relative effectiveness of missiles

[Procrustes]

Hi Folks,

I had a "natural experiment" with MTW that I thought I'd share with you - I thought the results were intriguing.

I fought a defensive bridge battle against a combined Spanish/French force. (I was Novograd.) I had a mish-mash of troops defending, including one parvise arbelast, one merc longbow, one merc arquebus, and two vanilla archers. No extra valor except for the ones from my four-star general. I set up all the missile units so they had a nice clear shot at the bridge - the archers and arqu from the front and the PA and LB at 45 degree angles from the sides. Everyone was on hold position, hold formation, fire at will. I had some spears, vikings and UM foot soldiers down front and I had enough elevation that I wasn't shooting my own men in the back. (At least not too often, anyways.) After the battle, kills in the log were:

Parvise arbs: 128
Longbow: 80 and had to withdraw early for lack of ammo
Archer 1: 38
Archer 2: 47
Arquebus: 6

All the missile troops were firing at pretty much the same time, though the LB and PA had a little bit more range and would engage the enemy slightly before the others would. I was suprised to find the PA so much more deadly than the LB in this situation - I thought they would be more similar. Also, the PA still had plenty of ammo left when the battle was over. If I had to fight it over again I think I would take the LB's off of "fire at will".

What I was especially disappointed to find was small number of kills I got from the arqs. The weather was clear the entire battle, and they were firing away all along. This helps confirm my suspicions that they are pretty well useless most of the time. (Though a couple of times a volley from the arqs was enough to scare one of the crappier units off the bridge, even if it didn't hit anything.)

I know it's not enough to draw lots of conclusions from, but I found it interesting. Hope someone else will, too.

P.

[PittBull260]

wow thats some interesting info, and useful too, I always used longbowmen, they seem to kill a whole lot, but yea they do run outta ammo quick, guess I'll start makin pav. arbalesters from now on :)

[Roark]

I think I'm the only guy on the forum who doesn't use Pav arbs... I like my armies to be as mobile as possible.

[edyzmedieval]

I think I'm the only guy on the forum who doesn't use Pav arbs... I like my armies to be as mobile as possible.

I don't use them also ~:)

[antisocialmunky]

What about Naptha?

[CBR]

Yes arbalesters are the best killers. You dont need to buy the pavise version if you prefer mobility. Xbow/arb are also very cheap in upkeep.


CBR

[Eternal Champion]

Pavs are good on defense where mobility is not as much of an issue. The Pavs offer pretty good protection during an archery duel and this can offten make the difference.

Having said that I rarely use Pavs because I use one standard army for attack and defense. Pavs are very slow and I like mobility when on offense.

[Advo-san]

Do arbalesters have to be mobilizing fast? I really don't see the point. IMHO, arbs are just to be deployed; they rock, and you let the good times roll...

[yesdachi]

I have read that the real longbowmen of old could have 6-8 arrows in the air at once depending on the angle of fire and target distance (I’ve also read that an experienced longbowman could get all 6-8 arrows to hit the target area at nearly the same time). They do seem to frequently run out of arrows for me but if their rate of fire is anywhere near true to life, the empty quivers are all right with me because their number of kills is always pretty good when I don’t misuse them.

[Eternal Champion]

Do arbalesters have to be mobilizing fast?

It depends on your style of play I guess. I like the combined arms approach and will often spilt my armies into several combat groups. Each group can only move as fast as the slowest unit. It's hard to pull off a flanking move or exploit a weakness while waiting for Pavs to lumber up. Also, Pavs have no shot at all of skirmishing as they are way to slow.

[PittBull260]

I have read that the real longbowmen of old could have 6-8 arrows in the air at once depending on the angle of fire and target distance (I’ve also read that an experienced longbowman could get all 6-8 arrows to hit the target area at nearly the same time). They do seem to frequently run out of arrows for me but if their rate of fire is anywhere near true to life, the empty quivers are all right with me because their number of kills is always pretty good when I don’t misuse them.
the best archers are mongols

[yesdachi]

the best archers are mongols

Historically speaking you may be right, I have heard plenty about their accuracy while on horseback but in the game I don’t know, I’ve never played as them.

I’d say that even though I like the structured armies of the English, and the style of the Vikings. The Mongols were probably some of the best warriors in history.

Perhaps I will try a GH game tonight.

[Zarax]

Historically speaking you may be right, I have heard plenty about their accuracy while on horseback but in the game I don’t know, I’ve never played as them.

I’d say that even though I like the structured armies of the English, and the style of the Vikings. The Mongols were probably some of the best warriors in history.

Perhaps I will try a GH game tonight.

In unmodded MTW their missile is exactly the same as vanilla bow, so you might want to treat them like the turcoman foot and cav...

[yesdachi]

In unmodded MTW their missile is exactly the same as vanilla bow, so you might want to treat them like the turcoman foot and cav...

Sounds like a solid plan. More valor gives more accuracy, right?

[Zarax]

Sounds like a solid plan. More valor gives more accuracy, right?

Yes, be aware also that the mongol warriors are better suited for attack than defence, sort of armoured trebs they are...

[CBR]

Valor doesnt give that much of an increase so dont count on upgrades to boost your missile power.


CBR

[yesdachi]

Yes, be aware also that the mongol warriors are better suited for attack than defence, sort of armoured trebs they are...

Thanks, I’m thinking of raiding until I can establish a base of provinces to call home. I would kind of like to see just how far west I could go if I just stay on the attack.

[Zarax]

MHC is ideal for raiding, they are pretty much like mongol katanks...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Arquebuses are great. You just didn't use them right. The way to use arqubuses is to engage the from of the enemy with cheap units and bring the arquebuses behind them and really really close. Then let a volley go, and see what I mean. I killed 15 Royal Knights and an English King with one volley.

[antisocialmunky]

@Mongols

It's quite funny how many times in history animal herders in the middle of nowhere just slaughter everything in their collective path.

@Longbow

During the campaign, I find it handy if I'm playing defensive to have reserves of longbows so I can rotate spent longbows and bring in fresh ones. It's especially fun against the Horde in Russia.

[Patron]

Against the AI or crappy multiplayer humans, it is best to have Arbalesters as they will probably have arbalesters or longbowmen of their own and you can expend your arrows into enemy units that matter, then charge your fresh un pepperred troops in.

In multiplayer though I prefer longbowmen as they can kill more before the enemy close in and can continue to fire on enemy units which have not engaged after my halbs and elite infantry deal with the enemy charge.

Once I'm in range I usually send a defensive unit like spearmen in to get rid of enemy ranged units, then charge in with the rest of my units. The spearmen survive too long for the enemy to obliterate them and they help my slow infantry to flank.

[Procrustes]

Arquebuses are great. You just didn't use them right. The way to use arqubuses is to engage the from of the enemy with cheap units and bring the arquebuses behind them and really really close. Then let a volley go, and see what I mean. I killed 15 Royal Knights and an English King with one volley.


Hmmm - I wasn't really close, but I was close enough for them to engage on fire-at-will. I'd assumed this meant they were close enough to be pretty effective, but I'll do as you suggest and use them at closer range next time. (Actually, I still have the save-game, I may be able to re-fight this battle.)

[Procrustes]

Regarding arbs vs lbows, I still use archers and lbows much of the time because they can fire over the heads of my foot soldiers, and I like the rapid rate of fire sometimes - especially when I'm on the attack. But I have felt that on the defense it's fantastic to have a couple of arbs. They outrange most everything, especially if you can get a little elevation. I don't know the stats, but they seem to do a better job per-volley at taking out armored targets than longbows, and they don't get the rain penatlies that the other bows do.

[antisocialmunky]

I was refering to the SP. I make stacks of longbows and withdraw spent untis of Lbows and reinforce with fresh ones so I can have all 30 minutes worth of arrow storm.

[m52nickerson]

The fact that abs can fire over people never bothered me. I just line them up in front of my polearms and let them fire until the enemy get close enough for me to charge. I normally have three units of abs in my Polish armies.

[antisocialmunky]

I run around with 2 to sit infront of my infantry. Alot of the time, even the AI will just charge at you and arbs don't get enough shots off. I use them as a cheap breakwater so the enemy wastes their charge on a bunch of arbs.

[Procrustes]

I run around with 2 to sit infront of my infantry. Alot of the time, even the AI will just charge at you and arbs don't get enough shots off. I use them as a cheap breakwater so the enemy wastes their charge on a bunch of arbs.

I've used that on the Horde more than once. The other factions seem more likely to approach tenatively and get shot to pieces, GH warriors charge you once they've started taking fire.

[Ludens]

Interesting experiment, Procrustes.


Hmmm - I wasn't really close, but I was close enough for them to engage on fire-at-will. I'd assumed this meant they were close enough to be pretty effective, but I'll do as you suggest and use them at closer range next time. (Actually, I still have the save-game, I may be able to re-fight this battle.)
My arquebuses seldom hit anything unless it is really. Their accuracy is the worst of any unit in M:TW, with the possible exception of handgunners. You can't use them for softening up the enemy before the charge like other missile units, since the enemy needs to get within charge distance before it takes any serious damage. I therefor use them in the same way as evil_maniac. When I use them, that is, because I seldom do.

[antisocialmunky]

Handgunners have swords though so they can give a -6 morale and charge home.

[CBR]

Of course a good trick to enhance arqs is to put them in 2 ranks only, hold position and fire at will off. Then wait until enemy is close and then put unit on fire at will. That way you ensure all fire at the same time and at a more effective short range.

But in general they are not that good and better to invest in arbs if you want real killing power.


CBR

[crpcarrot]

Valor doesnt give that much of an increase so dont count on upgrades to boost your missile power.


CBR


doesn't valour above 4 start to really show a difference?

been a while since i played havent got any upto 4 in my current campaign yet. i know i know i'm being lazy.. but no time to do testing so would appreciate any update on that

[CBR]

I think it starts to become noticable after valor 4 yes. I also think its a question of what unit (what accuracy the weapon has) as it seems arqs, that has low accuracy, does seem better with just a few valor on it. But not sure though.

I play mostly MP and valor can max be 4 there and in general its not worth getting valor to get better missile power.


CBR

[LoboSoulman]

I like to be on a hilltop with attacking enemy units walking up slowly while i pepper them with arbs.
But sometimes when u get attacked again and again u get sick of the slaughter :)

[EatYerGreens]

Of course a good trick to enhance arqs is to put them in 2 ranks only, hold position and fire at will off. Then wait until enemy is close and then put unit on fire at will. That way you ensure all fire at the same time and at a more effective short range.

But in general they are not that good and better to invest in arbs if you want real killing power.
CBR


From experience with STW, I found that three ranks gave the smoothest performance for the unit as a whole. Zoom in close enough and you can see the forward rank fire, then shuffle to the back rank to reload, then take their turn to ripple forward for their next shot. With two ranks, you get bang, bang, pause, pause (during which time they are vulnerable to a charge for maybe 20-30 seconds). With three ranks, it's a constant bang, bang, bang. Okay, it's now only 33% firing, not 50%, but anything which approaches them will get steady mangling and no breathers. If I hear right about this morale hit when under fire, then that stays continuous. Very effective if you have multiple Arq units side by side, all aimed at the same approaching unit.

Another thing to beware is that the width of the two-rank formation is such that the guys on the ends might regard the target unit as out of range and not take part in the volley - e.g. when defending a bridge from a short distance back and the target unit has narrowed itself to the width of the bridge. The diagonal distance to it, from the ends of your 2-rank, might be slightly too far, even though the unit-fire icon shows green. If your graphics settings inclide smoke, you'll sometimes see the visible evidence of this partial volleying.

In STW, I used to use Arqs for two specific roles. One for river defence (always with a reinforcement stack of archers, for poor weather). The other was as cheap, low maint, garrison troops, reasoning that following an unexpected attack, I could retreat them to the fort or castle and any castle assault would be very expensive for the attacker. The AI knows this and will try to starve them out instead, which gives me time to roll up reinforcements and attempt to lift the siege.

[CBR]

Actually at 2 ranks only, you get volley fire with all men firing. For continous firing then 3 ranks is best but for that controlled pointblank salvo that can kill a lot and rout an enemy unit (including cavalry) the 2 rank formation is great but requires good control.

STW seems to have a bit of a problem with switching fire at will on as there is big delay IIRC (only had a quick test) but in MTW it works much better and I use it Samurai Wars mod (STW for VI) whenever I can to stop a cavalry charge.

One tactic of mine is to have 2-3 guns in 3 rank formation doing the normal shooting against enemy guns and 1-2 standing a bit back in 2 ranks waiting in case the enemy tries to send cav against my front gunline.


CBR

[Ludens]

I think it starts to become noticable after valor 4 yes. I also think its a question of what unit (what accuracy the weapon has) as it seems arqs, that has low accuracy, does seem better with just a few valor on it. But not sure though.

I play mostly MP and valor can max be 4 there and in general its not worth getting valor to get better missile power.
I remember that in S:TW there was a set increase in accuracy for every honour point the unit gained. The increase was equal for all units so samurai archers, which already had good accuracy, didn't benefit from it much, while arqubusiers and musketeers, with low accuracy, clearly performed better at higher honour. Does it work the same way in M:TW?

[CBR]

I cant remember any specific tests done for arqs in MTW but from battles I sometimes have seen very effective salvos from valor 3-4 arqs so yes I think they get more out of valor because of the very low accuracy they start with.


CBR

[CBR]

I ran a test with Yuuki last night and it showed you only gain a bit by having valor 4 on arqs so it appears that low accuracy weapons is the same as high accuracy weapons. Its not something you should focus on in the hopes of gaining some big advantage.


CBR

[crpcarrot]

i think the valour affect is more apparent in catapults dont know if the same valour effects are present in both types of units. i havent done any tests (just lazy i guess :D) but in the the battles i've played in the lat few days valour 4 does seem to make a difference maybe a single volley has not got much change but overall by the time they have finished they seem to kill more quicker.

by the way this is all SP never played MP as i never got the hang of hamespy

[antisocialmunky]

You can always increase the attack of those handgunners since they are hybrid swordsman.

[Puzz3D]

Longjohn's comments about gun use from Gamespot's Shogun Strategy Guide:

"Which formation should you employ? The gunpowder units are very inaccurate at long range, thus can't inflict much damage without their ranged weapons striking consistently. In medium-range encounters, it's useful to use a three-rank deep formation to fire more often. As you near close range, however, it's more important to hold for an accurate, massive blast.

Employing close-ranged, mass gunpowder attacks should prove highly effective (in formations of one or two ranks). The gunpowder units are relatively inexpensive, so it's easy to employ them en masse. Close-range blasts can kill several enemies in a single volley, potentially causing a cascading effect, lowering enemy morale."


About artillery from the Brady's Official MTW Strategy Guide:

"Artillery becomes increasingly accurate the more shots you take at the same target, as the crew ranges in on it. If the artillery has to turn, your accuracy is lost and the crew will start ranging in again. Of course, there's no guarantee that a crew's first shot will be on target, or in the case of a rookie crew firing at long range, anywhere near it."

"You can't influence a crew's accuracy except by shooting at nearer targets. But, if a crew scores kills on the enemy, its valor rating increases and its ability to range in improves. High valor artillery crews can put their first shot within a couple of meters of the target."

Note: There is no mention in the MTW Guide that increasing valor improves accuracy for archers, xbows or guns.

[EatYerGreens]

As I see it, the thing about volley firing was that it was to compensate for the low accuracy of the individual guns. These units should not be capable of picking off an enemy general, for instance. What they can do is fire at a solid block of infantry or cavalry and hit something as the bullets pass through the depth of the unit. Loose formation should largely negate this effect but equally diminishes its attack strength, so one only needs to time the volley for the moment it inevitably closes its ranks at the last moment.

Strictly speaking, arqs should receive a progressive penalty according to how small the advancing unit is and how many ranks deep it is. For instance, a 15 man cadre, reduced to a single rank has no depth to it, so the bullets now need to be accurate to have a hope of hitting any of them.

On occasion, when using a pez unit as stationary arrow fodder, as an alternative to loose formation to reduce the casualties, I've tried spreading them out into a very wide formation, just one rank deep. Because arrows scatter forward and back (variation in range of shot) as well as side to side (in crosswinds), it becomes harder for the arhers to precisely drop their arrows onto the single rank and I've had some success with this method. Just get them to run like hell if a unit advances towards them as they can't fight effectively in a single rank. Arqs might have some success against this tactic but you only need to set them in loose formation to make the gaps so big that they keep missing.

Beware that a single rank of 100 men takes a long while to properly space out to loose formation standards or vice versa plus the low morale units will sometimes spontaneously rout when they sense a lack of fellows to front and rear of themselves as individuals. Being so spread out, a hit by a tight cav formation might only score 10 casualties, instead of the 50 you'd expect if they tried to fight back but the remainder will rout and scatter anyway, which is not exactly an effective use of a unit.

[DensterNY]

Even though I haven't really developed up to Pavise Arbalesters in my first full campaign I am anticipating their arrival from reading this post. I can see from what you guys have said how valuable they'll be for defensive armies... perched atop a hill raining wave upon wave of death on my enemies...

Wow, another element of MTW that just amazes me... as each age approaches and technology pushes forward the Art of War takes on another angle.

[Ludens]

I ran a test with Yuuki last night and it showed you only gain a bit by having valor 4 on arqs so it appears that low accuracy weapons is the same as high accuracy weapons. Its not something you should focus on in the hopes of gaining some big advantage.
Thanks, that is what I wanted to know. So valour for missile troops is relatively unimportant, unless you plan to use them in melee.