Printable View
Hi guys,
Just wanted to get your take on the best "depth" for the main classifications of missile units on a flat surface...
Basically: Archers (+variants), Arbs, Pav Arbs & Horse archers. Does it vary for each?
I've recently realised that I may not have been paying close attention to things like visibility with my missile troops, and that perhaps all my guys aren't shooting all the time... ~:cool:
Ta.
.
AFAIK foot missiles can fire 2 ranks deep and mounted ones 3. Those might be 3 and 4 respectively... Better check frogbeastegg's unit guide at the guides section.
.
Loose formation means that the effective depth of ranged units can be increased.
I always place them in two rows, no matter the terrain. I suppose on a very steep slope you can place them into more ranks because in that rare occasion the soldiers in the back can see over their comrades´ heads. In flat land you´ll also have to place them in front of your troops to prevent a clear line of sight, but that´s something I do anyways, too. Archers, after all, are cheap...
Check out the Unit Guide. All your questions and more can be answered there.
I typically do only 2 ranks deep for foot and whatever space and time allow for mounted.:bow:
Two and Three for foot and horse was correct. But, I will tell you this: I play with huge units and that can make for one really really long battle line. Make sure you have enough infantry for frontage. Often I "stack" them when on defense ('cause I find a hill), two units behind two units behind the infantry wall. However, I recently read in another thread here somewhere that someone thought the penalty for not being able to see in a rank was slight. Maybe it's better to have them 3 or 4 ranks deep so more are shooting at any given time.
On a plain? 2 ranks for Arbs, 2-3 for foot.
On a hill? 2 for arbs, 3-4 for foot(very concentrated fire)
Regardless of foot/mounted, if you want all your missle troops to fire when on flat terrain, then set them to 2-ranks deep if in close formation or 3-ranks deep if in loose formation.
You are right, but many archers will fire to if you put them in three ranks in close formation. It is just that those beyong the second rank get an accuracy penatly because they do not have line-of-sight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geezer57
Also gunpowder troops work a bit differently. If you put them in 3 or 4 ranks, they will form a rotating fire system that will keep up a continues barrage of fire and thus a continuous morale penalty. If you put them in two ranks, they fire one volley that can cause massive casualties and then spend a long time reloading.
You can also have some guys not shoot if your line is too long, so occasionally more ranks can actually mean more men firing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geezer57
Ajax
For the best balance of max rate of fire and accuracy, use them 2 ranks deep.
A unit that is receiving missile fire gets a morale penalty so there are times where I like to maximize the length of time that a missile unit fires.
Since I also fight with my hybrids (Janissary Inf, LBs, Trebs, Genoese, Bulgs, etc) I usually use them 3-4 deep to help them take cav charges and make them more maneuverable in tight combat (hybrids make great flankers, and they can slip thru a gap in the line much better when 4 deep than 2 deep.
I only use missiles on loose form when they are greatly outnumbered by the enemy missiles or they are high valor/morale and I don't want to trade them for low valor AI troops in a missile war.
ichi:bow:
That's frequently referred to as "ripple fire", and you're right - due to the more constant impact on enemy morale, it's far easier to combine a ripple-firing gunpowder unit with a melee unit's charge, for a real shock to the enemy. :jawdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
I personally like the Catholic Hand Gunner's pop and drop, that is barrage and charge.
That´s the only thing they´re good for, anyways. So far I´ve never, ever spent money to build gunpowder units apart from cannons (or rather, culverines - cannons are the muslim equivalent). But I have got access to some, by crusading or bribing, over the time and whenever I had them I found them wanting. The Handgunners are decent in a melee, but that´s about the best I can say about them. The rest are a waste of space.
I can understand where you're coming from, but I think gunpowder units aren't quite that bad. I've had some bridge defenses where Arquebusiers wreaked havoc on the pinned enemy, and similar results defending on a hill where the Arqs could get close and fire without interruption. They're armor-piercing, after all...good against those elite enemies. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Ciaran
Arbs and Longbows are better.
But their morale penalty is only 2. Not to mention reload time for the Arbs.
And not every faction can build longbows/arbs, and as mercs they're scarce & expensive.
All factions can build arbs.
BTW- does anyone know how much more effective the 3-4 formation is on hillsides? I know it's more effective from practical experience, but how much more effective is it?
Neither the Turks nor the People of Novgorod can build them, IIRC, and there may be others (Mongol/Golden Horde?).Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Huh. Never knew that. I think Novograd can build plain crossbows can't they? But still, they are pretty common for MP especially.
As for morale penalty, the Longbow's simple quick rate of killage is good enough to shred a few units on approach down to 50%.
Are you playing a mod, Geezer? IIRC in vanilla Turks and Russians (along with everyone else) can build arbs.
Ajax
As long as the slope is steep enough to provide the rear ranks with an unobstructed view I think they´ll be as accurare as the two front ranks. And then there´s the hill bonus, increasing range and maybe damage. It adds up.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
@Geezer:
I don´t doubt there are situations in which the gunpowder units are usefull, such as you mentioned. However, such situations are - in my opinion at least - too rare for gunpowder units to be of worth.
I'm wondering if it has something also to do with the fact that the surface area of the formation is optimized with regard to the perimeter of a formation so it allows for a denser block of fire to come down in a point in an enemy formation with some arrows hitting the area before the enemy(meaning the enemy walks into it) and some after it.
I mostly play XL mod, but was quoting info based on plain MTW+VI. Here's the faction associations for Arbs/Pav Arbs taken from the VI unit production file (using Gnome):Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
"FN_SPANISH,FN_ARAGONESE,FN_BURGUNDIAN,FN_ALMOHAD,FN_BYZANTINE,FN_DANISH,FN_EGYPTIAN,FN_ENGLISH,FN_F RENCH,FN_GERMAN_HRE,FN_ITALIAN,FN_POLISH,FN_RUSSIAN,FN_HUNGARIAN,FN_NOVGOROD,FN_PAPIST,FN_SICILIAN,F N_SWISS"
So apparently Novgorod can build 'em, but I don't see Turks.
They are pretty good in almost any situation. Gunpowder units are a bit more specialized. You can't just put'm on fire at will until their ammo runs out. But trust me when I say: Enemy king + Vanilla spearmen + 2 units of hg/arqs on the flanks = certain death (for the king that is)Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
I admit it requires some micromanagment, but the result are way more satisfying
I like the sig, MR! :san_wink:
Ajax
Regarding unit depth, I wonder if anyone has tried to change the default formation depth to the optimal for each unit type, four for spears, two for archers, crossbows, swords, etc.
The AI never changes formation depths, thus sometimes wasting potential. Setting the defaults to the respective optimum might therefore aid the AI a bit, and we know it can use every aid there is :san_wink:
King Henry had his archers in wedges at Agincourt, with infantry in between. I thought that was interesting.
---A---A---
Something like I think.