View Full Version : Are the sherwood archers a mock unit?
I saw they have almost double missile attack then the retenue archers but then saw there are only 30 men in the unit, so the damage is actually lower. Add to this they are much worse then the retenue archers in melee, cost nuch more and have almost double upkeep.
Any reason to recruit them?
nameless
12-03-2006, 17:06
This is where you start looking at their abilities which is in the unit detail. This is why so many units are being misused for the wrong purposes and people complain.
They have ALOT more abiliites than Retinue longbowmen that makes them more of an effective black ops group. Their not suppose to melee due to their small numbers but for hit and runs with woods as hiding spots and ambushing. They also have greater morale and stamina than the typical archer so they can cover greater distances.
I use them due to their high Attack and stamina to focus fire on some units or to do some ambushing. I use at least 2 sherwood archers and 8 retinues.
They're just another fantasy unit that CA likes to add for the kids, that will be modded out when the realism modders are able to do thier work.
This is where you start looking at their abilities which is in the unit detail. This is why so many units are being misused for the wrong purposes and people complain.
They have ALOT more abiliites than Retinue longbowmen that makes them more of an effective black ops group. Their not suppose to melee due to their small numbers but for hit and runs with woods as hiding spots and ambushing. They also have greater morale and stamina than the typical archer so they can cover greater distances.
I use them due to their high Attack and stamina to focus fire on some units or to do some ambushing. I use at least 2 sherwood archers and 8 retinues.
They also have the "Can hide anywhere" ability. So you don't need woods to hide them.
nameless
12-03-2006, 22:10
Oh right they get combat bonuses in woods.
They're just another fantasy unit that CA likes to add for the kids, that will be modded out when the realism modders are able to do thier work.
Pretty much uncalled for. No offense but no one really cares about some guy who tries to act cool and uses the internet for historical sources. This is probably the first time their mentioned here so I doubt everyone's going crazy over them. I use them mainly to diversify my forces. Besides, it's robin hood. Other than that I bet alot of people hardly bother using them as the OP has suggested.
Plus, the definition for a game since you apparently don't understand it.
game - 1. something played for fun: an activity that people participate in, together or on their own, for fun
Many people prefer a more realistic gameplay experience, especially when based upon real historical sources. We don't like added "clown" units just to spice it up for those who don't care, especially not a whole unit of "Robin Hoods" or "Headthrowers" (in RTW)
As a 30-something gamer I want my historically based, strategic and tactical "games" to be just that; historical.
Both RTW and MTW2's predecessors were more historically accurate, and I, as well as many other followers of TW since thier first game in the series are becoming more dissapointed at CA for turning thier back on realism.
When the modders do thier work everyone will be happy.
CaptainSolo
12-03-2006, 23:19
I'm not bothered either way.Given a choice a would rather keep them in.It just adds a bit of variety as far as i'm concerned.
I'm also not bothered about ultra realism,i like a good mix of history and Hollywood and i think CA did a cracking job.
I'm not knocking any modders as i greatly value their work and i understand that for some people they are a God send but i tried a few realism mods for RTW and apart from Darth Vaders stuff i didnt really like them.
I used to play as the Brits in RTW and some of the mods made their skins a bland dark green colour.No matter how realistic it was i'd take the blue and white stripey trousers any day.
Each to their own i suppose.
Count Armfelt
12-03-2006, 23:27
Pretty much uncalled for. No offense but no one really cares about some guy who tries to act cool and uses the internet for historical sources. This is probably the first time their mentioned here so I doubt everyone's going crazy over them.
Actually we do care, and I fail to see how Cos3 was "acting cool" or "using the internet for historical sources" (the structure of your sentence makes no sense by the by), perhaps you would like to back up your arguments with something in the future? I have seen the historical inaccuracy mentioned on many forums, and I agree that the unit is silly and I'm personally going to mod it out (along with the elephants that have cannons on their backs) as soon as the modding tools are released.
CaptainSolo
12-03-2006, 23:41
None of the Totalwar games have been ultra realistic,i don't know why anyone would expect this one to be any different.
Many people may prefer it to be more realistic but i'll wager a hell of a lot more are not bothered.
I just get a bit peeved when some of the people screaming for ultra realism automatically seem to assume that anyone who isn't bothered is either (A) a kid or (b) stupid.
Count Armfelt
12-03-2006, 23:48
None of the Totalwar games have been ultra realistic,i don't know why anyone would expect this one to be any different.
Many people may prefer it to be more realistic but i'll wager a hell of a lot more are not bothered.
I just get a bit peeved when some of the people screaming for ultra realism automatically seem to assume that anyone who isn't bothered is either (A) a kid or (b) stupid.
Realismo meter:
RTW<M2TW<STW<MTW
I think they were more realistic back in the day, this one is good when you compare it to Rome though. And nameless said that nobody cared, I corrected him. And since there is no statistic about how many of the players care about historical accuracy it's pointless to debate.
nameless
12-04-2006, 00:10
Many people prefer a more realistic gameplay experience, especially when based upon real historical sources. We don't like added "clown" units just to spice it up for those who don't care, especially not a whole unit of "Robin Hoods" or "Headthrowers" (in RTW)
As a 30-something gamer I want my historically based, strategic and tactical "games" to be just that; historical.
Uh huh.
CA never stated that the game will be historically accurate because it's just that, a game. If they did then there would be some merit.
And nameless said that nobody cared, I corrected him. And since there is no statistic about how many of the players care about historical accuracy it's pointless to debate.
Oh yeah two posters = 10,000 gamers. I doubt that the majority could care less because
1 - They don't even realize they exist (I'll be honest I didn't realize Sherwood archers or head throwers existed along with some other units until recently).
2 - Hardly worth the effort or rare to train. As Handel has pointed, "Any reason to recruit them?" I use them now and then but I'd rather go with retinues.
3 - Where are all the posts complaining about these fantasy units? That was my question. Sure there are some but their rare to see. Or better yet, are there any posts crying happily about how cool those units are? So where's this, "it's for the kids?"
Besides, my question to you is how can you be seriously bothered by a few fantasy units that are rarely used or spammed? Is it that horrible that you can't even touch the game because of such minor things?
I just get a bit peeved when some of the people screaming for ultra realism automatically seem to assume that anyone who isn't bothered is either (A) a kid or (b) stupid.
Which was my point to Co3's post. I wouldn't mind trying out any realism mods so long as its decent (RTR is by far my most fav mod).
Catiline
12-04-2006, 00:15
Gents, the realism argument is old enough without making it a slanging match. If you're going to rehash it at least leave out the personal jibes please.
Count Armfelt
12-04-2006, 00:28
Oh yeah two posters = 10,000 gamers. I doubt that the majority could care less because
I doubt that he say, she say that majority don't care... Look my point is that we can't know how many are for realism, but at the major total war boards it seems to be a whole bunch, there is a reason why Rome Total Realism was the most succesfull mod for RTW. Don't be mad because I don't worship your favourite game.
1 - They don't even realize they exist (I'll be honest I didn't realize Sherwood archers or head throwers existed along with some other units until recently).
Play the game.
2 - Hardly worth the effort or rare to train. As Handel has pointed, "Any reason to recruit them?"
I don't recruit them, that was never the point. The point was that you took tremendous offence because someone pointed out a historical inaccuracy in your favourite game, and you said that he shouldn't post his view on a unit.
3 - Where are all the posts complaining about these fantasy units? That was my question. Sure there are some but their rare to see. Or better yet, are there any posts crying happily about how cool those units are? So where's this, "it's for the kids?"
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=32949&highlight=fantasy+units
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=63088&highlight=fantasy+units
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome:_Total_War#Historical_accuracy_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_II:_Total_War#Historical_inaccuracies
Besides, my question to you is how can you be seriously bothered by a few fantasy units that are rarely used or spammed? Is it that horrible that you can't even touch the game because of such minor things?
Did I claim so? It's my game and I'll mod it however the fuck I want to, and I'd rather not see the AI using elephants with cannons on their backs in MY campaign.
Which is why I'm a little annoyed with people like Co3. I wouldn't mind trying out MTW2 realism so long as its decent.[/QUOTE]
Zenicetus
12-04-2006, 01:58
Many people prefer a more realistic gameplay experience, especially when based upon real historical sources. We don't like added "clown" units just to spice it up for those who don't care, especially not a whole unit of "Robin Hoods" or "Headthrowers" (in RTW)
We can argue about the name, but there were elite archer units, closely tied to the king and usually used in a bodyguard capacity. In M2TW it's an opportunity for an interesting unit... not something you'd use as the bulk of your missile troops, but as more of a commando or elite flanking unit (as mentioned above).
These archer elites were named for the region they came from. The one I recall is "Cheshire Archers" (from reading "The Great Warbow"), but I guess CA figured "Sherwood Archers" would have more resonance.
It's not like Robin Hood is completely irrelevant here. It's possible that this is a wildly exaggerated legend based on a real bandit (Robyn Hod and other candidates). Real or not, the legend was an important part of the culture. Henry VIII (who was a very good archer) liked to dress up as Robin and prance through the castle. He might well have named his personal elite archers "Sherwood archers." It's a very old legend that dates back to the times we're dealing with in this game, so it doesn't bother me that much.
Just my $.02, and I guess I'm middle-of-the-road about realism vs. fun. This strikes a good balance in my world, but I understand others may not agree.
As said before the realism discussion is sure getting old, but here are my 2 cents: Both sides are right.
I'm one of those that believes realism can be fun, but can also be quite dull... there is a reason some countries made empires some didn't... If you make it too real, you get more or less always the same outcome.
As for units, i remember the sword saints and ninjas from STW so the argument for declining realism in the series may be a bit off.
I like the game the way it is. I can see why some people would like a more realistic game, but I also think many members of the realism crowd give the whole subject a bad name by being elitist about it.
To derail the sherwood archers disscussion even more:
I think that games like MTW2 cannot be fully realistic because of one simple fact: there're way less realism fans than those who don't care about realism as much as they do. And this means that the consumer base is lower - you cannot blame the game companies that they aim at the bigger market. After all they have to live from this game. I'm not against any fantasy units and scenarios as long as there's an abillity to mod the game to be make it more realistic.
And BTW. : who said that game with dose of fantasy cannot be fun? As a realism nerd myself I still have a lot of fun with vanilla MTW2:2thumbsup:
Actually i forgot to say what i thought was more important.... I think in games like these there is a course... a path... for some players towards realism. They start by picking up the game as is, then they enjoy it and learn, then they try to learn more about the period, and they learn more.... and only when they know enough to be bothered by some major inconsistencies it starts to make sense to shift towards hardcore realism.
There is probably a large population that doesn't go all the way... and some that start already there.
In a game like this i personally expect to see most of what was, some of what could be, and as little as possible of what could not be at all.
I'd be more worried with the lack of a decent spear unit for the English as opposed to an elite group of archers.
Warluster
12-04-2006, 03:17
Someone said earlier in this thread about 'Total War Series not being UltraRealistic' Are talking about Units? If so, sure, that can be true. But on the campaign map, no way! The cities are actually placed where they WERE! Names are correct (You wouldnt want London to be called Paris would ya?) seas stuf like that are all CORECT, Names of Leaders are historically CORRECt, that comment is not realistic if you ask me, think about it!
i've built quite a few sherwood archers in my english game and they're great troops. don't think anyone has mentioned it yet, but they have 2 hp, which makes up for the half unit size. combined with all their other stats and abilities they're pretty incredible.
i ambushed and killed a french general from behind with a unit of sherwood's as my army engaged his
Someone said earlier in this thread about 'Total War Series not being UltraRealistic' Are talking about Units? If so, sure, that can be true. But on the campaign map, no way! The cities are actually placed where they WERE! Names are correct (You wouldnt want London to be called Paris would ya?) seas stuf like that are all CORECT, Names of Leaders are historically CORRECt, that comment is not realistic if you ask me, think about it!
Well, apart from 3 provinces for England being pitiful, London and York are both slightly too close to the coast (York because it's too far north), Nottingham wasn't the most important town in the midlands (and really is included because of the Sherwood archers), a couple of important rivers missing, Edinburgh wasn't capital of Scotland until the c15th, Caernarfon is actually on the wrong coastline in Wales (should be on the north facing Anglesey), the capital of Normandy should be Rouen not Caen, Utrecht should have been used instead of Antwerp... :)
As for the archers, I don't really mind them, though it does seem silly giving England a specialist archer unit, alongside longbowmen, when it lacks decent spear/pike units.
Warluster
12-04-2006, 05:00
Do you know that for certian?
Warluster
12-04-2006, 05:01
I've been caught, ~:doh:
IPoseTheQuestionYouReturnTheAnswer
12-04-2006, 07:58
I can't possibly imagine how you could use the Sherwood Archers as the basis for a comparison of M2TW being unrealistic in comparison to previous TW games considering the fact that they were present in MTW as well, but under the name of Sherwood Foresters. They weren't trainable, but rather they were a rebel only unit, like Judean Zealots from RTW. Scandalous.
Trithemius
12-04-2006, 08:00
I like realise in games myself. I think that the work of modders is very impressive in providing this sort of thing to those people that do want it very much. I can also see why it would be a big problem for CA to cater to *just* the history buffs. I would like a kind of toggle in the options to disable some of the stuff, but if I really dislike something then I just don't use it.
I didn't use wardogs or the Egyptians in RTW; I probably won't use Sherwood Archers in M2TW.
Where is the stress folks? :)
Every TW game is far from reality. And must be. Medieval battles especially were fought in a rather different way than in the game. So don't get upset by some fun units.:juggle2:
By the way: does anybody think that using elite retinue longbowmen with big melee power as the "normal" bow unit is very realistic? Or having lots of gothic knights? Or plate armour on nearly every unit? Or my most favorite objekt of hate: fast shooting trebuchets sailing over the battlefield (that I will mod away immediatly as soon as possible I must confess)?
And so on...
Count Armfelt
12-04-2006, 10:10
Someone said earlier in this thread about 'Total War Series not being UltraRealistic' Are talking about Units? If so, sure, that can be true. But on the campaign map, no way! The cities are actually placed where they WERE! Names are correct (You wouldnt want London to be called Paris would ya?) seas stuf like that are all CORECT, Names of Leaders are historically CORRECt, that comment is not realistic if you ask me, think about it!
While the game is free form and allows for deviations from history, at the start of the campaign (which takes place in the year 1080), some of the featured cities and factions are incorrectly portrayed. For example, the city of Budapest was three separate cities (Buda, Óbuda and Pest) until they were amalgamated in 1873. Stockholm is on the map although it was founded in the 13th century, as is Helsinki which was founded in 1550. Another example is that historically, Milan was part of the Holy Roman Empire until attaining semi-independence in the 12th century, while in the game it is a separate faction ruling Genoa.
I can't possibly imagine how you could use the Sherwood Archers as the basis for a comparison of M2TW being unrealistic in comparison to previous TW games considering the fact that they were present in MTW as well, but under the name of Sherwood Foresters. They weren't trainable, but rather they were a rebel only unit, like Judean Zealots from RTW. Scandalous.
I was about to mention that... but oh well.
I remember that the few times these guys popped up I tried to bribe them. Got them a couple times as well, including a certain Robin of Locksley.
Kobal2fr
12-04-2006, 13:23
Realismo meter:
RTW<M2TW<STW<MTW
I think they were more realistic back in the day, this one is good when you compare it to Rome though. And nameless said that nobody cared, I corrected him. And since there is no statistic about how many of the players care about historical accuracy it's pointless to debate.
Hum hello ? STW has kensais and battlefield ninjas (that's a 1/7th fantasy factor, considering STW's short roster). And ninja assassins of course, with their switchblade spears, spear-chucking carts, porta-lanterns...
Don't let nostalgia goggles get in the way of wise judgement : there were no such good old days, you ol' codger :laugh4:
Let's not get into a "which is the most historically accurate TW game?" contest. Such a thread might have value, but not under a title about Sherwood archers and would probably belong in the Entrance Hall, as it is not M2TW specific.
None of the TWs have been historically accurate, hence the realism mods. Some are more accurate in some ways than others, but overall there is no winner.
The STW/MI battlefield Ninja (the first unit to have the predator style cloaking device) and Kensais, the MTW/VI Nizaris, Hashishin, Byzantine Infantry, Sherwood Foresters, Berserkers, Lancers, Almohad Urban Militia and the RTW, flaming pigs, screeching women and druids are all obvious "fantasy units", but if you look deeper you will find many more fantasy units are in TW games than you first realised. You only have to do a bit of research and look at the changes made to RTW in the RTR mod to see that. There are also many historical inaccuracies as far as faction names, dates, events, unit association problems (factions being given other factions' units to fill the gaps) and overstated abilities.
What some people need to realise is that you're never going to get an historically accurate TW game. Not anywhere near, because this is a game. It's not built for budding historians. If you want a greater degree of historical accuracy you'll have to download a realism mod, or try to make your own. For RTW there is RTR or EB as well as others, and for MTW there is BKB Super Mod or XL. But unsurprisingly these are not exactly historically accurate either. History is often a matter of opinion, where two or more sources may not agree over the same point. So you either "mod the mod" or live with it.
Another factor is gameplay. Sometimes in order to balance gameplay, historical accuracy takes second place. If the game was totally historically accurate it would not be interactive, the player would sit there and watch a guided tour of history in the making...
Since you're often taking a faction beyond their lifespan, i.e. you keep the Byzantines going after 1453, who knows what types of units they might have had? Sticking to the outdated units because it's "historically accurate" is in itself flawed because the Byzantines existing after 1453 is not historically accurate either.
As to these types of "fantasy units" appearing in M2TW, this was to be expected. There are mods in progress after all, and the historical accuracy buffs can downlonad one of these. Patience is the key.
Myself I prefer a mod that increases historical accuracy and improves gameplay and balancing at the same time.
:bow:
None of the TWs have been historically accurate, hence the realism mods. Some are more accurate in some ways than others, but overall there is no winner.
The STW/MI battlefield Ninja (the first unit to have the predator style cloaking device) and Kensais, the MTW/VI Nizaris, Hashishin, Byzantine Infantry, Sherwood Foresters, Berserkers, Lancers, Almohad Urban Militia and the RTW, flaming pigs, screeching women and druids are all obvious "fantasy units", but if you look deeper you will find many more fantasy units are in TW games than you first realised. You only have to do a bit of research and look at the changes made to RTW in the RTR mod to see that. There are also many historical inaccuracies as far as faction names, dates, events, unit association problems (factions being given other factions' units to fill the gaps) and overstated abilities.
What some people need to realise is that you're never going to get an historically accurate TW game. Not anywhere near, because this is a game. It's not built for budding historians. If you want a greater degree of historical accuracy you'll have to download a realism mod, or try to make your own. For RTW there is RTR or EB as well as others, and for MTW there is BKB Super Mod or XL. But unsurprisingly these are not exactly historically accurate either. History is often a matter of opinion, where two or more sources may not agree over the same point. So you either "mod the mod" or live with it.
Another factor is gameplay. Sometimes in order to balance gameplay, historical accuracy takes second place. If the game was totally historically accurate it would not be interactive, the player would sit there and watch a guided tour of history in the making...
Since you're often taking a faction beyond their lifespan, i.e. you keep the Byzantines going after 1453, who knows what types of units they might have had? Sticking to the outdated units because it's "historically accurate" is in itself flawed because the Byzantines existing after 1453 is not historically accurate either.
As to these types of "fantasy units" appearing in M2TW, this was to be expected. There are mods in progress after all, and the historical accuracy buffs can downlonad one of these. Patience is the key.
Myself I prefer a mod that increases historical accuracy and improves gameplay and balancing at the same time.
:bow:
Well said.
r johnson
12-05-2006, 12:12
I, for one, use them. I usually have one unit in each army, there only a small unit of 12 but surprisingly good archers. Ok there not 100% realistic but it's never going to be, no matter how much you mod you'll always be sitting at your desk playing a game. I'm surprised people take it so seriously. Btw I only play MTW.
@Manco Capac: I agree with Rythmic; that was well said. :bow:
Besides which, for all that I've occasionally ranted on about lack of historical accuracy in the TW games, I confess I use Sherwood Foresters in MTW as well. The simple fact is, they're just too much fun NOT to. :blush:
I don't use them extensively, since they're more of a "niche" unit. I doubt I employ more than 5-6 of them throughout an entire campaign, as they're really only useful in certain situations (ambushing in defensive battles, defending castle assaults, etc.). In those certain situations, however, they almost always prove their worth. :yes:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.