View Full Version : Improving Archers
seireikhaan
02-28-2008, 03:36
Okay, so I'm sure that a lot of people have noticed that in MTW, regular arrows are simply not effective enough. A thought offered by the wise Caravel-Sama a while back got me started on this, so much credit must certainly go to him. Anyways, I did a little home tinkering with Gnome editor on the projectilestats, and I think I've made some progress on solving the issue, in my opinion. In the regular files, regular shortbows/mounted longbows have a lethality of .69 on the editor. Same with Longbows. During my tinkering, I eventually upped the lethality of arrows of all bows, including longbows, to .75. The reason for upping the longbows, despite that they don't especially need it badly, is that it seems rather ridiculous, again in my opinion, for regular bows to be more lethal than longbows. During battles, I've now been finding that even vanilla archers are now quite viable units, on the defensive anyways, and are quite capable of tearing apart unarmored units given a little time.
Another thing that I changed, which I feel may have helped, is that I made sure that every bow wielding unit was set to have a preferred number of ranks at three. The idea being that archers, at least on the defensive, will then get more arrows off at better accuracy, thus improving their viability. Two ranks would seem to be better on the surface, but the wide range of the units proved a tad problematic at times for the AI, as the unit lost considerable side to side mobility, had problems with logistical movement on the battlefield, and were rather easy targets for cavalry, being so wide and, well, easy to hit. This also, of course, offers considerable aid to factions which use a lot of archers, especially the Turks. The Turks can now be truly dangerous with their vast array of archery units, and are now hardly pushovers in combat. Of course, heavily armored units still resist arrow fire pretty well, because I did not change the armor piercing capablities, so that a fairly strong semblance to realism can be maintained. Anyways, I felt I would share my thoughts on this, as I feel that it makes for a more balanced game and one where archer is quite viable as a means of decimating enemy troops, especially in the early period.
Ravencroft
02-28-2008, 03:46
Wow...
I just got an idea. Why not balance the xbows/arbs too?
seireikhaan
02-28-2008, 04:21
Well, in what way do you mean? I feel that xbows and arbs are plenty lethal on their own as is, but decreasing it much might render them obsolete given their long reload times and the fact that they don't really shoot over other troops very well like archers. Although I'm certainly open to conversation on the subject, I'm just not quite certain where its headed.
Ravencroft
02-28-2008, 04:37
Well, I meant improving the xbows/arbs effectiveness without making them too powerful. I just don't know what specifically it is.
On a side note, how do you modify the "shoot poorly in bad weather" thing? I have Gnome editor.
seireikhaan
02-28-2008, 05:01
Hmm...Honestly, I've never bothered to tinker with that particular stat, because I felt it would be rather ahistorical to make archers capable of shooting just as well in a downpour as they would on a clear day. Probably somewhere in the projectilestats, aways down would be my guess. Bear in mind, I'm no expert modder, I just do a few small things here and there to, in my opinion, either improve gameplay, balance, or realism.
EDIT: Also, I personally think that x-bows and arbs are plenty effective, given their range and armor piercing capablities, so long as they be protected, of course.
During my tinkering, I eventually upped the lethality of arrows of all bows, including longbows, to .75. The reason for upping the longbows, despite that they don't especially need it badly, is that it seems rather ridiculous, again in my opinion, for regular bows to be more lethal than longbows.
Hang on...
There is a good reason you would find it "ridiculous" for shortbows to be more lethal than longbows... (eg: the fact that the latter is far superior to the former)
...but you have no problem with them having the same lethality?
I'm missing something here... something... nah, it's gone.
:inquisitive:
I believe that longbow's bodkin arrowheads were so narrow, that they just didn't cause the same wounds as the broadhead arrows of most of the other archers and bowmen.
Also, arbs should have a higher lethality, as don't they have a longer reload time than normal xbows? Bah, it's been a while since I've opened up projectile_stats on original MTW.
I'm not too sure, but the shoot poorly stat is a yes/no true/false kinda thing in the proj. stats. Somewhere after the reload times but before the sound effects and models column. Again, vague on the details... I'd check but I'm a tad lazy. :rolleyes:
You'll be wanting to have a look at this thread in the Pocket Mod forum, kamikhaan. https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=85444
:bow:
Brandy Blue
02-28-2008, 19:16
I believe that longbow's bodkin arrowheads were so narrow, that they just didn't cause the same wounds as the broadhead arrows of most of the other archers and bowmen.
I think that longbows actually used two kinds of arrows. Flight arrows were provided with a small head so they could fly further. I assume that is the "bodkin arrowhead" you refer to. Sheaf arrows, however, were used at close range, had broadheads, and were more deadly.
In my opinion, the longbow should be more deadly than regular bows at close range, because they would all use broadhead arrows, but the longbow would have a greater pull. At longer ranges, the longbow would lose effectiveness, but the regular bows would not have the range to shoot that far anyway. I don't think the game would allow you to give the longbow variable levels of deadliness depending on range, so it is a reasonable compromise to give the longbow an "average" level of deadliness. Unrealistically low deadliness at close ranges makes up for unrealistically high deadliness at long range.
One other factor to keep in mind is that a deep wound is often more dangerous than a shallow but wider one. A bodkin head that penetrates deeper would not necessarily be less deadly.
That said, I'm just a causal reader of history, not even a serious amateur. Also, I have rarely used bows of any type. The opinion of a real expert would be nice.
Ironsword
02-29-2008, 11:53
Don't want to go too off topic, but I think the bodkin arrow was the armour piercing round of its day. ie. effective even against plate. But yes, longbowmen, like other archers often used various arrow heads.
They were only really replaced by guns because it took so long to train the shoulder and arm muscles of the archers. It was much quicker and cheaper to give any old Charlie a point and shoot weapon like the handgun.
In MTW, longbows are really fast at firing. Does anyone have the times between volleys for the various missile troops?
Aldgilles
02-29-2008, 12:27
They were only really replaced by guns because it took so long to train the shoulder and arm muscles of the archers. It was much quicker and cheaper to give any old Charlie a point and shoot weapon like the handgun.
If you look ar it that way you should have longer training times for archers (two years for vanilla, three years for longbows maybe?) and just one year for the 'point & shoot' weapons. That way it is reasonable that bows and longbows are better than Xbows...(on a side note: firearms only became better than indian bows in America when repeater weapons were invented, like revolvers and winchesters)
Ravencroft
02-29-2008, 13:42
Yeah, in fact, bowling was apparently banned in medieval England because it prevented the men from longbow practice! (That's how the English were dedicated to longbows.)
Kenshin the vega bound
02-29-2008, 15:36
Archers dont need inproving. I think they are fine as they are. I find them very usefull in defensive battles.
Also hybrid archers are meant to be a lot better than bog standard archers.
Hybrid archers are no better than standard ones because they fire exactly the same bow. Standard archers do need some small improvements, such as extra ammo and slightly improved lethality.
Basically MTW consists of three bow types. The standard bow, the mounted bow (used for horse archers which is a slighlty less accurate version of the standard bow) and the longbow. All foot archer units except the longbowmen are equipped with the standard bow and all horse archers with the mounted bow.
Hybrid archers are no better than standard ones because they fire exactly the same bow. Standard archers do need some small improvements, such as extra ammo and slightly improved lethality.
Agreed. Regular archers are a bit underpowered in vanilla MTW/VI, even against unarmored units. Not they're not still useful, but they should still be a little more effective than they currently are, especially considering their training cost.
Ravencroft
03-02-2008, 15:14
I gotta agree. Basically, I've found the Janissary Archers rather superfluous, as the Infantry had better melee sats and used exactly the same bow!
How did I fix this? Basically, I've overhauled the entire Janissary Corps. I gave the Bows the dreaded longbow(from the unit_prod file); gave the Inf better melee stats (actually more akin to CMAAs now) and the JHIs have much better stats. This is offset by their period limit (i.e. Late Period only).
Now maybe I should give the Bows more ammo as well.
Vanilla Archers are pretty weak unless you've got a nice hill to defend.
I've heard that in XL, Steppe Heavy Cavalry have an armour piercing missile attack - is this right? Do any other archers besides Longbows have an AP missile attack?
seireikhaan
03-03-2008, 05:28
All Mongol archery units have 'longbow' stats in XL. Really makes them insane to deal with if you end up caught in an open, flat battlefield bereft of trees.
Ravencroft
03-03-2008, 15:03
Now the Mongols ARE scary!
Maybe I should give the warriors a longbow.
I've given the Mongol HAs AP arrows MTLG now is AP, so some HA types have SBOW as their proj type.
All Mongol archery units have 'longbow' stats in XL. Really makes them insane to deal with if you end up caught in an open, flat battlefield bereft of trees.
Does this include Steppe Heavy Cavalry? So they have AP arrows and the same range as Arbalesters? Wow, that makes them a pretty damn scary unit when you consider they have a charge of 6 now as well.
bondovic
03-18-2008, 11:19
Hi, all!
I'm new to these forums, although I have been playing MTW almost since the beginning. I have done some textmodding also, meaning I've not added new units and pics, only changed stats.
One of the things that has been a concern of mine for a long time has been the missile units. The problem, according to me, having been that while they are good (or semi-good) as the enemy is not moving they really do not carry their weight in the army should the enemy quickly engage. I wanted to solve this somehow and came to the conclusion that a much increased lethality for all missile types combined with a drastic decrease in quantity of missiles per man was the way to go. This way you get about as many kills 'per quiver' (spelled correctly?) but in a lot less time.
I usually go with 5 missiles/quiver for bows/xbows/guns and 3 for javelins. In addition to this I give all HA units the short bow by default and up the stats of the 'MTLG'. This means that HA's use the same bow as foot archers, which seems, intuitively, plausible. The 'MTLG' can then be used to create a sort of 'elite' class of bowmen, wether on horseback or not. I, for example, use the modded MTLG for Hashishin, Sipahi of the Port, Janissary archers, Boyars and a few others. This is a matter of personal preference, ofc, as I simply feel that these units 'should' be way better than tier 1 riff raff missiles.
All in all this means that foot archers are very nasty defensive units even if the enemy charges without an initial period of skirmishing. HA units, on the other hand, are now way more useful on the offensive. Before these changes I found that the option of massing light cavalry was lost, since you basically risked nothing by letting the HA's come close enough and then chase them to the edge of the map. Now they can be worth the cost because they will do damage even from a couple of arrows.
It does change the way the game is played, especially in the east. The Turks will seem overpowered as a result. On this point I'm open to suggestions as how to balance it out, if there is need - I really have not played through enough campaigns to see a tendency in this matter.
Thoughts?
Regards!
Well I'd improve the archers differently. I'd increase the number of arrows to 36 (2.5 minutes of shooting with 4 second reload), and then slightly increase the lethality to maybe 18% or possibly lower the armor modifier to maybe 0.9. Doing both might be too much. Giving the HA the SBOW is fine. The idea is to retain the need for the archers to be protected so as to preserve the combined arms gameplay.
bondovic
03-18-2008, 18:35
Well I'd improve the archers differently. I'd increase the number of arrows to 36 (2.5 minutes of shooting with 4 second reload), and then slightly increase the lethality to maybe 18% or possibly lower the armor modifier to maybe 0.9. Doing both might be too much. Giving the HA the SBOW is fine. The idea is to retain the need for the archers to be protected so as to preserve the combined arms gameplay.
Agreed, the combined arms gameplay is important. I do think, though, that these stats do no foul to it. Archers would still need cover as they are simply more powerful and not overpowered. HA's are different. It's now possible to 'mass' them and find some success that you simply could not find before, in that they now can cause problems for unprotected heavy cavalry. As was the case in actual history. 16xHA is still not a good idea, though, for the exact same reasons as before modding - the map is not endless, so it is still possible to chase the HA to the edge. Not to mention that that many HA's simply is beyond effective micromanagement.
I just see this as another element to the rock, paper, scissors - be prudent with protective missile units when going east or the HA's will eat your heavy cavalry. As with any counter - once you know what to do it's usually quite easy.
The foot archers, for their part, will not be able to march straight on to the enemy, unleash five volleys and safely withdraw. It's just that you have a little less time to react to skirmishers. If they're not protected - simply ride them down. As you do.
So. I don't believe this modding messes with the combined arms gameplay. It does mean, though, that archers and HA's are useful in more situations than they are under vanilla stats. And especially against heavy cavalry. But not to an extent where heavy infantry gets obsolete.
Cheers!
The foot archers, for their part, will not be able to march straight on to the enemy, unleash five volleys and safely withdraw. It's just that you have a little less time to react to skirmishers. If they're not protected - simply ride them down. As you do.
You're only allowing 20 seconds to react.
So. I don't believe this modding messes with the combined arms gameplay. It does mean, though, that archers and HA's are useful in more situations than they are under vanilla stats. And especially against heavy cavalry. But not to an extent where heavy infantry gets obsolete.
Archers shouldn't be effective against heavy cavalry.
Archers are a little underwhelming at present, I grant you, but the fact is that no matter what their stats are, they present a tactical threat to your opponent - they can kill from a distance. If you cannot reply in kind, Archers, even vanilla ones will cause you significant losses to your units. Free kills are nothing to sneeze at.
The AI plays them annoyingly well as skirmishers and part of your strategy in constructing an army is always "How will I deal with missile troops?" which is exactly as it should be.
One thing that I don't like though is that the number of kills per volley you get seems to go down as the target unit gets thinned down. You'd think that a 60 man unit of archers firing as a 20 man infantry unit would do some serious damage, but more often than not it's a wasted volley or results in 1 kill.
Also it doesn't make sense to me that Archers get as fatiigued as regular troops through firing. I hate watching halkf or more of my men sitting there doing nothing while the others fire becuase they are fatigued. This too would increase their effectiveness.
What I would like is an alternative attack option for catapults and other siege weapons. An anti personell option that has an increased blast radius, no bounce, dramatically reduced Power and lower kill chance. Think of firing a shower of smaller rocks rather than a single boulder.
And for gods sake, something has to be done to Balista's. they are purely useless at present. Increase their Fear impact (seeing the guy next to you get torn in half by a massive spear that could have been coming at you instead will put the scares into anyone), give them a small blast radius and make their firing time the same as a crossbow. they'd still be pretty weak but might actually serve some useful purpose.
By the way, does anyone know how much the accuracy penalty is for having an obstructed view? I'm curious about this as if it's not that much I'll start using my Archers in a 3 ranks more often.
bondovic
03-19-2008, 11:24
You're only allowing 20 seconds to react.
Archers shouldn't be effective against heavy cavalry.
Actually, I'd like to see your argument leading to your conclusions rather than simply hearing what's what. No point in having a discussion if there is no intention of explaining ones position.
I think you are wrong to say only 20 secs. You see the formation of an advancing enemy well ahead and so have plenty of time to counter set your own formation. But I would also like to question the relevance of this, if it would have been true. Why is that a problem? You will still need to deal with archers the same way, modded or not. You will suffer the same casualties if they are left to do their business, modded or not.
As for your opinion that archers should not be effective against HC, you're welcome to it. The point was, rather than hearing your personal opinion, to debate your statement that archers would no longer need protection. They still do. The main difference now being that HC needs protection as well. For me this makes the game harder, more interesting and faster.
Caerfanan
03-21-2008, 12:07
Heavy Cavs shot by archers (we're not talking of arbalests) is not right. That's actually what surprised the muslim fighters during the crusades. While the Francs were falling because of the sunn they wouldn't die "enough" under the arrow fire, thanks to their armors.
In the vanilla game, I was actually surprised by what 6 units of archers could do to one unit of Mongl Heavies crossing a bridge.
I'd maybe, as Puzz3D said, increase a bit the number of ammunitions, but that's all...
bondovic
03-21-2008, 16:04
Heavy Cavs shot by archers (we're not talking of arbalests) is not right. That's actually what surprised the muslim fighters during the crusades. While the Francs were falling because of the sunn they wouldn't die "enough" under the arrow fire, thanks to their armors.
In the vanilla game, I was actually surprised by what 6 units of archers could do to one unit of Mongl Heavies crossing a bridge.
I'd maybe, as Puzz3D said, increase a bit the number of ammunitions, but that's all...
My stats actually allow heavily armoured units to survive quite well. 200 arrows took out 17 katatanks. And that was a :daisy: battle with that unit against my 4 HA's, so it was clear shooting all the time. Much more, though, would feel like unreasonable numbers.:yes:
bondovic
03-21-2008, 16:15
Oh, by the way, I use 'heavy cavalry' by the classical meaning, namely by referring to cav units that are intended to fight meele. So, it's a broad definition that allows even for the likes of Steppe Cavalry to fall under the category. For them to be susceptible to missiles is less awkward, I guess.
bondovic
03-22-2008, 00:23
My stats actually allow heavily armoured units to survive quite well. 200 arrows took out 17 katatanks. And that was a bullshit battle with that unit against my 4 HA's, so it was clear shooting all the time. Much more, though, would feel like unreasonable numbers.:yes:
I'm such a mathematics genius. Should be 800 arrows, right?:idea2:
I wanted to solve this somehow and came to the conclusion that a much increased lethality for all missile types combined with a drastic decrease in quantity of missiles per man was the way to go. This way you get about as many kills 'per quiver' (spelled correctly?) but in a lot less time.
One of the biggest advantages of missile units is the "under fire" morale penalty and not the unrealistic blitzing of a unit or units and doing maximum damage in a short time as this also decreases the time the unit is under fire.
Most Heavy Cavalry (Feudal Knights, Kataphraktoi, Mongol Heavy Cavalry etc, etc, etc) would have been well protected against standard shortbows and would only be significantly vulnerable to bolts from arbalests or the bodkin arrows from the longbow.
As with the others I would argue the opposite to your method in that a larger ammo load is the best approach to improving archers. If you want to create different bows to represent compounds or Mongol bows then that is a good idea but a small increase in lethality over the standard shortbow is the best bet to avoid the new bow(s) becoming too overpowered.
bondovic
03-22-2008, 12:19
One of the biggest advantages of missile units is the "under fire" morale penalty and not the unrealistic blitzing of a unit or units and doing maximum damage in a short time as this also decreases the time the unit is under fire.
Most Heavy Cavalry (Feudal Knights, Kataphraktoi, Mongol Heavy Cavalry etc, etc, etc) would have been well protected against standard shortbows and would only be significantly vulnerable to bolts from arbalests or the bodkin arrows from the longbow.
As with the others I would argue the opposite to your method in that a larger ammo load is the best approach to improving archers. If you want to create different bows to represent compounds or Mongol bows then that is a good idea but a small increase in lethality over the standard shortbow is the best bet to avoid the new bow(s) becoming too overpowered.
As for the first part I don't see it as inherently bad that a unit is under fire for a shorter time, and, as I understand you, recieve less of a moral penalty. Does it change the gameplay? Apparently so. Does it make the game unplayable? Certainly not. It just means less time spent on skirmishing and fighting a foe with slightly better morale. "Unrealistic blitzing". Hmm. What's so "unrealistic" about non armoured units dying from arrow fire?
800 arrows killed 17 katatanks. Is this also unrealistic? Have you not read my posts that carefully? :candle:
I'm hear you, when you say that the "best" way to improve archers is by giving them more ammo. That would be from within your box of thought (no disrespect intended). I'm calling for a change in gameplay - as opposed to a slight change in balance that would be an improvement inside the parameters of the existing role for the archer units.
For me it's more challenging facing these new archers. And I like the faster pace of the battles. I understand now, though, that this is not appealing to most, and I shall proceed to withdraw in order to become one with my shame.
~;)
Stay Turkish
rgrds
B
As for the first part I don't see it as inherently bad that a unit is under fire for a shorter time, and, as I understand you, recieve less of a moral penalty. Does it change the gameplay? Apparently so.
It changes gameplay in that it makes the game less tactical. Archers should primarily be morale breakers and should assist in wearing down and enemy not simply units that decimate a chosen enemy unit.
Does it make the game unplayable? Certainly not. It just means less time spent on skirmishing and fighting a foe with slightly better morale. "Unrealistic blitzing". Hmm. What's so "unrealistic" about non armoured units dying from arrow fire?
Non armoured units may still have shields with which to catch incoming missiles, so they won't all drop dead under fantasy movie style arrow storm.
800 arrows killed 17 katatanks. Is this also unrealistic? Have you not read my posts that carefully? :candle:
You increased lethality as I understand it? But the armour that keeps the Kataphraktoi alive vs regular missiles is still there. This is perhaps why your arrows had little effect, though Puzz3D would know more about this than I would. It's not just a case of altering one parameter as I understand it, but involves a careful balancing several.
I'm hear you, when you say that the "best" way to improve archers is by giving them more ammo. That would be from within your box of thought (no disrespect intended). I'm calling for a change in gameplay - as opposed to a slight change in balance that would be an improvement inside the parameters of the existing role for the archer units.
Not from within my "box of thought" as you call it, but from within my own experience of the tests that I've run in the past and from reading the info available on this board. At the end of the day though it's up to you, I can only give an opinion which is what you asked for in your first post on this subject:
Thoughts?
For me it's more challenging facing these new archers. And I like the faster pace of the battles. I understand now, though, that this is not appealing to most, and I shall proceed to withdraw in order to become one with my shame.
~;)
Stay Turkish
rgrds
B
It may be challenging facing those new archers, as it is challenging facing Viking Huscarles, but as with the latter it's also far too easy when you're the one fielding these types of units. IMHO the kind of archer you're trying to develop reminds me too much of Javelin units, in that it will fire a volley at a particular unit, deal out massive casualties and rout that unit instantly. The slower morale damaging effect of shortbow archers, especially with increased ammo count, is a more effective and balanced model. Historically archery was used in this manner, in that it would keep an enemy unit pinned down and demoralised.
:bow:
bondovic
03-23-2008, 10:10
It changes gameplay in that it makes the game less tactical. Archers should primarily be morale breakers and should assist in wearing down and enemy not simply units that decimate a chosen enemy unit.
Non armoured units may still have shields with which to catch incoming missiles, so they won't all drop dead under fantasy movie style arrow storm.
You increased lethality as I understand it? But the armour that keeps the Kataphraktoi alive vs regular missiles is still there. This is perhaps why your arrows had little effect, though Puzz3D would know more about this than I would. It's not just a case of altering one parameter as I understand it, but involves a careful balancing several.
Not from within my "box of thought" as you call it, but from within my own experience of the tests that I've run in the past and from reading the info available on this board. At the end of the day though it's up to you, I can only give an opinion which is what you asked for in your first post on this subject:
It may be challenging facing those new archers, as it is challenging facing Viking Huscarles, but as with the latter it's also far too easy when you're the one fielding these types of units. IMHO the kind of archer you're trying to develop reminds me too much of Javelin units, in that it will fire a volley at a particular unit, deal out massive casualties and rout that unit instantly. The slower morale damaging effect of shortbow archers, especially with increased ammo count, is a more effective and balanced model. Historically archery was used in this manner, in that it would keep an enemy unit pinned down and demoralised.
:bow:
You make it sound like I have constructed a super archer that consumes the enemy on sight. About the only thing that is significantly different from before is that HA's are a little bit more effective, since they don't need 15 volleys (or such, I'm probably exaggerating wildly now) to damage defending screening cavalry. As to not cause additional confusion on this, the screening cavalry will probably be mounted sergeants, steppe cav, hobilars etc - not the heavily armoured chargers such as knights and kata (I made the mistake of calling all meele cav "heavy cav" in an earlier post). My main point was that it is too easy to neutralize HA's under vanilla stats by chasing them from the map. I feel there is need for clarification regarding this, since this point seems to get lost quite repeatedly. Now, the HA's are at least a threat, as it is possible to hurt light cavalry screeens with a couple of volleys.
The shields are really out of my control, as long as I don't edit them out of each unit. So, those units probably won't die especially either. As a matter of fact - they don't. So, again, I don't see how you can call this "fantasy movie arrow storm style" and such. It really (really!) isn't that bad!
I gladly accept that people don't like the idea of faster killing with arrows because they like the gameplay fine as it is. I just don't want you guys to get the wrong idea about what I've done, as I feel that you have. I just hoped someone would like the idea, beacuase... well, it's always nice when people like your ideas. :yes:
But I hear you, I hear you. :2thumbsup:
Ravencroft
03-24-2008, 06:55
Dude, I get it. Really.
So HAs are now supposed to be able to kill a few light cav now, innit?
So it basically doesn't make them overpowered or anything, just makes them more potent killers (although I agree that archers are meant to break enemy morale) so you can harass them more, right.
That's all my two cents' worth.
bondovic
03-24-2008, 13:20
Thats's about it, yes. :yes:
I gladly accept that people don't like the idea of faster killing with arrows because they like the gameplay fine as it is. I just don't want you guys to get the wrong idea about what I've done, as I feel that you have. I just hoped someone would like the idea, beacuase... well, it's always nice when people like your ideas. :yes:
I don't like your new gameplay because your archers inflict their full damage in 16 seconds. That's not enough time to either return fire effectively (the target unit will loose too many men to the first volley) or to move the target out of range (the units don't move fast enough to get out of range in 16 seconds). Your archer is no longer a skirmisher, but is now a unit used to inflict unacceptable looses upon a charging enemy which is something archers could not do historically.
The trajectory of the arrow tends to carry it over the heads of units moving towards it especially cavalry which move faster than infantry. This is intentionally designed this way so that archers are vulnerable to all types of cavalry to maintain the combined arms gameplay. It also means the defender has to come close to matching the melee power of the attacker minus whatever advantages he can achieve against the attacker using terrain, fatigue and ranged fire. You don't want any one tactical factor to predominated because that will devalue the others. The full potential of the gameplay is realized only when all the tactical aspects of the battle engine are balanced relative to one another.
bondovic
03-25-2008, 19:17
Your archer is no longer a skirmisher, but is now a unit used to inflict unacceptable looses upon a charging enemy which is something archers could not do historically.
Actually, archers were able to do exactly this. The Longbow especially, but other non armour piercing arrows were effectively designed to take out infantry and horses if not always the heavily armoured knights. And if the historical archers corresponding/translating to MTW's basic 'Archer' were not particularly effective, the composite bow wielding archers of Eurasia and the middle east were (meaning - Turcomans, Mamluks, Jennies, Steppe folk etc.)!
Anywho. There is not a system for simulating injuries in MTW. We'll just have to accept that a mounted unit that get their horse shot up counts as 'dead' rather than see a foot unit 'pop up' in its stead (although that would be awesome). Same with injuries, but that's easier - severe injuries = dead in game, minor injuries = not dead in game, shot up horse = dead in game. And this is why I feel that my changes are not completely outlandish regarding the simulation of history.
But my guess is that you don't really want to roll with the Historical Accuracy argument all the way, since gameplay goes out the window if everyone uses 75% archer armies. Thing is, maybe the generals of old could have used 5 yrs+ of MTW gaming before going to field. We, ofc, understand that, basically, no matter how powerful an archer we face (as long as it is within a certain range) 75% archers is easy pickings if we sport enough cavs. Which has been my point all along. I just wanted to be able to use HA's in a different (I confess, more historically accurate) way, which had a rippling effect on all missile stats. I dig the Turks, so shoot me!
Just wanted to call you on this. ~;)
Nah not for me, a bet a lot of work went into researching the archers' kill rate and CA found that to be the correct value. Leave it as it is.
Nah not for me, a bet a lot of work went into researching the archers' kill rate and CA found that to be the correct value.
That's not necessarily the case. With well over 100 units to balance for MTW, the possibility is all too likely that CA wouldn't have had the time to properly adjust the stats for all them. (Huscarles are another example of this.)
As I stated earlier in this thread, vanilla archers are in fact a bit underpowered in my experience, especially when compared to their training & support costs. If they were just a little bit more effective, they would fully be worth what you pay for them.
Nah not for me, a bet a lot of work went into researching the archers' kill rate and CA found that to be the correct value. Leave it as it is.
Compared to STW, MTW's unit balance is poor. There are many "uber units" that imbalance the game and more emphasis on armour, weapon and valour upgrades is shown. The actual base level unit balance itself is very erratic. There is also a lot of redundancy and many expensive units that are not worth training as they do not fit any useful role. VI added to this problem in that new units were added to the main campaign in a very disjointed manner. For example, in vanilla MTW the Danes had a superb battle winning easy to train and low cost unit in the "Vikings", VI added almost all of the Viking units from the VI campaign in addition to these. This made the original Vikings seem somewhat redundant. The highly overpowered Viking Huscarles in particular are so imbalanced that you find yourself having to use "surgical" tactics to defeat them and often take massive losses. And when you're fielding them in battle yourself you cannot exactly lose.
Kamakazi
03-26-2008, 21:44
Compared to STW, MTW's unit balance is poor. There are many "uber units" that imbalance the game and more emphasis on armour, weapon and valour upgrades is shown. The actual base level unit balance itself is very erratic. There is also a lot of redundancy and many expensive units that are not worth training as they do not fit any useful role. VI added to this problem in that new units were added to the main campaign in a very disjointed manner. For example, in vanilla MTW the Danes had a superb battle winning easy to train and low cost unit in the "Vikings", VI added almost all of the Viking units from the VI campaign in addition to these. This made the original Vikings seem somewhat redundant. The highly overpowered Viking Huscarles in particular are so imbalanced that you find yourself having to use "surgical" tactics to defeat them and often take massive losses. And when you're fielding them in battle yourself you cannot exactly lose.
ill second that it is nearly impossible to win a decisive victory against those troops and they are rather good if you use them. The game is unbalanced but over all it is still good as vanilla
Yep, a single unit of Huscales rrouted my entire Irish army yesterday. Didn't matter what I threw at them, they just shrugged it off and kept tearing on through.
The wierd thing is though, I recently fought against a unit of super Huscarles - the legendary Joms Vikings and routed them fairly easily (still took 1 for 1 losses) by javelin shower/flanking them, but the Huscarles I faced yesterday were simply unstopable.
That's the big flaw with such overpowered units. When you have to tip toe around them and use massed crossbows, mounted crossbows or javelins just to kill them the game starts to enter the realms of fantasy. The Huscarles should have an edge over other units but they should not require to be shot at in order to be killed off. The Jomsvikings are particularly nasty. You rarely see those fielded by the AI. The reason why they're usually weaker than the Viking Huscarles is because each Viking Huscarle unit is usually headed by a jedi prince.
The Huscarles were the Kings unit - but aside from the King himself having a few extra HP, why does the Jedi leader matter? I didn't even get him down to 10 men, let alone the last guy.
I have however fallen in love with Javelins now. Huscarles are MUCH more managable when they have a javelin through their chest. Smashed two units of Huscarles, a half unit of Joms, a Landsmen and 2 units of beserkers primarily using an army of mainly Kerns, plus a unit of Gallowglasses, some horsemen, a bonnachts and a single Armoured Spearmen unit. captured their prince too.
No idea how I'd handle them without nailing them to the ground with Javelins first. They really should take 2-3 years to build like ships or siege engines.
Aside from the Picts, does any other faction have a mounted archer unit in VI?
On topic: I see Javelin units functioning in much the same way as the super archer units discussed here. If you were to increase the range of a javelin unit and decrease their AP ability you'd have a similar effect. Based on my experiences with Javelins at the moment I think this would prove simply devastating, so very careful consideration would need to be given before changing archers stats to anything resembling this.
The Huscarles were the Kings unit - but aside from the King himself having a few extra HP, why does the Jedi leader matter? I didn't even get him down to 10 men, let alone the last guy.
The unit leader's command stars give a boost in valour to the unit. The Viking royalty tend to be quite high.
I have however fallen in love with Javelins now. Huscarles are MUCH more managable when they have a javelin through their chest. Smashed two units of Huscarles, a half unit of Joms, a Landsmen and 2 units of beserkers primarily using an army of mainly Kerns, plus a unit of Gallowglasses, some horsemen, a bonnachts and a single Armoured Spearmen unit. captured their prince too.
I find Pictish crossbows and mounted crossbows to be another way to deal with them, but a good salvo from the bonnachts does sort them out. Avoid dartmen vs huscarles though as their darts are not AP. Dartmen are sort of the Irish's substitute for archers.
No idea how I'd handle them without nailing them to the ground with Javelins first. They really should take 2-3 years to build like ships or siege engines.
They're notoriously overpowered. The expansion packs for the first two TW games are known for adding imbalancing factors.
Aside from the Picts, does any other faction have a mounted archer unit in VI?
Off the top of my head, no.
On topic: I see Javelin units functioning in much the same way as the super archer units discussed here. If you were to increase the range of a javelin unit and decrease their AP ability you'd have a similar effect. Based on my experiences with Javelins at the moment I think this would prove simply devastating, so very careful consideration would need to be given before changing archers stats to anything resembling this.
Javelins are very powerful, the best way to balance them is to give very limited ammo count and ensure that the unit has some kind of secondary function (i.e. not throw javelins and withdraw from battle).
I'm glad i tried the Irish in VI as it's given me a real appreciation for what Javelins can do. I'm going to make much better use of them in XL now. Particularly effective is to have a Spear line with a unit of Javelins streched out 2 deep infront and another behind the spear. The one in front volleys then retreats behind the spear line, and while retreating and establishing themselves again, the second unit (on engage at will) volleys. By the time the enemy unit reaches the spears, they will ahve taken significant losses, and will actually lose to the spears over time rather than the other way around. Works best of course when defending a hill.
Even basic javelin units can be an effective counter to strong infantry like CS's and CMAA's when used like this. They can then act as flanking troops, though they will probably not be very good unless they are Kerns or Bonnachts.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.