Re: Improving vanilla archers
Personally I don't like GA too much, even through the majority of my games have been in that mode. The reasons being that I might get tired before 1453, and that the AI does NOT play the GA game, but the conquest one. (That some factions have an inbuilt conquest juggernaut point mode is not a reason because it's easily modded).
In the PM, GA mode is a bit wobbly anyways, because of the addition of factions without GA (Novgorod so far. Maybe Granada and Portugal -AFAIK-), so it wouldn't be that dramatic.
One thing to bear in mind is that the last years of history would be utterly discarded: namely: the discovery of America and Vasco de Gama's explorations around Africa.. Unless trade goods could be added to Spain and Portugal to represent those things, I guess. (Other -minor- points to bear in mind would be the absence of the historical fall of Constantinople, the unification of Castile and Aragon, and some others)
Query: Perhaps the Arquebus could be removed altogether and that projectile slot used for some other kind of weapon type, and leave only the gunners standing?
BTW: Is the difference between the Mongol bow and the standard Hun compound bow widespread in Eastern Europe that big as to merit two in-game projectile types?
Re: Improving vanilla archers
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
Perhaps the Arquebus could be removed altogether and that projectile slot used for some other kind of weapon type, and leave only the gunners standing?
This is probably what will have to be done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
Is the difference between the Mongol bow and the standard Hun compound bow widespread in Eastern Europe that big as to merit two in-game projectile types?
Maybe not, the Turkish, Mongol and Hunnic bow could possibly all be combined, though I have read that the Mongol and Turkish bows were superior with longer range and more bower. The difficulty then is to decide which units should be equipped with such a weapon. Currently these units have the composite bow:
Archers [Eastern]
Desert Archers
Dismounted Steppe Cavalrymen
Janissary Archers
Nizari Fedayeen
Nizari Foot Soldiers
Psiloi
Turcoman Foot Soldiers
Zerhli Nefer
Zerhli Nefer Janissary
Nizari Fedayeen
So far I have compiled this list of revised units that will definitely have composite bows of some kind:
Archers [Eastern]
Dismounted Steppe Cavalrymen
Janissary Archers
Kapikulu Sipahis
Mamluk Horse Archers
Mongol Horse Archers
Nizari Fedayeen
Nizari Foot Soldiers
Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi Toxotai
Psiloi
Sipahi Oglen
Steppe Heavy Cavalry
Steppe Horse Archers
Szekely
Timarli Sipahis
Turcoman Foot Soldiers
Turcoman Horse Archers
Turcopole
Zerhli Nefer
Zerhli Nefer Janissary
Generic Composite bow
Mongol Composite bow
Turk Bow
These are the units I currently have doubts about:
Boyar
Boyar Bodyguards (name needed)
Faris
Desert Horse Archers
Desert Archers
Re: Improving vanilla archers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
These are the units I currently have doubts about:
Boyar
Boyar Bodyguards (name needed)
Faris
Desert Horse Archers
Desert Archers
I would use the compound bow for all of them. The mongol bow doesn't make sense, and the units are to general for the turk bow.:2cents:
Re: Improving vanilla archers
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
I would use the compound bow for all of them. The mongol bow doesn't make sense, and the units are to general for the turk bow.:2cents:
Well the first two are Kievan, Norvgorodian, Russian, Bulgarian units, the second three are Arab units, I'm not sure if the composite bow was in use among those peoples during the period. This is why I was thinking the standard bow?
Edit: Thinking about it the Boyars probably would use composite bows, but I'm still not so sure about the Arab/Desert units.
Re: Improving vanilla archers
I was tweaking archers a couple nights ago and I had an epiphany. High armor units obviously are near immune to vanilla archers, as it should be. The problem I found is that in a hail of 60 arrows, 5 peasants fell. I think this is ridiculous! Unarmored, unshielded peasants should be cut down in droves by arrows, period. Their is no way an archer can be that bad of a shot, especially with all the training they go through. The other thing that irrates me is the longbow range, which could reach 300m according to the description. Yet they have almost the same range as the normal shortbow!
The problem, and my epiphany, is that increasing the power of archers makes all archer armies near invincible, as with my modifications while playing Byzantium can attest. With 8 units of Psiloi I was able to completely eliminate the Egyptian royal line in ONE battle.
We need to find a middle ground, one in which archers cut down unarmored, unshielded foes in droves, but armored ones aren't as affected. My idea: increase the shield bonus, iff it doesn't hamper units in the desert.
Re: Improving vanilla archers
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
I was tweaking archers a couple nights ago and I had an epiphany. High armor units obviously are near immune to vanilla archers, as it should be. The problem I found is that in a hail of 60 arrows, 5 peasants fell. I think this is ridiculous! Unarmored, unshielded peasants should be cut down in droves by arrows, period. Their is no way an archer can be that bad of a shot, especially with all the training they go through. The other thing that irrates me is the longbow range, which could reach 300m according to the description. Yet they have almost the same range as the normal shortbow!
The problem, and my epiphany, is that increasing the power of archers makes all archer armies near invincible, as with my modifications while playing Byzantium can attest. With 8 units of Psiloi I was able to completely eliminate the Egyptian royal line in ONE battle.
We need to find a middle ground, one in which archers cut down unarmored, unshielded foes in droves, but armored ones aren't as affected. My idea: increase the shield bonus, iff it doesn't hamper units in the desert.
Personally I think reload times, ammo count, and range are about the only stats we can change when it comes to bows, otherwise they become either very overpowered or underpowered. It is going to take some balancing to get it right.
Re: Improving vanilla archers
What effect would it have to increase the percentage chance an arrow kills assuming it penetrates a soldier's armour & shield bonus(es)? I'm talking about the chance-to-kill only -- I'm *not* advocating increasing the arrows' ability to penetrate armour (since I agree archers certainly shouldn't be able to kill many troops with a decent armour/defense rating!).
I thought Puzz said something about this already, but I can't seem to find it now. :book:
Re: Improving vanilla archers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
What effect would it have to increase the percentage chance an arrow kills assuming it penetrates a soldier's armour & shield bonus(es)? I'm talking about the chance-to-kill only -- I'm *not* advocating increasing the arrows' ability to penetrate armour (since I agree archers certainly shouldn't be able to kill many troops with a decent armour/defense rating!).
I thought Puzz said something about this already, but I can't seem to find it now. :book:
Lethality? Not in this thread? I'll look for that thread, I think I know the one you mean but I'm not sure it was in this forum.
:bow:
-Edit: Found it https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=79233
Re: Improving vanilla archers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Ah yes, that's the one. I forgot to check the Alchemist Lab. :bow:
So *have* you made any decisions about changing/increasing lethality, or are you just going to stick with increasing their ammo count and rate of fire?
Re: Improving vanilla archers
Did the Almohads use compound bows in any significant ammount? I'd think not, as apparently it did not work it's way into Western Europe (I'd think that at least in Spain it would have made a noteworthy adittion to guerrilla warfare. And until the fourteenth century England imported yew from Spain to build longbows, and if they had known of another way of building powerful bows they would have gone for it, I think), but I don't really know...
Compounding the confusion?
I hope this helps someone a touch?
I had noticed while playing D&D that even people who know better accidentally say compound instead of COMPOSITE( a composite of materials; usually its horn on the outside bend to absorb the stress that would splinter most wood) bow...
or they say compound meaning RECURVE or re-flex bows-
and usually its someone who knows better but doesn't realize this is confusing to people who aren't as interested in bows :).
I won't get into the fantsay games adding COMPOSITE LONG BOWS to the mix; lol:wall:
A compound bow is a modern bow that uses a levering system of cables and usually cams and pulleys to draw the limbs back.
The compound bow was first developed and patented by Holless Wilbur Allen in Missouri in 1967 and has become increasingly popular. In the United States, the compound is the dominant form of bow
I hope that clarifies something for somebody; somewhere?
so maybe someone can clarify for me if the mtw/stw engine diferentaites skill level for accuracy and SHORT range (direct shots) versus longer range/high-trajectory shots in terms of acuracy and penetration...
because neither my Samurai nor Yeoman have impressed me; not even at short range.
