have pulled this trick off once more. However, it seems that this tactic does not always work: maybe it depends where the shooting units stand. As I said, I have not specifically tested it and I usually avoid attacking over rivers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif , so not much chance to try it out in practice
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-09-2003, 19:53
Quote[/b] ]My original post wasnt't really meant as a critique
I know. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I was just commenting on what you said.
Quote[/b] ]*Ordering men back from the pursuit is certainly possible but the timing may be difficult if you do not use 'pause'
I don't use pause, only hold position. So when I disengage they come back to their inicial positions.
Quote[/b] ]It might be better to plug your side of the bridge and rotate the plugging unit.
Very hard in the thick of battle within a restricted space...
Quote[/b] ]The unit on bridge will not kill many of the opponents but no enemy sneaks past either. It is also guranteed that enemy piles up and suffers a lot of casualities from archer fire.
In the case of being outnumbered and with spears it might be an option, but generally my objective is to let some of the enemy units into the kill zone (outside the bridge).
Quote[/b] ]After a while I noticed that the air is constantly think with enemy fire but my unit has lost very few men. Then I zoomed in and saw that most arrows just wooshed overhead because the unit stood almost the same angle as the arrows decended. It aslo seemed to me that enemy corrssobow men where aiming at my unit but most of them did not shoot (I guess because my unit was behind the curve of the bridge and they did not have clear line of sight).
Very interesting. I'll check that out. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] ]However, it seems that this tactic does not always work: maybe it depends where the shooting units stand.
I agree. Height is a crucial factor in that.
Quote[/b] (Cruelsader @ Dec. 09 2003,10:19)]2) Plugging the bridge is costly because it invites enemy fire. It is also risky because if your plugging unit routs it may rout your whole army. On the other hand, waiting on your side of the bridge does not gurantee that you will not be fired at: some bridges are indeed so short that the enemy archers can shoot to the other side, especially when their side has higher ground. Also, waiting on the other side can be very risky if you have much less men than the attacker. The enemy could eventually break through and then you are in real trouble. Finally, once the first enemy unit routs your men try to follow and this may result in a mess and high casualty rate.
I only say that the bridge defense is the hardest in some ways because it has the most potential for victory but if you mishandle it, and I have, then your defeat can be pretty devestating.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
Good post, I'm glad that you liked my post on defense/offense with archers. Like I said I am only speaking from my experience and there are a lot of other ways to go at a bridge battle.
I see controlling the map as important because the more of the map that you control or have access to the more options you have for getting your troops onto advantageous terrain.
I use the plug because I almost always have a numerical superiority, in terms of archers and therefore can clear off enemy archers fairly easily. Also, the AI tends to pack units in on the bridge so they end up getting in the archers's way. From what I have noticed the AI does not concentrate its fire and once you start shooting at it, it will shoot back at you; by using 6 archers concentrating their fire the enemy's archers will be beaten back (I have never seen more than 4 units of enemy archers all in place to fire).
I like the plug because it holds the enemy in place with one unit while the remainder of your units are out of the action. The concentration of arrows onto each enemy unit as it approaches the bridge damages that unit to the point that they do not do much damage to your plug. If you can keep up the concentration of fire then you do not really have to worry about the plug routing. I can usually get a couple of enemy units to rout before the plug even begins to get worried about its casualties. Also by having 3 units at the bridge, along with the archers, the plug is getting the morale boost from protected flanks. Also the plugs are far enough away from the tactical reserve, where the general is, that they won't rout into it and make it nervous.
If I understand your method it is somewhat like what I described however instead of using a plug unit on the bridge you line up for a defense just out of bowshot of the enemy and concentrate on them as they come across the bridge and set foot on your side of the river. i.e. the enemy has a full stack of units but only one can come across at a time, as each one crosses you engage it with arrows and either it retreats back or you throw it back with your defensive line. Is that correct?
That is also a good method. I tend to use the plug because it keeps the enemy more off balance if you are already on the bridge with a unit. As each enemy unit comes across you throw them back and put them in disorder, eventually the enemy is a mess of routing units, waivering units, and advancing units, which is easier to attack into than if you have to either wait for all of the units to rout, giving you a clear crossing, or if you counterattack across the bridge into the enemy which gives them a tactical defense because now you are attacking into them and they can plug the bridge or force you to attack into their defensive lines.
My approach is pretty complicated but once the enemy archers are cleared out of the way and the fire is concentrated it is easy to hold the enemy off and make a strong counterattack.
I just want to add a snippet of history about archers, specifically the English archers.
The English won the Battle of Crécy through effective use of archers. And because of the success of this battle that the French lost many battles after that, also they had their King captured at the Battle of Poitiers.
I think that archers/missile units should have been more powerful in MTW, granted that they were shooting men in steel suits, but nonetheless, the basic archer should create a havoc on unarmored/light armored units.
Some stats on the Battle of Crécy:
English: Edward III
Army: Approx 20,000 soldiers
Left Wing: Count of Northampton and Count Arundel, Bishop of Durham with 1,000 armor-clad cavalrymen and 3,000 archers
Right Wing: Black Prince, Count of Warwick and Count of Oxford with 1,000 armor-clad cavalrymen, 1,000 Welsh light-armed cavalrymen and 3,000 archers
Reserve: King Edward with 700 armor-clad cavalrymen and 2,000 archers
French: King Philip VI
Army: Exact numbers are not known and estimates differ. There were files of 6,000 Genoese crossbow shooters led by Odon Dorioa and Carl Grimaldi and 12,000 knights and armor-clad cavalrymen
Crécy is a village in the south of France in the department of Somme near Abberville. One of the most terrible battles of the Middle Ages and also one of the most decisive battles of all time was waged in its immediate vicinity. Invading troops of about 20,000 Englishmen led by King Edward III (who reigned between 1327-1377) was outnumbered by about 60,000 Frenchmen headed by King Philip (1328-1350). The battle ended with a clear-cut English victory, who depended upon foot archers and took advantage of the disorderly French heavy cavalry.
http://www.arms-armor.cz/battles/crecy/index.php3
Something about the archers is out of kilter. All archer units need 100 men, higher accuracy and a higher lethality and a cheaper price. Reading up on the internet it is stated that the longbow men were accurate at 200 yards and could easily wound at that distance and at 100 yards they were fatal. This is in stark contrast to the MTW engine where the average is for 1 arrow to be fatal. Before the 100 years war the Knight ruled the battlefield. After Crecy it was the Longbow, and English armies typically had 2/3s of their force as longbows and could even go up to 85%. They were also extremely effective against cavalry and a sustained longbow volley could halt a cavalry charge. Try using these tactics in Multiplayer and tell me the balance is right. At the moment a unit of LBs could use up their arrows on a Chiv Knight and still recieve the charge.
Ask this question. In multiplayer which is regarded as the most powerful army - all archer, all infantry or all cav.
As far as historical accuracy is concerned archers in MTW are somehwat of a white elephant.
Lets be perfectly honest, in multiplayer it is widely recognised that for every archer unit taken into battle your chances of victory are reduced. Heavy Cav/Inf based armies with little or no archer units will almost always have victory over a heavy Archer based army (assuming similiar player skill levels).
Why is the 'rush' army so powerfull? It has little or no archer units
The historical truth is a far, far different story. As already mentioned longbow men were regarded in the high/late periods as the key troops in any army. Why else would the english have made it the norm to always have at least 2/3 of each army made up of longbowmen?
Imagine having an army in MTW multiplayer made up of 2/3 longbow men.....I wouldn't rate there chances
Archer units are no just a little underpowered, they are seriously weak and in the currect Multiplayer game a total waste of time IMHO.
Cruelsader
12-10-2003, 22:05
I do not play multiplayer games, so I do not know about the usefulness of archers in these battles. However, I would not like if archers were significantly better in single player game unless the AI is substantially improved. In most RTS ranged units are far better than they should be. This is because they can concentrate fire and engage enemy at distance and regardless of many terrain obstacles while most melee units have some sort of pathfinding or targetfinding problems. The same is partly true in MTW. If you attack AI unit in melee, it will defend. However, if you fire at an enemy AI unit it often does not knwo how to act: sometimes it does nothing and sometimes just moves to and fro under the fire. If archers were significantly better and AI the same, the winning strategy would be to build a lot of archers and few other troops. This would be boring IMO. Or to put it in other way: it would give the human player yet another advantage and would decrease the challenge of single player games. Not desirable in my opinion.
If you put enough fire on infantry to really hurt them but don't rout them eventually they will move to loose formation. At that point attack them as fast as possible because loose formation is the weakest formation and if you can hit them in that formation or while they are reforming to close formation then you can rout them.
I think that the archer units are too small. In historical battles, thanks to Caspian for the data, there were more archers on the field than the total number of men allowed for one stack in the game. In SP you can mitigate that by swapping units off for reinforcements but in MP you can't do that and the archers can't be massed.
I agree that the AI should fall back more readily or counter-charge when faced with a barrage of arrows, perhaps that will be corrected in RTW. I would also like to see 200 or 300 man archer units to replicate the idea of blotting out the sun with arrows but as long as the defensive AI is weak we have a more balanced game with smaller archer units.
The defensive AI is pretty piss poor in my opinion, it rarely countercharges and it seems to enjoy getting outflanked. One of the easiest strategies is to use a single line formation and just as your flanks overlap the enemy,( the enemy is usually arrayed in double or sorted double), you encircle them and destroy them. The AI doesn't recognize the danger of being approached by a line that is three times as long as its line, with the center third of the approaching line directly across from the AI units and the out 2/3 in position to turn the line. Generalship 101 teaches that you shouldn't let your line get turned like that, either you retreat and reform, swing your second line out to meet the enemy or countercharge and try to break through, but standing there and taking it is a bad way to go.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-11-2003, 13:59
Quote[/b] ]I like the plug because it holds the enemy in place with one unit while the remainder of your units are out of the action. The concentration of arrows onto each enemy unit as it approaches the bridge damages that unit to the point that they do not do much damage to your plug. If you can keep up the concentration of fire then you do not really have to worry about the plug routing. I can usually get a couple of enemy units to rout before the plug even begins to get worried about its casualties. Also by having 3 units at the bridge, along with the archers, the plug is getting the morale boost from protected flanks. Also the plugs are far enough away from the tactical reserve, where the general is, that they won't rout into it and make it nervous.
As you say, you prefer that way.
Since you are attacking the enemy archers, your plug units won't have to sustain fire for long.
And I hadn't noticed that all your troops were so close to the bridge, allowing the protected flanks boost.
But I still prefer my own method though, because I feel that it makes the army less likely to rout.
Now I'll explain my own method for Single Bridge Defense.
If you notice i choose this map, with two bridges, because of the steep clifs. This allowed an advantage for all archers. I did it, to prove this to be the worst situation for your engaged forces, due to enemy archer fire.
Initial setup:
3 units of Bilmen forming half a circle. The same for the Longbows, but with 3 facing the bridge. 2 units of Order Foot protect them, in case of cav charge. The King's unit is in the back, waiting.
http://www.totalwar.org/patrons/story/Aymar%20de%20Bois%20Mauri%20Single%20Bridge%20Defense%201.jpg
First enemy unit engaged:
As you see the Bilmen hit the enemy unit (Janissary Heavy Infantry) that just left the bridge, from 3 sides. Meanwhile, the LB have been performing their job since the enemy hit the bridge. So the first unit of JHI is reduced to 30% inicial strenght (10men). They will rout pretty quickly. At this moment, the LB are hitting the units in the bridge (1 JHI + 1 Saracen Infantry).
http://www.totalwar.org/patrons/story/Aymar%20de%20Bois%20Mauri%20Single%20Bridge%20Defense%202.jpg
First enemy unit routing:
As expected, the first JHI, with only 5 men left, routs through the incoming JHI and SI that are already sevearly depleated (15 + 35). I retire quickly my Bilmen from the chase, to their initial positions. The enemy archers (Janissary Archers and Janissary Infantry) moved to the bridge, to try to reach and hit my LB.
http://www.totalwar.org/patrons/story/Aymar%20de%20Bois%20Mauri%20Single%20Bridge%20Defense%203.jpg
Return to formation:
The routing of the first enemy unit caused a little havoc in the units that followed. They stoped and turned back 2 times, beeing continually bombarded by arrows. The enemy archers had finally been able to shot my Bilmen and, due to my carelesness, the LB.
http://www.totalwar.org/patrons/story/Aymar%20de%20Bois%20Mauri%20Single%20Bridge%20Defense%204.jpg
Re-engagment of enemy units:
At this moment in the battle, the second JHI and the 2 SI had puxed forward and beeing engaged by my Bilmen, had routed and reorganized 3 times Also, some of my LB were still under fire, due to a lack of attention on my part. They should have been further back by now.
http://www.totalwar.org/patrons/story/Aymar%20de%20Bois%20Mauri%20Single%20Bridge%20Defense%205.jpg
Re-routing of enemy units:
Now, with most of my LB without arrows, I was preparing the final push. The enemy shock units were destroyed and only the JA and JI could still fight, although sevearly depleated also. I send my RK in a charge across the bridge.
http://www.totalwar.org/patrons/story/Aymar%20de%20Bois%20Mauri%20Single%20Bridge%20Defense%206.jpg
Counter Attack:
My fresh RK push forward, whithout the enemy GBG beeing able to mount an attack (they had been showered with the last few volleys of arrows). As soon as the RK hit the enemy line they all broke and run. GAME OVER...
http://www.totalwar.org/patrons/story/Aymar%20de%20Bois%20Mauri%20Single%20Bridge%20Defense%207.jpg
Of course, this was a custom battle I made just for this post, so i wasn't really worried by casualties like in a true combat situation. All units were 0 honor, but despite my carelesness, the casualty ratio is self-explanatory.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-11-2003, 14:10
Quote[/b] ]The defensive AI is pretty piss poor in my opinion, it rarely countercharges and it seems to enjoy getting outflanked. One of the easiest strategies is to use a single line formation and just as your flanks overlap the enemy,( the enemy is usually arrayed in double or sorted double), you encircle them and destroy them. The AI doesn't recognize the danger of being approached by a line that is three times as long as its line, with the center third of the approaching line directly across from the AI units and the out 2/3 in position to turn the line.
Very true.
Quote[/b] ] Generalship 101 teaches that you shouldn't let your line get turned like that, either you retreat and reform, swing your second line out to meet the enemy or countercharge and try to break through, but standing there and taking it is a bad way to go.
Unless you form a strong defensive position with specific counter units.
Historically, it was performed several times with fewer forces.
It's possible and in the game also, although only possible for the human-player, not for the AI...
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Who needs tactics when defending in a bridge battle. It almost impossible to lose
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Quote[/b] (cnguk @ Dec. 11 2003,09:21)]http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Who needs tactics when defending in a bridge battle. It almost impossible to lose
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Yes but without tactics you can win a hollow victory as your army is wrecked and not fit to fight another battle.
Aymar de Bois Mauri Excellent Post http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
I do my posting at work, don't tell my boss, so I can't put up screen shots.
You are right, the only reason that my plug tactic works is that the spear units on the bridge have two flanking units, plus the 6 units of archers sweeping the banks clean of enemy archers. It is overly complicated. I only use it because the only unit that is ever heavily engaged is the plug unit on the bridge, the two supporting plug units are just there for moral support and the remainder of the melee fighting is pursuit, but it ultimately allows me to destroy upwards of 70% of the enemy every time. The other thing that is important is to use a steady unit that can take it head on from the enemy and not mind too much.
If the plug is too chewed up, I will often use it as a garrison unit (in a long campaign I will often create a stack of units that have all been banged up, merge them and use them as garrison troops. They lose some valor but it's a cheap way to suppress revolts, as it often times takes to long to march a unit back to a teched up province, rebuild it, and march it back to the army. If I don't have enough men in a province to suppress a revolt, the rebels don't have the best units or the highest valor so a 2 valor Feudal Sargents or SAP unit does quite well in a fight with a bunch of peasents and archers.) If a high tech province is convenient I will rebuild it and rejoin it. That said, with enough archers on the field and a sturdy unit the losses aren't too bad.
Your strategy is quite elegant. I liked the alignment of the troops on the field. They formed a strong receiving angle for the enemy. The bridge does a nice job of funneling the enemy to you and lets you deal with them one at at time, creating local superiority. I was wondering, if you were to pull your lines back a little farther would you be able to completely encircle a unit and destroy it?
For instance, if you have a front rank (the rank parallel to the mouth of the bridge) that stays in place and lets the enemy march up to it and then swing your flanks around onto the enemy, wouldn't it let you destroy that unit completely? I guess that the only concern might be that the flanks don't get back to their position in time for the next enemy attack.
Out of curiousity, does this strategy need much alteration if the enemy brings along artillery? I'd imagine that a few cannons or catapults on the other side of the river make any bridge defense a good bit trickier.
Errmm... Are archers underpowered in MTW????
I think that they aren't but you have to use them well to get the most power out of them, unlike some units that will show their power almost without regard to how you use them.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-11-2003, 17:31
Quote[/b] ]Who needs tactics when defending in a bridge battle. It almost impossible to lose
Try Expert, outnumbered 5:1... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] ]Yes but without tactics you can win a hollow victory as your army is wrecked and not fit to fight another battle.
Agreed. That's precisely the point. Mantaining your army intact, while inflicting heavy losses and winning the battle.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-11-2003, 17:53
Quote[/b] ]Excellent Post http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Thank you very much... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] ]Your strategy is quite elegant.
I'm most pleased by your comment... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] ]I liked the alignment of the troops on the field. They formed a strong receiving angle for the enemy. The bridge does a nice job of funneling the enemy to you and lets you deal with them one at at time, creating local superiority.
That's it exactly. The main point here is Local Superiority (overwhelm by numbers), while the rest are stuck like in a trafic jam.
Quote[/b] ]I was wondering, if you were to pull your lines back a little farther would you be able to completely encircle a unit and destroy it?
It depends a lot on the enemy unit behaviour. The worst thing in retreating them back further, is a Impetuos enemy unit. That's because a suden charge can disorganize your troops during enough time for the other enemy units to pour in through the gaps.
Normally, without these charges, it's not to difficult to encircle them, because they have the tendency to waste time organizing their formation.
That's when I strike http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
In most cases, I have my troops further back. But with some Impetuos enemy units I use the system described: close and semi-circular.
This last one, is always more vulnerable to enemy projectiles.
Quote[/b] ]For instance, if you have a front rank (the rank parallel to the mouth of the bridge) that stays in place and lets the enemy march up to it and then swing your flanks around onto the enemy, wouldn't it let you destroy that unit completely? I guess that the only concern might be that the flanks don't get back to their position in time for the next enemy attack.
As I said above, in some situations it's very dificult, for the lack of time you mencioned, but in most cases that's exactly what I do. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-11-2003, 18:03
Quote[/b] ]Out of curiousity, does this strategy need much alteration if the enemy brings along artillery? I'd imagine that a few cannons or catapults on the other side of the river make any bridge defense a good bit trickier.
You never start close enough to the bridge for that to be a concern... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] ]Errmm... Are archers underpowered in MTW????
Yes, Rivelin. Yes, they are... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Quote[/b] ]I think that they aren't but you have to use them well to get the most power out of them, unlike some units that will show their power almost without regard to how you use them.
True, although they are underpowered... ...at least in range.
Voigtkampf
12-11-2003, 20:06
Once again, great reading and interesting post, Lord Aymar
You must agree though that this tactic is more dangerous than simply blocking the rear end of the bridge with a stronger unit of appropriate kind and unleashing your arrows on the crowd caused on the bridge. In case of a breakthrough one cav unit cold mess up your LBs real hard before the footies could arrive to rescue - even if they are so close The simple tactic of blocking the bridge doesn't necesarry leads to greater losses, IMHO; if the blocking unit is strong enough, you get of cheap big time...
Again, I liked your approach which I tend to use in a similar manner from time to time http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-11-2003, 22:18
Quote[/b] ]Once again, great reading and interesting post, Lord Aymar
Thank you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] ]You must agree though that this tactic is more dangerous than simply blocking the rear end of the bridge with a stronger unit of appropriate kind and unleashing your arrows on the crowd caused on the bridge.
No. In fact it's less dangerous.
Why?
Less risk of your own units routing...
You never need a SUPER unit to plug the bridge. Just balanced ones.
The effort is divided throughout ALL your melee units, not just one. You never depend on the eficiency of a single one...
In your case, if the plug unit loses too many men it might rout and the penalty goes through your entire army. Then you're up against the wall, not the enemy.
The probability of one of my melee units routing, is in inverse proportion to the number of units involved.
Your method:
1 unit fighting
Probability of Routing: let's say... 50%
My method:
3 units fighting
Probability of Routing: (50:3) = 16.67%
As for a cav charge, didn't you notice the 2 Order Foot units protecting the LB?
I didn't even use them in battle... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
So, you can see that it is actually safer.
The only problem is that you have to be carefull not to let the enemy units have to much space.
The containment is itself the most crucial aspect. It's not hard, but you must pay carefull attention.
If you can achieve it, then it is GAME OVER for the enemy. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Voigtkampf
12-12-2003, 08:31
Quote[/b] ]As for a cav charge, didn't you notice the 2 Order Foot units protecting the LB?
I didn't even use them in battle...
Sure I've noticed them...
Quote[/b] ]In case of a breakthrough one cav unit cold mess up your LBs real hard before the footies could arrive to rescue - even if they are so close
Footies = Foot Order. I'm so sweet... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flirt.gif
Giving the enemy too much space to deploy it's troops on your side of bridge is, IMHO, too dangerous. Your tactic worked because the AI attacked with one unit only at the time. You've had space for errors, but in a case of a brakthrough, especially with a cav unit, your LBs would have been smashed
Besides, blocking the immediate exit off the bridge with two units with their ranks pulled together and, say, five columns deep does the trick too.
Not saying that it's a bad tactic, it's quite good actually, but it reminded me of an Austrian saying : Why simple, when complicated also works? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Talk about hijacking a thread
Heres the best example I have ever seen
Cruelsader
12-12-2003, 12:08
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Dec. 11 2003,11:03)]
Quote[/b] ]Errmm... Are archers underpowered in MTW????
Yes, Rivelin. Yes, they are... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
ROFL
I think Rivelin is right, the bridge battles should be a separate topic.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-12-2003, 13:02
Quote[/b] ]Footies = Foot Order
Hadn't notice... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] ]Giving the enemy too much space to deploy it's troops on your side of bridge is, IMHO, too dangerous.
That's why I said it was important not to give him too much space http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
You can't let them all in the kill zone
Only one unit. And there's plenty of time for that, if you keep sharp. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
Quote[/b] ]Your tactic worked because the AI attacked with one unit only at the time.
The AI ALWAYS does that... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
That's why it is not dangerous.
I'm not talking about a human player In that situation things might work diferently...
Quote[/b] ]You've had space for errors, but in a case of a brakthrough, especially with a cav unit, your LBs would have been smashed
Trust me
In that battle, even if the AI had striked with ALL it's might (cav included), I wouldn't have any problems in stoping them... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Disclaimer: No LB were hurt in the production of this film... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-12-2003, 13:06
Quote[/b] ]Talk about hijacking a thread
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-12-2003, 13:08
Quote[/b] ]I think Rivelin is right, the bridge battles should be a separate topic.
I don't think so. 50% to 70% of the kills are made by the archers in a bridge battle...
That is because the enemy units get bunched up and the arrows can therefore get more hits than usual. This is also why the bridge battles can be so easy to win. When units get squashed into a small space the game logic puts a penalty on them.
I had a MP game recently where I targeted 8 units of turkish archers onto a unit of Knights and despite firing 3-4 volleys did not kill a single knight, despite the Knights standing still all this time. That is nearly 2000 arrows and no kills. something is badly wrong in the game. Sure armour should make it difficult to kill units - but impossible??????
I agree that the problem is less evident in SP, but that is because once you have paid the high initial price you get to use the archer as many times as you want so the cost is spread out. In MP every unit has to count otherwise you will lose. The AI is not really a good indicator, nor are battles where you have a good advantage eg defending a hill battles. If you take out the benefits given by having a concentrated target or a height advantage you get the idea of how well balanced the unit is for it's cost, and if I had to decide between taking a unit of CMAA or a unit of more expensive LB that even if they fire all their arrows could not kill half a unit of CMMA, I know what I would take.
Heh Rivelin,
Maybe you can change the title of this topic to say 'Multiplayer Only'.
Hopefully that would put a stop to the discussions on the very dull, rare and ridiculously easy 'Defending a bridge battle' topic this seems to have turned into.
Sorry if it bores you, but the posts on bridge battles and regular battles (for lack of a better term) demonstrate that although the archers are underpowered compared to their historical counterparts they can be effictively used in the SP game and a demonstration of how they are used.
Aymar's post showed how to funnel the enemy and take them apart with archers and my post tried to show how you could force the enemy to bunch up and then take them apart with archers.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-12-2003, 18:34
Quote[/b] ]Hopefully that would put a stop to the discussions on the very dull, rare and ridiculously easy 'Defending a bridge battle' topic this seems to have turned into.
If you find it dule and ridiculous, you aren't complied to read it, are you? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] ]demonstrate that although the archers are underpowered compared to their historical counterparts they can be effictively used in the SP game and a demonstration of how they are used.
Exactly
Quote[/b] ]Aymar's post showed how to funnel the enemy and take them apart with archers and my post tried to show how you could force the enemy to bunch up and then take them apart with archers.
Again, exactly
Aymar de Bois Mauri,
My point is Rivlein's original point was discussing how archers are under-powered when compared to their historical counterparts. Quoting their effectivness in bridge battles IMO adds nothing to the debate as any results from defending in a bridge battle can, in no way, offer a true reflection of a units peformance. This is especially true when playing the AI which seems to have about as much intellegence as an embryo
If you havn't already done so I beg you to try the multiplayer game. It would be nice to see your 'tactics' work against a fellow human being.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-12-2003, 20:13
Quote[/b] ]My point is Rivlein's original point was discussing how archers are under-powered when compared to their historical counterparts.
I know the topic theme, but I wasn't trying to hijack the thread as you rather harshly commented. Just like Dhepee told you, I also felt it was important to relate to the importance of using good tactics to compensate for UNDERPOWERED archers.
The biggest objectives in this forum are the sharing of ideas and opinions, tactical, strategical or otherwise. I felt I was sharing concepts that relate directly with the question: ARE ARCHERS UNDERPOWERED?
YES, they are and I think I speak for myself as well as for Dhepee, as I hope he will concur, when I say that whatever we wrote, was related directly with the idea of HOW TO COMPENSATE FOR LACK OF FIREPOWER OF THE HISTORICALLY INACURATE ARCHERS.
That's all...
Voigtkampf
12-12-2003, 20:19
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Dec. 12 2003,06:02)]Thrust me
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Well, OK, I'll thrust you... Just let me get the sword...
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Quote[/b] ]demonstrate that although the archers are underpowered compared to their historical counterparts they can be effictively used in the SP game and a demonstration of how they are used.
Exactly
Nothing else to say... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
PS Don't mess in MP with Lord Aymar, he is one baaaad mutha... When he puts his peasants into deadly swift snake formation enemy knights drop their toothpicks and run like hell http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-12-2003, 20:21
Quote[/b] ]something is badly wrong in the game.
You're right.
Quote[/b] ]I had a MP game recently where I targeted 8 units of turkish archers onto a unit of Knights and despite firing 3-4 volleys did not kill a single knight, despite the Knights standing still all this time. That is nearly 2000 arrows and no kills. Sure armour should make it difficult to kill units - but impossible??????
If you couldn't kill 1 men with 8 units of archers, that fact should have already answered your question...
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-12-2003, 20:30
Quote[/b] ]It would be nice to see your 'tactics' work against a fellow human being.
Of course they would be as effective
It would be the exact same thing... ...but without the archers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-12-2003, 20:35
Quote[/b] ]Well, OK, I'll thrust you... Just let me get the sword...
My birth language isn't English http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif
Quote[/b] ]Nothing else to say...
Fail to see your point... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Quote[/b] ]Don't mess in MP with Lord Aymar, he is one baaaad mutha... When he puts his peasants into deadly swift snake formation enemy knights drop their toothpicks and run like hell
Quite a ridiculous reaction, don't you think? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Voigtkampf
12-12-2003, 21:11
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Dec. 12 2003,13:35)]
Quote[/b] ]Well, OK, I'll thrust you... Just let me get the sword...
My birth language isn't English http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif
Neither is mine http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Just messing with you, man Actually, I have mispepeling all the time, but this one was cuuuute http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flirt.gif
Quote[/b] ]Nothing else to say...
Fail to see your point... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Quote[/b] ]demonstrate that although the archers are underpowered compared to their historical counterparts they can be effictively used in the SP game and a demonstration of how they are used.
Exactly
He agreed on your point and I agreed on both of your points... Got the point? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]Don't mess in MP with Lord Aymar, he is one baaaad mutha... When he puts his peasants into deadly swift snake formation enemy knights drop their toothpicks and run like hell
Quite a ridiculous reaction, don't you think? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Not when fearless Lord Aymar leads the charge http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-13-2003, 03:13
Quote[/b] ]He agreed on your point and I agreed on both of your points... Got the point?
Eeeerrrrrr... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif ...errrrr???
OK Got it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I think... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Quote[/b] ]Not when fearless Lord Aymar leads the charge
Don't mistake me for a 14th century French Knight... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Voigtkampf
12-13-2003, 08:28
Ah, you are just toooo modest... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Cruelsader
12-13-2003, 13:43
I agree that bridge battles are reletated to the efectiveness of archers in single player games. Also the discussion in this topic has been very interesting for me (because I play single player campaigns only). On the other hand, it would be nice if the title of the topic reflected accurately the contents. Also, I think short topics are easier to read than megatopics having several pages of posts. Hence, I still think that single player bridge battles ought to be a seprate topic. It is better this way Thrust me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif (No offence Aymar. English isn't my native language either and I make lot of mistakes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif )
But lets get back to archers instead of discussing something that is up to moderators to decide.
I am playing as English in early. Because my elite melee units have armor upgrades I am using mainly spear and archers in desert battles. When defending my army usually consists of 6 spear, 7 archers, 2 light cav, 1 light melee. (If I had more resoruces I would use more cav) More than one one occasion I have routed the AI attacker with no melee whatsoever. This is the result of poor AI. (Actually the reason is that the AI, unlike humans, cannot learn form its mistakes, so once you know its battle logic it is easy to beat AI) Usually it goes like this.
1) I position my troops on a dune and take the 'fire at will' off.
2) AI sends his units toward my army. Because its cavalry is faster they arrive earlier. Usually the AI is stupid enough to come too close. Eventually the cav unit is destroyed, flees or retreats.
3) When the main army arrives I concentrate my fire on single units. Often the result is that they rout taking the whole army with them. Sometimes they rout before even reaching my spears but usually at the moment I charge forward with my spears killing a few remaining men in their almost depleted unit.
Archers are definitely not underpowered against AI if you know how to deploy them. If they were stronger without AI being better the single player battles would be much less challenging and hence more dull.
Somebody Else
12-13-2003, 14:02
Archers can be ridiculously good against the AI, but only with unlimited ammunition. Otherwise they run out of arrows leading to one having to leave the beautiful hill upon which one's army is encamped to engage them in hand-to-hand. With unlimited ammunition, entire armies can be slaughtered easily - unlimited time as well, and cannons can be used to destroy a defending AI army with absolutely no friendly casualties.
So we don't use unlimited ammunition or unlimited time.
Cruelsader
12-13-2003, 14:10
Me neither. And I play with 'hard' setting. Still the AI gets slaughtered. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
BTW, I use the archers that ran out of ammo to keep out enemy archers and to engage enemy melee units from flank and rear (the role as light melee is dangerous but effective if the enemy is outnumbered. It usually is outnumbered because of the casualities from missile fire)
Still, a hailstorm of bodkin-tipped arrows from longbows should do more than make people itch a bit, especially if they don't have plate armour.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-13-2003, 15:32
Quote[/b] ]It is better this way Thrust me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Huuhh??... OK Just let me get my lance... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] ]I am playing as English in early. Because my elite melee units have armor upgrades I am using mainly spear and archers in desert battles. When defending my army usually consists of 6 spear, 7 archers, 2 light cav, 1 light melee. (If I had more resoruces I would use more cav) More than one one occasion I have routed the AI attacker with no melee whatsoever. This is the result of poor AI. (Actually the reason is that the AI, unlike humans, cannot learn form its mistakes, so once you know its battle logic it is easy to beat AI) Usually it goes like this.
1) I position my troops on a dune and take the 'fire at will' off.
2) AI sends his units toward my army. Because its cavalry is faster they arrive earlier. Usually the AI is stupid enough to come too close. Eventually the cav unit is destroyed, flees or retreats.
3) When the main army arrives I concentrate my fire on single units. Often the result is that they rout taking the whole army with them. Sometimes they rout before even reaching my spears but usually at the moment I charge forward with my spears killing a few remaining men in their almost depleted unit.
You're right. Happens all the time...
Quote[/b] ]Archers are definitely not underpowered against AI if you know how to deploy them. If they were stronger without AI being better the single player battles would be much less challenging and hence more dull.
So, what we really need is a BETTER AI. Not UNDERPOWERED archers, right? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-13-2003, 15:35
Quote[/b] ]BTW, I use the archers that ran out of ammo to keep out enemy archers and to engage enemy melee units from flank and rear (the role as light melee is dangerous but effective if the enemy is outnumbered. It usually is outnumbered because of the casualities from missile fire)
True, I sometimes use them like that. In small battles most of the times.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-13-2003, 15:36
Quote[/b] ]Still, a hailstorm of bodkin-tipped arrows from longbows should do more than make people itch a bit, especially if they don't have plate armour.
Again, very true. And that doesn't happen that often...
Voigtkampf
12-13-2003, 18:24
Tstststs... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flat.gif
Using unlimited ammo...
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-13-2003, 19:39
Quote[/b] ]Tstststs...
Using unlimited ammo...
Sooo true... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Really awfull... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-13-2003, 21:50
One of the work-arounds that I've made in my MOD, toward more realistic archery units in MTW (mainly SP-wise), is to enable 2 things:
1-Using the NinjaStar projectile, I created an infantry Composite Bow. This was done to allow a more historically acurate game. Byzantine, Mongol, Mamluk and other Eastern archers used a composite bow vastly superior to the short bow known in the west. The increased variety of archer's habilities in the game, contributed to a much more interesting experience.
2-Rebalancing of archers range was onother essencial aspect. Longbow projectile now has an increased range. So does the new Composite Bow and the Mounted Composite Bow. Composite Bow with greater range and accuracy than the Mounted one. As for the short bow, I also slightly increased range. This was done for SP. For MP, I agree that killing power should be enhanced, specially for Longbows.
Any comments? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
there is not much need to change the killing power of longbows through missiles for online play.... why you think there is? I'd say especially for non-longbow bows http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Voigtkampf
12-14-2003, 09:27
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Dec. 13 2003,14:50)]One of the work-arounds that I've made in my MOD
Lord Aymar, you bad mutha, you've been doing a mod?Cool I'll bet it will turn out real great Got a hunch... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
Can you tell me more details? Is it a total mod or tweaking the M:TW? How far did you get? blablabla...
Get me some info, ye old chapter house http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif
Michael the Great
12-14-2003, 14:13
Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ Dec. 02 2003,07:54)]The archers ability to kill without being killed should not be under-estimated.
But neither the ability of Mounted Sargents to kill huge amounts of them in no time http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
The_Emperor
12-14-2003, 14:27
Quote[/b] (Michael the Great @ Dec. 14 2003,13:13)]
Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ Dec. 02 2003,07:54)]The archers ability to kill without being killed should not be under-estimated.
But neither the ability of Mounted Sargents to kill huge amounts of them in no time http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Yeah if they are not protected they would be.
Archers are not a war winner on their own, they are a support unit and need to be protected themselves.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-14-2003, 15:25
Quote[/b] ]there is not much need to change the killing power of longbows through missiles for online play....
Tell me, do you use archers in MP?
Quote[/b] ] I'd say especially for non-longbow bows
Well, I think all of them should. If we take a look, we can see, specially on the case of the Longbow, that archer's killing power is quite neglected in the game, if we compare it with their historical couterpart. That's what I was talking about.
Relating to MP I don't think small changes would really affect the balance of the game. It would just allow a greater variety of units in a MP game. Not just non-missile units...
That's just my opinion... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-14-2003, 15:33
Quote[/b] ]Is it a total mod or tweaking the M:TW?
Tweaking for historical accuracy. Rebalancing of units, rebalancing of projectiles and accurate historical descriptions. Just that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Nothing as extensive as BKB's or WesW's MODs.
Nothing as historically perfect as Norseman's or Berengario's MODs. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Quote[/b] ]How far did you get?
Work in progress...
About 50% to go. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
Voigtkampf
12-14-2003, 15:50
Very nice Just keep up I was doing the same thing, but I stopped working on it out of reasons I will soon elaborate more closely; stay sharp, I'll post something about it soon in the dungeons
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-14-2003, 18:02
Quote[/b] ]Very nice Just keep up
Thanks, I will http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
Quote[/b] ]stay sharp, I'll post something about it soon in the dungeons
I will keep sharp for any news http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Good to know http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif
In multiplayer, it's a matter of cost-benefit ratio. All ranged units get discounted upgrades which improves their melee capability. In high florin games where you can buy lots of upgrades, ranged units are relatively cheaper compared to melee units, and thus their cost-benefit ratio is better. Some combo ranged/melee units can actually become as good as melee only units in hand-to-hand combat if you upgrade them making their arrows icing on the cake. However, if you try to play MP at 5000 florins where the rock, paper, scissors actually works, you'll find that all ranged units are relatively too expensive for the kills you are likely to inflict with them. This leads to low florin games which are ok if both players take about the same number of ranged units, but not ok if one player takes all melee units and the other tries to use several ranged units. High florins (15k+), while making ranged units cost effective, breaks the game in other ways: namely making units fight too long which negates temporary positional advantages achieved by outmaneuvering your opponent, severely damages the RPS (swords massacre cav making spears redundant, and pumped ranged units massacre cav) and significantly detracts from the effectiveness of flanking, although the attrition aspect of flanking can be effective if you flank in force.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-14-2003, 18:46
Quote[/b] ]In multiplayer, it's a matter of cost-benefit ratio. All ranged units get discounted upgrades which improves their melee capability. In high florin games where you can buy lots of upgrades, ranged units are relatively cheaper compared to melee units, and thus their cost-benefit ratio is better. Some combo ranged/melee units can actually become as good as melee only units in hand-to-hand combat if you upgrade them making their arrows icing on the cake. However, if you try to play MP at 5000 florins where the rock, paper, scissors actually works, you'll find that all ranged units are relatively too expensive for the kills you are likely to inflict with them. This leads to low florin games which are ok if both players take about the same number of ranged units, but not ok if one player takes all melee units and the other tries to use several ranged units. High florins (15k+), while making ranged units cost effective, breaks the game in other ways: namely making units fight too long which negates temporary positional advantages achieved by outmaneuvering your opponent, severely damages the RPS (swords massacre cav making spears redundant, and pumped ranged units massacre cav) and significantly detracts from the effectiveness of flanking, although the attrition aspect of flanking can be effective if you flank in force.
I didn't really understood all the upgrade implications in MP, since I only play SP. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
What I was speaking, was essencialy relating to historical aspects.
So, it seems that in MP it's a question of personal choise, if the budget is superior to 5000florins. Good to know http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
However, in SP, I found a good balance point with my projectile tweaks... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Dec. 12 2003,14:13)]
Quote[/b] ]My point is Rivlein's original point was discussing how archers are under-powered when compared to their historical counterparts.
I know the topic theme, but I wasn't trying to hijack the thread as you rather harshly commented. Just like Dhepee told you, I also felt it was important to relate to the importance of using good tactics to compensate for UNDERPOWERED archers.
The biggest objectives in this forum are the sharing of ideas and opinions, tactical, strategical or otherwise. I felt I was sharing concepts that relate directly with the question: ARE ARCHERS UNDERPOWERED?
YES, they are and I think I speak for myself as well as for Dhepee, as I hope he will concur, when I say that whatever we wrote, was related directly with the idea of HOW TO COMPENSATE FOR LACK OF FIREPOWER OF THE HISTORICALLY INACURATE ARCHERS.
That's all...
I agree with Aymar (I would have agreed sooner but work has kept me away from the .org for the last couple of days)
I think that archers are terribly underpowered but I think that their tactical use compensates for this weakness.
Also, about posting in the org in general, these posts are very free flowing. The topic title is often a starting point, or a frame, for a larger discussion that ranges over many themes and ideas regarding the game or whatever else is on our minds. For that reason I don't think that this thread was hijacked I just think that its discussion evolved over time to not just the yes/no answer to the question are archers underpowered but to how archers are applied given their strengths and weaknesses.
Aymar I am interested in your mod to the archers. After participating in this thread I have been looking around at other threads and Frogbeastegg's guide to MTW regarding modding projectile stats. I've been think that it would be interesting to making the archers more deadly and see what that does battles, it might give the AI more of an edge than it has now and it might make things a bit more realistic
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-14-2003, 20:13
Quote[/b] ]Aymar I am interested in your mod to the archers.
Sure http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
Do you want me to send you the Projectile Stats?
You're going to have to change the projectile type of your units in the CrusadersUnitProd.
Or I'll send you my own...
I'm still working on the historical descriptions though, so that's not available at the moment... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/read.gif
Quote[/b] ] I've been think that it would be interesting to making the archers more deadly and see what that does battles, it might give the AI more of an edge than it has now and it might make things a bit more realistic
What I've found out from the changes is that, although more powerfull, tactics are still the most important factor in the use of archers.
However the AI is more dangerous, specially in attack situations. Your men's morale is put to a greater effort due to the increased range of enemy archers.
In defense things are the exact opposite. Although you can't use them carelessly, they are evidently more effective.
So it's a little bit of mixed results... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flat.gif
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Dec. 14 2003,14:13)]
Quote[/b] ]Aymar I am interested in your mod to the archers.
Sure http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
Do you want me to send you the Projectile Stats?
You're going to have to change the projectile type of your units in the CrusadersUnitProd.
The projectile stats would be great, do you want me to PM my email address to you? Cheers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-16-2003, 16:41
Quote[/b] ]The projectile stats would be great, do you want me to PM my email address to you? Cheers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif
Sure Go right ahead... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Has anyone else noticed that ai controlled ranged units usually only fire a projectile on alternate reload/aim/fire cycles? Although the graphic animation and the voice commands are the same each time, half the time no projectile is actually fired.
Sun Tzui
12-16-2003, 18:53
Hey Aymar de Bois Mauri http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Let me know when you finished that mod of your's (oh...and...i've added you to my MSN Buddy list, hope we trade some ideas).
As to the topic in discussion, i believe that yes, the archers in MTW, are really very much underpowered, and only using large amounts of them do we get those highly antecipated results (and sometimes not even then), but as it has also been pointed out, ranged units are more for tactical use than for being battlesolvers(the miracle units).
Historically, throughout the middle ages, they started by being peasants who where given a bow, some light training, and were sent off to battle, the idea of archers being so deadly derives from the use of the longbow by the english (does Agincourt ring a bell?), wich was a much better weapon, and that was able punch through most of the armour used by the larger part of that epoch's infantry, and also through most of the nobleman's heavier armour(and the game reflects that difference).
Still, wether modded or not, missile units will continue to be mostly for using in somewhat depleting the incoming units, in a defensive stance, and if you want to take the offensive, i recommend any mounted missile unit.
Still, it would be interesting to see the effects and resulting adaptation of tactics, caused by high efficient missile units, mainly archers.
http://www.kimsoft.com/suntzu.jpg
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-16-2003, 19:14
Quote[/b] ]Has anyone else noticed that ai controlled ranged units usually only fire a projectile on alternate reload/aim/fire cycles? Although the graphic animation and the voice commands are the same each time, half the time no projectile is actually fired.
I think that's because of the AI behaviour. AI archers sometimes don't have the distance or angle to hit the specified unit. So they make the animation but back off from firing.
I could be wrong, but someone more knowledgeble has already talked about that thing in another thread... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-16-2003, 19:25
Quote[/b] ]Hey Aymar de Bois Mauri
Let me know when you finished that mod of your's
Sure
I will... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
Quote[/b] ](oh...and...i've added you to my MSN Buddy list, hope we trade some ideas).
No problem http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I'll be glad to... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif
Quote[/b] ]Historically, throughout the middle ages, they started by being peasants who where given a bow, some light training, and were sent off to battle, the idea of archers being so deadly derives from the use of the longbow by the english (does Agincourt ring a bell?), wich was a much better weapon, and that was able punch through most of the armour used by the larger part of that epoch's infantry, and also through most of the nobleman's heavier armour(and the game reflects that difference).
Yes, but the Mongols also used armour piercing arrow heads. Remember Kalka, Leignitz, Mohi.
In all those battles the Hungarians, Polish or Germans had quite a lot of Heavy Cavalary and they were slaughtered
Although tactics won the day, the Mongol bow and armour piercing arrow head made some contribution...
Besides that, the Eastern and Muslim archers used composite bows and were known to be much more effective than their western couterpart (except for Longbowmen, of course).
BTW, like your pic... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
dunnichen
12-22-2003, 15:44
Hello My first post, so please be graceful. And sorry for my English.
I don't think that archers are underpowered in MTW In early times they can do a lot of harm to other units if used correctly. Dheepee said everything about that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif, so no need to repeat.
Later on archers are not so effective in MTW but that corresponds perfectly with history. In the 15th century most battles are fought on foot. The knights and men at arms dismounted and carried heavy two-handed weapons. No horses to harm. Of course only few had plate armour, but the more widespread armour for the commons also worked well. Jacks (Gambesons)with or without mail and brigantines offered good protection against arrows even from longbows. In a modern test made by earnest reenactors -as one of them told me- a bodkin-type arrow from a longbow (ca. 120 lbs) was not capable to penetrate a jack made of several layers of linen as was a crossbow of some power (ca. 500 lbs).
On another occasion when I had the rare opportunity to speak with Gerry Embleton and some of his group including a crossbowman they told me that a bolt from this strong piece wouldn't pierce a normal breastplate at 10 metres. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Nevertheless showers of arrows must have been terrible even for armoured soldiers. I think nobody long can stand this even if there were not lots of killings. So at Towton 1461 the Lancastrians were forced by the Yorkist arrows to leave their comfortable slope after having shot all the own arrows too short against a strong wind. But by no means the Lancastrians were decimated by the Yorkist longbowmen before they reached the Yorkist line of men at arms.
To my opinion the French at Crezy and Agincourt were not very clever. They did everything possible to ease the English victory which was not won alone by the archers but also the men at arms. Poitiers may be another case. Of course the English longbowmen are excellent archers (the best in Europe ever seen before and after, I think), but the longbow wasn't an unbeatable weapon. Otherwise the English would not have been pushed out of France (except Calais) by 1453.
I think we should accept that in the medieval times missile weapons were not the one which decided a battle. MTW simulates that very well. When first I studied the projectile_stats (I planned to change something to make it more real)eventually I decided to change nothing because MTW is right here. Bows and crossbows in MTW are as effective as in the reality of medieval battle. They can not win the battle alone but I would never fight one without them.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flirt.gif
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-23-2003, 01:21
Quote[/b] ]Hello My first post, so please be graceful. And sorry for my English.
Welcome to the ORG, dunnichen http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
You'll soon conclude that most people (I like to think all) in the forums are quite nice. So don't be worried. We're all sharing opinions, ideas and knowledge... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] ]I don't think that archers are underpowered in MTW In early times they can do a lot of harm to other units if used correctly. Dheepee said everything about that, so no need to repeat.
Well, I disagree. But only in terms of range, not killing power.
Let me explain:
It has been stated by CA that 5000 units of distance are the equivalent of 100 meters.
It is historically known that Longbowmen were able to shoot beyond 300 meters. Accuratelly, probably 200 meters.
In the game LB have a maximum range of 6000 = 120 meters. That is quite a difference.
I agree that the shortbow probably wouldn't reach 150 meters, but I didn't moded their stats too much.
My MOD has the current stats:
Longbow: from 6000=120 meters to 7000=140 meters (makes a difference)
Shortbow: from 5000=100 meters to 5400=108 meters
Mountedlongbow: from 5000=100 meters to 5800=116 meters (they were composite bows)(decreased accuracy - they were mounted bows)
FootCompositeBow (moded projectile from NinjaStar): 6200=124 meters (they were composite bows)
Quote[/b] ] In a modern test made by earnest reenactors -as one of them told me- a bodkin-type arrow from a longbow (ca. 120 lbs) was not capable to penetrate a jack made of several layers of linen as was a crossbow of some power (ca. 500 lbs). On another occasion when I had the rare opportunity to speak with Gerry Embleton and some of his group including a crossbowman they told me that a bolt from this strong piece wouldn't pierce a normal breastplate at 10 metres.
Are you sure that the string tension reproduces the 14th-15th century tension?
What kind of metal did they use for the breastplate?
Modern metals are much stronger than in those days...
maddog2764
12-23-2003, 02:31
Ah, Aymar I am also interested in your mods in the projectile stats, if you could send me them, it would be very good http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
Or, you could also just post them on this board... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Either way my email is:
DavidTarantelli@yahoo.com
Good discussion everyone http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
On the longbow thing: Did anybody see the history channel documentary about Agincourt a week or so ago? They had a demonstration of bodkin arrowhead effectiveness in it. Quite different from the story you normally hear about it. A bodkin arrowhead driven by a machine into mild steel (equivalent to the armor of the day) at the same level of power as a longbow would've fired. That might be what he was refering to, actually.
Arrowhead didn't penetrate the armor plate. Heck, it didn't even scratch it. Just went splat.
dunnichen
12-23-2003, 14:31
Hello Aymar, thanks for Your answer.
I think you are totally right about the range of bows. Same for crossbows. Maybe a 1000 lbs crossbow would be equal in range to a longbow.
Nevertheless I didn't change the range. Why? Because I'm not sure about the modell MTW uses for the damage inflicted by arrows and bolts.
A crossbow bolt looses its speed quite fast. For an arrow shot high to have a great reach the effect is perhaps not as dramatic because gravitation helps a bit when it lowers to earth. But the ability of such low energy projectiles like bolts and arrows to pierce hard surfaces dwindles (I'm not sure about the word , no lexikon nearby) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif rapidly with exceeding distance.
So if MTW would recognise this important factor, I would change the ridiculous range of longbows and crossbows immediatly. But I don't think the modell can do this. So I see the distances in MTW as the ranges up to which bolts and arrows can penetrate mail or some other insufficient armour.
Modern tests are always questionable. I would not make a religion out of the results. I don't know anything about the quality of the tested material neither of the armour nor the tips of the arrows and bolts. On the other hand there are a lot of examples of late medieval plate armour of astonishing quality which can be judged as good as mild steel. And a medieval source about the construction of a gambeson states that there are not many persons wearing it who were harmed bei arrows.
In the test the arrow of the longbow penetrated 1 to 1,5 mm of plate, the bolt 2 mm and a bullet from an arquebuse more than 3 mm. Maybe the conditions for the arrow were a bit unfair because to my knowledge the distance for the test was 10 yards (of course the test took place in England!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. At that distance the arrow might not have had a stable flight because of the strong bending after the release. Maybe it would have done better at 50 yards? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
By the way: did You ever use longbowmen from Sweden (with golden swords), hehe?
Happy xmas to everyone http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/santa.gif
PS: The only thing I changed in the projectile_stats is the loading time for crossbow and arbalest which was for both the same in the file but should differ because the arbalest has more power and should be slower to load.
dunnichen
12-23-2003, 14:43
Hey Phatose,
I should have read Your post totally before writing mine. There must be a very good TV-programm in Some where. Is this country in the EU? I would like to go there because Germany is a desert for people interested in military history (maybe understandable if you start two big wars). http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
I think you should remember that in medieval times very few people had proper plate armour, and even if they did their horses didn't. No point being completely immune to bodkin arrows if your horse gets shot and you're trapped in heavy armour underneath it. And any tests are questionable, I'm sure you could make it support the point of the programme with ease. Who would make a whole programme saying how rubbish longbowmen really were then show an arrow going through a breastplate?
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-23-2003, 15:56
Good Points, dunnichen http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] ]A crossbow bolt looses its speed quite fast. For an arrow shot high to have a great reach the effect is perhaps not as dramatic because gravitation helps a bit when it lowers to earth. But the ability of such low energy projectiles like bolts and arrows to pierce hard surfaces dwindles (I'm not sure about the word, no lexikon nearby) rapidly with exceeding distance.
Yes, but my increase in range was very modest.
Besides, even heavely armoured troops had points of vulnerability in their armour. The effective range in the game reflects that.
It's not that the game makes it that, for each group of arrows released, ALL kill their intended targets. It's like a statistical aproximation.
In my own experience, a 30 men group of LB kills, for each shot, 1 or 2 armoured men at the most. If we calculate the Killing Efectiveness it's something like this:
Arrows shot - 30
Men killed - 1 or 2
K.E.= 1/30 = 3.33% or 2/30 = 6.67%
That's not really that effective, even considering 28 arrows for each longbowmen.
Quote[/b] ]So if MTW would recognise this important factor, I would change the ridiculous range of longbows and crossbows immediatly. But I don't think the modell can do this. So I see the distances in MTW as the ranges up to which bolts and arrows can penetrate mail or some other insufficient armour.
And for closer range, the KE remains the same, when it should be quite a lot better... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] ]Modern tests are always questionable. I would not make a religion out of the results. I don't know anything about the quality of the tested material neither of the armour nor the tips of the arrows and bolts. On the other hand there are a lot of examples of late medieval plate armour of astonishing quality which can be judged as good as mild steel. And a medieval source about the construction of a gambeson states that there are not many persons wearing it who were harmed by arrows.
Well, you're right about that. But not many people had Full Plate Armour in those days. Most of the wounded armoured men probably wore chain mail only. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] ]In the test the arrow of the longbow penetrated 1 to 1,5 mm of plate, the bolt 2 mm and a bullet from an arquebuse more than 3 mm. Maybe the conditions for the arrow were a bit unfair because to my knowledge the distance for the test was 10 yards (of course the test took place in England. At that distance the arrow might not have had a stable flight because of the strong bending after the release. Maybe it would have done better at 50 yards?
Well, I really don't know if it would be that more effective at 50 yards. I find those results quite strange... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Quote[/b] ]The only thing I changed in the projectile_stats is the loading time for crossbow and arbalest which was for both the same in the file but should differ because the arbalest has more power and should be slower to load.
Excellent sugestion You're quite right http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
It's historically correct. I forgot about that. I'll correct my MOD on that too.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-23-2003, 15:59
Quote[/b] ]I think you should remember that in medieval times very few people had proper plate armour, and even if they did their horses didn't. No point being completely immune to bodkin arrows if your horse gets shot and you're trapped in heavy armour underneath it.
Quite right. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
That was one of the problems the French suffered at Agincourt.
Beeing attacked by English men-at-arms, while stranded under your dead horse, is not my idea of a pleasent situation. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
the_rydster
02-08-2004, 05:49
Someone mentioned above about horses not being armored. Well I think I read somewhere that at Agincourt one of the biggest problems the mounted French Knights had was that many of them were dismounted by shot up horses and the combonation of bad ground conditions and heavy armour meant that they could not get back on their feet. The English men at arms were able to kill lots of them on the ground.
I think the game must treat a horse and its mount as one and the same. Should be some extra penalty against the horse you would think?
I can understand that at range the longbow may not be so good against armour. The velocity of the arrow is going to be less and because it is delivered at a steeper angle you would expect a smaller apparent target. Of course against tightly packed men with poor/no armour the longbow should still be devastating at long range. Of course it is hard to quantify how devastating but we know that the English longbow could and did win battles and that the longbowmen were hand picked and trained seriously.
Having played the Agincourt battle a few time now it is notable that the longbowmen are too poor at short range against the French armour. The longbowmen do not seem capable of effective level fire. Mentioned this in the other post but the bow in the right hands was a hunting weapon, if a unit of knights are charging my longbowmen and are close so the fire is level and not direct (
Sociopsychoactive
02-08-2004, 07:10
Hey, new to the forums but loving what I've read so far.
In answer to the original question, then NO, archers are not underpowered in single player, in multi player it is a very different story and not mine to tell.
Heres why, assuming normal archers, so not longbows and not any of the Muslim archers. On default unit sizes (60 men) against unarmored troops you can get between 5 and 15 kills per volley, maybe slightly less at long range. Against lightly armored you can get up to 5 kills per volley, again less at long range, and heavily armored, well, whats the point? The only use of normal archers against heavy Armour is to kill one man for the -2 moral penalty of being under fire as you close in, aiding an instant rout.
So, especially when on the defensive where you can very often use your entire supply of arrows (A big fat PAH to those who have unlimited ammo) you will kill around 30 lightly armoured men per archer unit, couple that with the moral hit and you can make a large and frightening squad into a medium sized bewildered group of shaken men before they hit your lines, and seriously aid in causing a chain-rout.
But, all of this has been said many times, but what I havn't seen is the use of archers when seriously outnumbered, especially when fighting battles you KNOW you are going to lose, but want to kill as many of the enemy as possible before your army routs, with everything else you have to march up the the enemies Superior army and suffer moral hits because of it, with archers and indeed any ranged you can happily kill them without worrying while your melee troops hold the line as long as possible. In these situations I found that with two or four Archer squads in a 900 strong army, being attacked by over 4000 troops of equal worth (not talking peasant rebellions here) my archers did the most killing of anyone.
Also, with modern tests of medieval weapons they almost always get it wrong. For example, when trying to calculate the usable range of a traditionally made longbow, they fed all the stats into a computer, got it to look at the stance of the bowman and it came out with 220~ yards. In the actual test the maximum range was close to 400 yards, and effective accurate range was just under 300 yards, and thats a major difference.
When testing the penetrative power of a traditionally made crossbow they conducted the tests at near point-blank range, and then wondered why it didn't work at 100 yards. Another classic, if slightly off topic, example is when they tried to make a replica of Leonardo da Vinci's design for a manned glider, they used modern materials because they were sure it would work better, only for it to fall apart under the weather, and then when made with traditional materials it performed wonderfully.
Also, you can't say how penetrative a bodkin arrow is at ten feet, because of the way it is fired, it is fired in a high arc to come down on the head of the enemy, with gravity adding hugely to it's penetrative power, making it able to pierce light Armour, for instance the Armour found in most helmets of the time, get the idea? Your not shooting for the breast plate, your shooting the head and shoulders of the enemy, yes, making them harder to hit, but also making their Armour less effective in deflecting the blow.
And, on the subject of bridge defense (yes, I know, but it'll be brief) again you havn't mentioned how to deal with VASTLY superior numbers. For instance, I goaded almost the entire force of the golden horde, over 10,000 men, into one bridge battle where I was defending, with around 2500 troops, about 8 squads of ranged, mostly normal archers. We manaeged to win after nearly 5 hours of battling, but admittedly that was partly due to killing the hordes king Using a plug unit in that situation will never work because of the inevitability of it routing before the enemies numbers, especially considering it already has a morale penalty for being so vastly outnumbered. The best tactics I have found is a hybrid of both the most talked about here. You have a plug unit about a centimeter away from the mouth of the bridge, flanked by two supporting plugs t keep the enemy from sneaking in. at least two squads of ranged slightly further back and to the side, again at angles for best effectiveness when shooting onto the bridge. Against supported by more ranged, with the rest of your army behind in formation for when your plug breaks and routs, which they WILL eventually do, your just hoping to take out as many as you can before this happens. It should look like this.
||
Aymar de Bois Mauri
02-08-2004, 16:32
Good analysis, the_rydster and Sociopsychoactive http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif
Yes, Agincourt's problems have already been discussed in other threads and what you say about the Crossbows and French Knights is true. Besides the awfull conditions of the terrain, the French had too much pride and too little brain in that specific situation. Bloody awfull for them... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif
Quote[/b] (Sociopsychoactive @ Feb. 08 2004,00:10)]Heres why, assuming normal archers, so not longbows and not any of the Muslim archers. On default unit sizes (60 men) against unarmored troops you can get between 5 and 15 kills per volley, maybe slightly less at long range.
Sociopsychoactive,
I tested archers in mtw v1.1 custom battle about a year ago, and as I recall, they are unchanged in vi v2.01. I didn't see 5 to 15 kills per volley on unarmored units. For 10 runs I averaged 2.8 kills per volley on the stationary 20x5 pikemen who have armor = 1 which is the minimum value. At that time, I was checking the effect of overshoot and undershoot on the target. You can see this in the reduced kills that archers got on the thinner target. At max range, flat map, fine day, archers 20 x 3 deep, all arrows fired, average of 10 runs:
pikemen 20 x 5 deep suffered 81.2 kills + or - 3.5 error
pikemen 50 x 2 deep suffered 64.3 kills + or - 4.0 error
Sociopsychoactive
02-08-2004, 19:16
on unarmoured targets, EG peasents, urban militia, archers and other units which, as I recal, have a large minus value for armour. Pikemen, spearmen and the like would be classed as lightly armoured, scoring up to 5 kills per volly, usually around 3. YOur average of 2.8 fits in perfectly, just for lightly armoured, not unarmoured.
In multiplayer i have no idea, but in single player they can win a battle pretty much single handed. I started a game in medmod, high , hard as the swedes. Now i set out to destroy the danes and command the north. I finally mange to get the danish king to commit to battle in Norway where he slighty out number me and has the better command waiting (5* vs 4*)I had three units of crossbows, he had none. The danes retreat on the field to the biggest hill they can find with no options of my guy gaining the higher ground. The battle was won with crossbow men concentrating fire power on single units as they got in range, retreating if they got close enough and my axes (following close behind) charging forward. The danish viking charge, weaken from archer fire and having a coward for a king (he withdraw from battle with his bodyguard untouched), broke and run for the hills at the sight. Having no cav to chased down routes i killed few of their number but I also lost very few men. At the end I was granted skilled attacker and the danish king suffer a poor defender to his rating.
In defense, especially on rivers archer always turn the tide in battle.
In attack I find that archers are best used to intiate a battle, especially when they have taken a defensive position up a hill.
HI guys,
In my opinion, the archers in MTW are definitely underpowered.... just not by much. If used properly they can by an extremely useful addition to an army - especially in the early era. Use them to concentrate fire on high valour troops and generals (arrows have the same effect on high-valour 9* generals as they do on a no-valour 0* pleb). If you use a faction with horse archers, too, they can be seriously annoying skermish troops. The main problem I have with archers, however, is their cost - WAY to much for what they are
The only changes I ahve made to archers in my mod is to take the damage up by 50% and to make them 50% cheaper. In my opinion this makes them more realistic. But in short, in the early games I make sure I can get archers very quickly because they are invaluable when defending territories in the early era.
Al'
Chaffers
02-20-2004, 17:35
Its often a good idea to ignore the starting price of a unit as the upkeep costs far outweigh this value over any sort of time. Achers are cheap at 37 florins per go, though you'll spend the 225 every 6 turns... Arbs, Arqs, handgunners and crossbowmen are even cheaper, the same cost as peasants in fact at 22 florins whereas some units have extortionate upkeep costs..
Porno Knights for instance only cost you 425 to start, but 125 every turn afterwards, the same rate as Royal Knights.....
Sorry, but..
.. porno knights?
LoST RaiNDRoP
02-20-2004, 20:40
well.. one thing i have to say.. if you are defend and you got no archers but you enemy has a good set of archers, you will be forced to attack him. or else his archers would sloughter your army till they ran out of ammo... oh.. and another thing. archers can lessen your opponents moral by a couple of points...
archers are useful... in MTW, i always use three groups of archers with 1 valor and a score of 3 for their arrows to make it more deadly...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.