Do you use xbows or arbalesters much?

[RedKnight]

Hi folks,

I don't use crossbows or arbalesters much, because they are so slow AND they are often blocked by your own troops (due to high speed / low angle of fire). The combination means the enemy can generally close with you, making them rather useless.

The only place I prefer them would be a (non desperate) bridge fight, where they can take their time and generally aren't blocked.

This is for non-mounted shooters, since they play diffently, given their mobility.

Does anybody use foot xbows or arbs a lot? If so, how do you deal with their slowness and shallow angle and/or do you use them for particular kinds of fights (besides bridges)?

Yours in death from afar, mates http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif

[Somebody Else]

X-bows - I don't tend to use, I prefer archers...

Arbalesters though... Same range as longbow, and somewhat more powerful - if not as rapid. I've seen a volley from a unit of arbalesters take down almost half a unit of knights.

There's also the benefit of having a pavise - makes them very effective in archer duels - as they can take a lot more arrowfire that way.

Arbalesters are ideal for taking down enemy general units - as they have the range and hitting power to do so. Just stick them on a hill and they'll do the business.

[VikingHorde]

Arbalesters are the standard bow in my army, use them a lot.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Here are some facts from the projectile stats to convince you that arbalesters are great (as Somebody Else said, crossbows can be skipped, as arbalesters are available at the same time).

Weapon Range Accuracy Lethality Armour mod Reload time
Longbow 6000 0.6 0.63 0.5 4
Shortbow 5000 0.6 0.63 1 4
Arbalest 6000 0.75 1.25 0.3 15

If we assume that Accuracy*Lethality is the chancing of hitting and killing a person with one shot, then this number divided by the reload time gives the number of kills per second for each person, approximately.
We get 0.0945 for archers and longbows, and 0.0625 for arbalests. A slight advantage to the archers.
Against armoured units, though, I'm assuming that the chance of killing a man is proportional to that above divided by the projectiles armour mod.
This gives 0.0945 for archers, 1.89 for longbows, and 0.208 for arbalesters every second, before the armour factor of the target is taken into account. Here the advantage is with the arbalests, even above longbows, and over twice as good as vanilla archers. Also, because of the longer reload time, they continue firing for about four times longer.
I'm not sure how accurate this model is; there are alot of factors I've ignored, but they are all to the advantage of the arbalest anyway.
The only problem with arbalesters is, as you've said, the low trajectory. Still, put them at the front of your lines as the start of the battle and by the time you have to retreat them they'll have killed so many expensive, well-armoured troops that it'll be worth it, and they can still probably fire at any troops of the enemy's that haven't yet engaged. Also, if you can sneak them around the back of an engaged enemy, it's a massacre.
Hope I've convinced you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ,
Schrodie's Cat

[katar]

Quote[/b] ]The only problem with arbalesters is, as you've said, the low trajectory.

their low rate of fire counts for something as well, i`ll take longbows every time.

i also prefer the ability of continious fire against enemy units, even while they are fighting my own frontline troops, no need to manouvre around them when you can just fire over their heads.

while i won`t argue their power and usefulness in a defencive situation, they just doesn`t work for me in a battle that consists of fast strike opperations against the enemy... mobile, quick firing and hard hitting longbows do a much better job. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[Accounting Troll]

I have found that arlabesters usually defeat English longbows in an archery duel.

Longbows are best when you are using defensive tactics because their high rate of fire means they can quickly decimate attacking units.

If you are the attacker, arlabesters & pavise arlabesters do better because they are less vunerable to enemy archers.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

True, Katar. Longbows are more useful in attack than arbalesters, and their good melee is a very useful bonus. Playing as the English, I would use both. Playing as any other faction, I would buy any longbows that dropped by my inns, and otherwise use arbalesters, no archers. There are situations when archers are better than arbalesters, but they're very very rare.

Schrodie's Cat.

[Medieval Assassin]

I find Arbalesters, with V 3 and up, with the large sheild, can hold their own against Med,or light infantry, even Cav, if there are not in the inetial charge. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif

[cutepuppy]

On defense, I use at least 4 units of pavise arbalest in an army of 12 units or more.
I like them most

[RedKnight]

Now that I think about it, my first experiences with arbs was when I was pretty new to MTW, and never put them out front of my screen. They thoroughly unimpressed me, and I guess it's stuck since then. Maybe I should give them another try, hey? You've certainly convinced me of that, Schro

Has anybody tried an arb-heavy army? Like, 5 Chiv Sarges, 1 general, and 11 arbs? I've been playing a bow-heavy army and shortbows work fine for me this way... if arbs are even better, WTH, can't wait til my Danes get a province up to arb tech http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[ichi]

Army composition is about choices, so I guess I can understand why folks compare archers with xbows and arbs.

But I think Xbow/Arbs and Archers are best used for different purposes.

Xbows and Arbs are useful for defending against Xbows and Arbs. Put them 2 ranks deep across the front of your line, just far enough out that they can withdraw behind your fighting troops when charged.

The AI doesn't use good Xbow/Arb tactics, but in the MP game humans do. If you show up without Xbows/Arbs in a MP game expect to die the death of a thousand cuts, or be forced to rush your opponent.

Pavise units quickly become useless in the desert or snow. Once they get down to 1 bar I let them rest a little, really helps their rate of fire.

Xbows/Arbs can also be effective against infantry and even cavalry. Again, the AI isn't that good, so units either stand there and get shoot or they rush.

The slow reload times means the ammo lasts and you won't find yourself 'naked'.

Archers, especially LBs, are not all that good against a unit with a Pavise. They are good for killing melee troops, the high rate of fire and their high trajectory allows you kill fighters as they approach and as they fight. The fast reload times means the ammo doesn't last long. Which is OK for hybrids like Janissary Infantry or Longbowmen, 'cause once they out of ammo they can go fight.

Firing into melee: This is a matter of taste, some folks do it and other avoid. To me, what matters is the valor. If I have a unit of mine fighting a lower valor unit, I fire into the fight. The addition of missile fire reduces the morale, and this can cause the enemy to rout much sooner, therby saving me casualties.

If the angle is wrong or for some other reason I don't want to shoot into a crowd, I just put my missile troops into a wedge, move them around to the flank or the rear, and start shooting again.

In MP I take 3-4 Pavise (if I am English I take 3 Pavs and 2 V2 LBs) in High and Late. In Early I take 4 Archers. As a Muslim I like to take 4 Janissary Inf and a couple of Futuwwas along with 2 Xbows.

In SP I place 1-2 Pavs and 3-4 Archers (LBs, Bulgarians, Genoese, Muslim hybrids) in each stack.

ichi

[eds]

I've been watching multiplayer replays and it seems like everyone uses Pavise Arbalesters. Almost without fail everyone has 2-4 of them in their armies. Both sides line them up and for the first 10 minutes of the battle they just shoot each other's Pavise Arbalesters.

How utterly boring. They might as well just agree not to use them and just attack each other right away.

[ichi]

Quote[/b] (eds @ June 05 2004,15:53)]I've been watching multiplayer replays and it seems like everyone uses Pavise Arbalesters. Almost without fail everyone has 2-4 of them in their armies. Both sides line them up and for the first 10 minutes of the battle they just shoot each other's Pavise Arbalesters.

How utterly boring. They might as well just agree not to use them and just attack each other right away.
eds:

Pav duels are very boring to watch, and can be a little tedious.

BUT . . . good teams use the Pav duel to outmaneuver their opponent, establish strategy, find weakness, and skirmish.

A well-played Cav skirmish can result in the routing of one or more of the enemy's Pavs, which means that an aggressive player can then push his Pavs up and start shooting Inf or Cav. The hapless, out-of-Pavs guy is then forced to soak missiles or repostion, and this can reposititoning can greatly affect the way the battle plays out.

Sometimes the Cav skirmish ends up with a decisive victory and the loss of one guys Cav; this guy then has to fight the battle at a disadvantage. Some MP players only need one free unit to destroy the enemy by flanking and starting a chain rout. So the loss of a single Cav can be the game breaker.

Some folks do agree not to bring Pavs. My point is, that sometimes the Pav duel is much more fun to fight than to watch.

ichi

[Bhruic]

I personally would choose longbows over arbs most of the time, but often I don't have that choice. I play Spanish a fair amount, for example. Comparing regular archers to arbs, well, I'll go arbs every time. The enemy at that point is usually coming at you with fairly heavily armoured units, so I want that armour penetration power. A concentrated burst of 4-5 arbs into a single unit can decimate pretty much anything.

Bh

[eds]

I understand the strategy behind missile superiority, I just think it's stale and bland. Besides which, it's pretty rare (from the replays I've seen anyways) for one side to ever manage to sneak a cav charge into enemy Pavs, if the other player is halfway competent. They're almost always countered by either the other side's cav or those spears sitting behind the Pavs.

So most of the time, the net result of the skirmish is either stalemate (in which, people are getting bored because the Pavs take 40 years to kill each other) so they start gearing up for a major engagement. Or, one side's Pavs, through what is basically luck of the pseudo-random number generator, manages to win the Pav duel decisively and then gains an enormous edge over his opponent... for what? For something that required as much grey matter or in-game control (two ways that I would personally measure skill in MTW) as chewing gun and thinking at the same time.

I've been LANing MTW all day with some friends (none of us have really played MTW multiplayer until today... one guy got into it a lot lately so we themed this LAN around it) and the early battles were great fun - very dynamic and fast-moving. Skirmishes involved a lot of movement and jockeying for position, cav thrusts, feints, deception. Then they started figuring out that Pav Arbalesters sitting just in front of their troops was so much easier and now all the battles look like the replays I've been watching.

Still, once the obligatory Pav duel is out of the way, these 6 player, high-florin games are good fun. Looks like a real battlefield out there heh. I just dislike how generic the skirmish phase is, because you almost have no choice but to take Pavs, unless you're playing 1v1 and have room to maybe play with HAs or with some extra light cav. But in anything more there's just no room to play with on the (rather small) battlefield, where you can force the pav arbs to run around exploiting their lack of speed.

I'm just whining about the lost potential at this point, so I'll stop here. But I think they should make Pav troops more expensive, because the lack of choice is a bit irritating.

[ichi]

Quote[/b] ]Besides which, it's pretty rare (from the replays I've seen anyways) for one side to ever manage to sneak a cav charge into enemy Pavs, if the other player is halfway competent. They're almost always countered by either the other side's cav or those spears sitting behind the Pavs.

So most of the time, the net result of the skirmish is either stalemate (in which, people are getting bored because the Pavs take 40 years to kill each other) so they start gearing up for a major engagement. Or, one side's Pavs, through what is basically luck of the pseudo-random number generator, manages to win the Pav duel decisively and then gains an enormous edge over his opponent... for what? For something that required as much grey matter or in-game control (two ways that I would personally measure skill in MTW) as chewing gun and thinking at the same time.

eds, I'm a little confused, in that you say that you have not really played MP a lot, only watched replays. My experience after 1000s of MP games is quite the opposite. Well-oiled teams make use of the Pav duel and frequently the game is greatly affected during this phase.

The other night I was in the center positon of a 4v4 and 3 of the opponents decided to focus on me. It was actually a very intense fight and took a heck of al ot more skill than walking and chewing gum, both on their part (coordinating the attack) and on ours (countering).

You're welcome to your opinion, tho, and I agree that Early games with their Archer fights are qucik and quite enjoyable. Maybe we should get online together and we can try to liven up a Pav duel, or have a good Early Era match.

ichi

[eds]

[quoote]My experience after 1000s of MP games is quite the opposite.[/quote]

Very possible. I've downloaded just about all the replays here on the Org and aside from some refreshing horse archer replays, it was all the same old, same old. My own (admittedly limited) experiences with multiplayer have panned out in the same way.

Inter-team coordination is rather distinct from PA skimishes, in my book, as the former is applicable across the entire spectrum in a team game. PA dueling is just one of them. Ultimately, the Pavs are too slow to use in a mobile skirmish, so you are more or less forced to sit them down where they can be protected and just slug it out against someone or something. Perhaps I'm missing something and I'll take you up on your offer (though, this weekend any MTW I play is going to be on LAN). I'd love to be wrong here, but I've yet to see anything that suggets otherwise.

[motorhead]

Quote[/b] (Medieval Assassin @ June 05 2004,15:25)]I find Arbalesters, with V 3 and up, with the large sheild, can hold their own against Med,or light infantry, even Cav, if there are not in the inetial charge. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif
- just to clarify, pavise arbs (i.e. with the large shield) gain zero defense from the pavise, just +3 armor (missile defense). In melee the shields are as effective as a wad of wet toilet paper.

[katar]

as i have no interest (nor the bandwidth) in playing MP, my comments referred to the single player game only.


Quote[/b] ]I have found that arlabesters usually defeat English longbows in an archery duel.

i tend to avoid archery duels as i consider them to be a waste of ammo and mainly use LB`s to decimate the enemies more dangereous units before they get into contact with mine.

i find that reducing that attacking unit of forty knights to fifteen before they hit my lines is more important that firing at other archers. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

[Ragss]

I have never played mp, looks like zero fun as all the battles seem to be nearly identicle, but wouldnt it make sence to get extra cavalry instead of the arbs, and charge like a crazy mofo off the bat? That almost completely negates 2-4 of their units. And wouldnt it also be a better idea to use your arbs to shoot their general? Instead of just wasting away his arbs?

[Defensor Pacis]

I've been using arbs and pav arbs to defend against the Mongol Horde. And they are just devastating against those armoured horses.

I've never used longbows before, but I have hired one group of longbowmen and am still waiting for the Mongols to invade the Crimea so I can compare longbows and arbs in the same army http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[RollingWave]

Unless ur the English (or the turks who don't get arbalest) there's no real reason not to use arba... they are FAR better than any other archers except the Long bow and only the trebizond archers would make me consider using with the arba

For the fireing speed... it is both a up and down, I find that in those HUGE fights ( u know... the fights where ur defending against 3000 troops that just keep comming... ) the slow fire rate acturally means they don't run out of ammo after the first wave... and except again mass peasents and other unarmored targets.... they generally kill just as much if not more than normal archers in the same period of time while being able to fire for far longer...

And better accurtcy is great... I usually try to focus fire on the general unit (espically if it's a heavy cav which it usually is) with most of my arbies... if they have decent valor/position i usually have a good chance of getting the kill...

xbows though are crap.... I don't know why they put it in like that.... probably shoulda just made it an early age unit... and even then few would use it thx to it's crap range....

[Medieval Assassin]

Quote[/b] (motorhead @ June 05 2004,20:59)]
Quote[/b] (Medieval Assassin @ June 05 2004,15:25)]I find Arbalesters, with V 3 and up, with the large sheild, can hold their own against Med,or light infantry, even Cav, if there are not in the inetial charge. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif
- just to clarify, pavise arbs (i.e. with the large shield) gain zero defense from the pavise, just +3 armor (missile defense). In melee the shields are as effective as a wad of wet toilet paper.
I've still had One unit of PA's hold off 3-4 units of Med. Infantry. They are just good at melee, or maybe its the way I use them... I'll get some replays or something to show you. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[Degtyarev14.5]

Nobody disputes that, Assassin. What motorhead was saying is that the pavise doesn't help in melee combat: it offers protection against arrows and bolts, and that's all.

Had you been using plain arbs - no pavs - at the time, they would have inflicted just as much damage. In fact, I'd venture to suggest that they would've actually done more damage: lugging those pavises around is tiring work, and normal arbs would have been far less fatigued.

A.

[ichi]

Quote[/b] (Ragss @ June 06 2004,04:47)]I have never played mp, looks like zero fun as all the battles seem to be nearly identicle, but wouldnt it make sence to get extra cavalry instead of the arbs, and charge like a crazy mofo off the bat? That almost completely negates 2-4 of their units. And wouldnt it also be a better idea to use your arbs to shoot their general? Instead of just wasting away his arbs?
MP battles are not all nearly identical, each one is unique. They share some similarities, but the variations are endless. I have no problem if MP isn't for you, but I'll never understand how people who haven't played online can make informed comments about it.

The only reason that I mention this is that some of us in the MP community are always hoping to attract more players, and the statements that MP is boring or too hard or requires mega-bandwidth tend to work against that goal. MP is fun, MTW online is much more friendly than many other games, and it is far from boring or repetitive (IMHO).

To answer your question about getting cav and charging: you have a limited budget (most games are at 10 or 15K florins) so if you get a lot of cav they must be cheap cav. If you bring 3-4 units of Pavs (at 225-300 florins) then you can spend more per each of the other melee units.

If you charge right off the bat you must cross the killing zone of the Pavs. If you run a long way then your units will be more fatigued than your opponents. If you walk your units will be depleted by the missiles.

If you bring all cav and the opponent has any anti-cav, their 100-man spears or pikes or JHI will quickly subdue your cav.

When players first come online they have a tendency to do as you suggest, buy a lot of fighters, no pavs, and rush. They get beaten time and time again by opponents who use strategy and tactics and work the game mechanics. Some get frustrated and quit, while others learn to attack in a way that achieves success.

To answer your question about shooting their Gen: yes, we all try to that. At the start of each battle most peeps keep their Gen far behind the front, out of range of any missiles. You move your Pavs into range of their Pavs, and you start the duel. Move your Pavs too close and they will get eaten by enemy cavalry. move your army too close and you will get shoot up. By 'wasting away his Pavs' you hope to deplete them and fatigue them. This reduces their effectiveness by reducing their number and thier rate of fire. Once they are routed, depleted, exhausted, then you can get close without being shot to bits.

If you still have some Pavs at this point, you move them close and try to kill inf or cav or, best of all, the Gen. When I am successful at driving off the enemy Pavs then I move closer and go for the Gen.


Quote[/b] ]I've still had One unit of PA's hold off 3-4 units of Med. Infantry. They are just good at melee, or maybe its the way I use them... I'll get some replays or something to show you.

With sufficient valor and/or armor they can hold, but remember they have very low morale and att/def bonus to start with.



The main point that I was trying to make in my first reply was that Pavs are good as anti-Pav, LBS aren't. LBs and Pavs can all be effective against infantry and cavalry when the missile troops are protected.

The other point is that many of the MP tactics work well against the AI, except that the AI will either let you shoot high quality troops or will begin to charge you when you start to rain missiles in on the enemy troops.

ichi

[eds]

Quote[/b] (ichi @ June 06 2004,13:43)]
but I'll never understand how people who haven't played online can make informed comments about it.

You don't need to play much (or any) MP to understand the basic mechanics of it. It's not rocket science or some great mystery, especially if you've played SP and have experience with all the units.

You said it yourself:

If you show up without Xbows/Arbs in a MP game expect to die the death of a thousand cuts, or be forced to rush your opponent.

Of all the many options MTW has for missile skirmishes (as a brief example, with fast archers or even regular arbs, you are at least able to maneuver them around to displace enemy ranged units, gain local missile superiority, etc), you can only realistcally use one for the vast majority of maps/playercounts. That's pavs.

Given their speed, you can't maneuver for position with them. You can only realistically, against anyone halfway competent, slug it out headon and hope you win. You can't outmaneuver, outthink or outcontrol your opponent for the skirmish phase (probably the most important of them all, for reasons you've pointed out in earlier posts) _with respect to missile component if there are pavs involved_. Forcing a cavalry battle (something you mentioned earlier) is not something that requires pavs. You can draw them out with just about anything, including other ranged units. The other thing you mentioned - displacing an enemy army by winning missile superiority - again, not something unique to pavs. That's the net result of winning the skirmish phase, whatever that skirmish phase is. I just wish that skirmish phase didn't have to almost always be a boring, skillless slugfest between pavise arbs. That's the part of MP that is unappealing. I've been LANing it all weekend and we've stopped using Pavs altogether. The skirmish phase is so much more interesting and challenging. So much lost potential here.

I downloaded something like 20 replays (a set) from a clan duel in a tournament. The clans were uh, LROSS and I think RTK. I assume they are experienced mutlplayers... because they all used pavs (some mixed in non-pav ranged units occasionally, but always had some if not mostly pavs) and they all used them by lining them up in front of each army and shooting away. Am I missing some part of that which is supposed to require skill or be unique or interesting, from game to game? THe other aspects of the skirmish phase can be interesting and require you to out think/control your opponent, but that's not what I'm complaining about.

It's a real shame. The game succeeds in spite of itself (don't get me wrong as MP is good fun, which is why I've been playing it almost non-stop this weekend), but the whole pav thing is a real turn off for me. It seems so pointless and confers undeserved advantages to whoever wins what is essentially a coin toss.

[gaijinalways]

I haven't played on-line, so I won't comment on that. As to battles with the AI, I think it is useful to have longbowmen, xbows, and alabasters. Why? They all have different rates of fire but all have armor piercing ability. Later on in the game, most troops are not that affected by just plain archer fire.

AS to using the paivise versions, I personally don't like them because it makes these types that much slower. I suppose if you are defending and you don't expect to ever move, the shields are great and offer you an advantage in missile duels. But I often am moving my troops (by choice or not) and the paivises really slow these troops down and as to hand to hand, forget it.

The xbows I find usually fight better hand to hand and they are fine for killing things up close, especially when you are on a hill (for shooting over your own men). Arbs are better as they seem to get a slight arc (and of course longer range with slower delivery), but still they are better off deployed on a hill (or behind if possible though sometimes it is difficult to protect missile troops in this position).

[ichi]

This is the last that I will post on this subject, as I see no point in debating it further.

The analogy is downhill skiing. From the living room it looks a lot like the same thing over and over. Some guy going downhill, very simple, just go between the poles, and the pros make it look so smooth. Try putting on a pair of downhill skis (much longer than the ones most folks use) and go 70-80 mph and you suddenly see that it is quite different.

Watching Pav duels is boring. Some Pav duels are rather bland. But get into one with strong players and lots of skirmishing and you will be challenged - my guess is that you might find yourself Pav-less and down a Cav unit or two, getting shot up, thinking hey that was harder to prevent than I thought.

Many Pav duels are very intense skirmish phases where good players jockey for position, gain some advantage, and deplete or fatigue enemy units.

Yes, Pavs themsleves are slow, but the ability to maneuver your pavs into a dominant position, or rout off the opponents, can be a difficult challenge and have important conseqwuences for the rest of the game.

The basic mechanics are easy, certainly not rocket science. But the nuance, the tricky details are what is more difficult to understand and to master.

Altho slow, one does maneuver Pavs. Put them out just far enough to pick off an enemy infantry, too far and the enemy cav routs the lot. Subtle details like elevation and fatigue and angle.

I repeat my earlier offer. Get online and we can study, in detail, how boring and skill-less a Pav duel is. My guess is that you will find it can be a lot more than a coin toss.

Finally, this is way off-topic. This is a thread in the EH about Pavs, so my apology for bringing up the MP game. My point was that using the Pav duel tactics from MP can be very useful in defeating the AI, and that Pavs are quite good as anti-Pav, something LBs and other archers really are not good at.

I accept that you think Pav duels are a boring waste of time. I'm sure that you would get a lot of agreement on that. I think there is more to them than meets the eye.

ichi

[Ragss]

But there is no great diversity or room for ingenuity. The only interesting tactic I have seen in the numerous replays I have watched is that insane horse archer guy. As much as MTW kicks age of empires 2's ass, the MP in AoE is very interesting because ppl are always using insane tactics. Granted, when I played, it was about 80% paladin rush, but the other 20% was things you never could have dreamed of, that did very very well.


In all the replays I have watched, especially the ones on that stupid completely flat treeless map, I saw 2 very similar armies line up and do the same thing they did last time.

[Gregoshi]

ichi, your comments are not off topic. They have to do with the use of pavs in the MP game. There are differences in SP and MP game play so it is instructive to know the difference as it applies to this topic.

Ragss, I agree with you point but I don't think you can compare AOE with MTW. If I'm not mistaken, AOE is a gather resources/build army type game. The nature of the game allows you to adjust your army composition as the game unfolds. Not so with MTW. You are locked into the army you selected at the beginning. I think this is why creativity dies in MTW. Army and map selection are made to not lose. Maps are flat so that neither side has an unfair advantage. Armies are selected so you won't lose against an army with pavs - which means you need pavs too. In STW, the same held true with muskets.

An the flip side, though, as ichi said, there are obvious subtleties in the pav duels that the inexperience can't appreciate. Same with flat maps like STW's Totomi - those few little bumps on the map were important to experienced players who knew how to take advantage of them. We can think of it as a audiophile who can hear that one of twenty violins is out of tune in a recording of a symphony, but most of us can't even pick up on it. Our ears aren't that finely tuned.