Printable View
After testing in the battle of agincourt Ive discovered that archers continue to fire as easily from the further back ranks as in front.... :no: :no:
I just hope that the final game will have this fixed....and i thank god that our local video club rents pc games so ill judge before buying M2TW...
And this is a major probelm for you because?
If this affects your decision to buy the final game, i've got to say, thats your loss.
To be honest as its part of the RTW engine I did not really expect this to change (though I did hope it would)...
It's not the end of the world or anything but it would (and was in the old engine) a nice little realism piece...
Archer line you mean? I don't see any ''realistic problem'' here. Has anyone noticed if this is same with the gun units? This would be a little bit of a ''realistic problem'' but if moralepenalties, bonuses, fatigue, killing speed, overall faction balance, smooth gameplay, good multiplayer support - lobby, etc will be well done, then I wouldn't mind that small error.Quote:
After testing in the battle of agincourt Ive discovered that archers continue to fire as easily from the further back ranks as in front....
However, I think with crossbowmen only the front rank fire? (I haven't played it yet but I think that's right)
So maybe it'll be moddable.
The big problem is that deep formations of missile armed units can all shoot even though a majority of the men actually are out of range. I have seen deeply formed javelin armed units deliver salvos of javelins that near wiped out whole cavalry units. Its not realistic nor good for balance.
CBR
just think of it this way, they organize the ranks so that guys with more strength, draw strength or arm length, get to stay in the back, while guys that are weaker stand in front, so the range evens out.
You will be happy to know that rear lines are very ineffective in M2TW. As a matter of fact even units standing too close behind friendly units will have a reduced missile effectiveness.
So missile tactics will be a big part of M2TW which I am very happy about, always prided myself on good missile tactics.
Jason
I don't really see this as a big problem. If it's archers, they're all firing skywards anyway.
If it's crossbowmen, and I find it annoying, I'll just deploy them in long lines 2 deep.
Good to know that rear missile lines have a penalty again. Thanks for the info. A shame that deep formations can fire even with the majority of the unit standing out of range, though.
Shooting directly, at a close target, there should be a penalty for both crossbows, arquebusiers and archers alike (or you kill your friends)
Shooting at a longer distance this penalty should fall mainly with Xbow and arqs and to a lesser degree with archers. A deep formation will have little real effect on 'range' for archers, since we are talking a few feet and not much more from front to back of the unit. This should not be so with flatter tragectory missiles.
Accuracy would arguably be affected but pumping arrows into a large body of men was the usual technique, as opposed to selecting an individual target
......Orda
I don't think that's a good idea. Guns should be alot more effective at close range, not less.
Since crossbow bolts have similar or slightly faster velocities than fast arrows I dont see why they should have a bigger penalty at long range.
CBR
Well that's quite nice to hear that this feature made it back into the battle engine. In STW, it was archers in close formation who were more than 2 rows back and in loose formation more than 3 rows back who had reduced accuracy, but this didn't happen if the unit was on a slope which allowed men in the back to see over the heads of those in front of them. I think it's important because it will penalize players who keep their missle units close behind their melee units, and penalize players who keep their missle units in something like a square formation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palamedes
I know the old battle engine had men in an archer unit not shooting if they were out of range, but you can argue that they all should shoot for the typical kind of formations you usually see because the open fire range is an effective range not a maximum range. For most formations, when the front row of men is within open fire range all the men in the formation are within maximum range.
Yes, but in the game men do select individual targets. Of course, they can miss their primary target and still hit a different man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
I think it will make archers overpowered if they can shoot equally effective when they are in deep formation. Units deeper in formation can not see the enemy and will aim very poorly. It ads to the tactical challenge to get as much men as possible in good firingposition.
G
Yummmy!Quote:
Originally Posted by Palamedes
Good job there!
Thanks, Palamedes. That's very good to hear. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Palamedes
Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Palamedes
Which makes this topic spiteful spam, really.
I disagree... A forum member brought up a concern and we discussed it. And it just so happens that a CA member dropped by and was kind enough to put us straight... Good alround and if the thread had not been created then we would not know this...Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Neither spiteful nor spam...
Edit: Re-opening the thread as people still want to debate the issue.
Since the last thread was closed so quickly I have opened another to discuss the logic of missile penalties.
This was my reply in the original post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
Agreed. However we are talking about rear ranks. Let's just use 10 ranks deep as an example. Should a man in row 10 be effective? At close range the shot is direct even for a bow.Quote:
I don't think that's a good idea. Guns should be alot more effective at close range, not less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
You don't? If the range is so great that the crossbowmen need to fire upwards then I would agree with you. The velocity of the crossbow carries the bolt in a straighter line, that was their purpose and again the guy in row 10 shoots his mate in front.This is why 'guns' use a rotational volley fire where archers do not. Due to the flat tragectory this also applies to crossbows.Quote:
Since crossbow bolts have similar or slightly faster velocities than fast arrows I dont see why they should have a bigger penalty at long range.
So the flatter, more direct shot actually does have some disadvantages if you have men in front of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
I have already stated that accuracy should receive a penalty. However, due to the cast of an arrow, I fail to see why the guy in row 10 is out of range when the guy in row 1 is not.Quote:
Yes, but in the game men do select individual targets. Of course, they can miss their primary target and still hit a different man.
Flatter tragectory missiles can be considered 'out of range' due to the fact that firing would result in friendly kills.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
I have never had an issue with rear ranks firing (archers) there is no reason why they should not and if they miss their chosen target and hit another, that would be an accurate portrayal
.....Orda
I think that sort of explains the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palamedes in the locked thread
Apparently the rear ranks have worse accuracy or some other factor that limits their effectiveness (can't imagine what else it could be that would fit).
But crossbows dont have to have that much flatter trajectory than arrows. That completely depends on its draw weight. A belt and hook crossbow would be perhaps in the 3-400 pound range (although one could technically use even heavier ones) and was a very common crossbow. Such weapons would perhaps have a max range of 250 meters, very similar to heavy draw weight longbows shooting heavy bodkins.
A bolt has less drag than an arrow but, although I dont have the specific numbers for drag, the start velocity of the bolt would still be within the range of heavy bodkin arrow fired from a 150 pound longbow (50-55 m/s)
Even some of those monster 1200+ pound crossbows, that have a range of 400+ meters with heavy bolts, would still just have velocities of perhaps say 75+ m/s
I fail to see how bows somehow can be better at shortrange targets than crossbows since they have very similar ballistics. If shooting at very close range targets of 50 meters or less then the 10th rank archer or crossbowman would both have problems.
Guns is something completely different as they have muzzle velocities of 3-400+ m/s. They could in theory be used at 45 degrees just like bows and crossbows, but the chance to hit would be non-existent and the bullet would have slowed down a lot. (Although IIRC it actually was used in the Franco-German war 1870-71 but thats off topic) So guns can really only use a few ranks for salvo fire or the revolving ranks we see earlier.
Guns in M2TW demo use a 2 rank revolving rank formation and that is the only thing they can do. Put the unit in more ranks and all you get is fewer guns used. Maybe we will see some kind of salvo fire as we saw in STW/MTW but we dont know that.
CBR
Penalties for archers beyond the first few ranks is good, but are you still able to let a whole unit of 20 ranks fire?
And from the Demo impressions thread:
If a missile unit is on guard and in melee, are you still able to fire missiles? Or is the missile unit forced to melee?
IceTorque:
A small number of the back row will fire, the rest stand their with their hammers out and only go into their combat animations when struck.
Does that mean that when a missile unit is in 20 ranks that the back rows can still fire while the front get into their combat animations?
This is a major problem in NTW2 where people abuse this exploit to have deep columns on guard firing away and only the front rank being engaged in combat.
Brief test, In pavia I ordered the musketeers to engage in melee with some french pikemen, then ordered them to fire on same pikemen. For the most part they did'nt react and stayed in their melee animation. Some units in the back rows briefly switched to their guns before switching back to swords. Unit numbers are small and combat don't last too long, but they did'nt even look like getting a shot off. I think that with the first rank being the only rank that can fire this won't be an issue/exploit.Quote:
Does that mean that when a missile unit is in 20 ranks that the back rows can still fire while the front get into their combat animations?
I ran the archer test again, this time ordering them to fire on the unit they were engaged in melee with and NOT a distant target. The entire unit very quickly switched to bows and fired one volley at a distant target, then quickly returned to melee. With the penalty being very quick death for most of the missile unit. Definately not a good thing to do and is definately not something that could be described as an exploit.
I never said that.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
There is a vast difference in the cast of an arrow and whereas I agree there should be an accuracy penalty at distance for archers, there is no reason why all ranks cannot fire. We are talking a matter of feet or yards which will have little effect on range. For all crossbows to fire would be quite different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
Putting it in modern terms, traditional archers using wooden arrows against a unit of compound archers. I would expect the rear rank compounders to either rotate with front ranks or kill their mates. The traditional guys would be aiming a lot higher
........Orda
I think the proper way to reduce the effectiveness of archers or other high trajectory weapons when in deep formation or standing close behind another unit is to reduce the accuracy of the men whos view is obstructed rather than have some of the men not shoot. Obstructed view means the man can't see the enemy. Not shooting should happen when the trajectory gets so low that they will likely hit their own men or when they are on auto-fire and shooting into melee or when fatigue is so high that some men haven't reloaded. This is how STW/MTW worked.
Spot on Puzz3D
The concern would then lie with the player, as to allowing less effective archer fire that will in turn empty their quivers
.......Orda
That's what I was thinking as well. That reminds me of a change made to how ammo was distributed from STW to MTW. In STW, unused ammo was retrieved from the dead men in the unit by the living men in that unit. In MTW, unused ammo stayed with the dead man. In theory, the way STW handled it is more realistic, but it sometimes lead to very small units having a huge amount of ammo. They could be very effective if in a position to shoot without return fire hitting them which diminshed the disadvantage of the unit having lost most of its men. In Samurai Wars for MTW/VI, we compensated for this change by increasing the ammo for archers from 28 to 36 arrows per man. This actually makes an uncountered archer more dangerous in Samurai Wars than it was in STW, but it's also more costly to the unit to loose men. I think RTW/BI retained the per man allocation of ammo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
What ?!? does this still happen on RTW? and heres me streching my archers to a two rank formation every time for no apparent reason. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
Just to confirm, isn't this very similar to how Palamedes said it will work, or is there a subtle difference I'm missing:Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palamedes
The subtle difference being we were discussing archers as opposed to 'missile' units and the reasons why penalties should differ regarding rear ranks
......Orda
You know, around the 1300s or so the North Italian urban militias developed a tactic where the crossbowmen were screened by a rank of pavesari, armoured spearmen carrying large "tower" shields. Really a reinvention of the ancient Persian sparabara trick, but hey, it worked.
Rather obviously this wouldn't have been done if the shield-bearers markedly detracted from the firepower efficiency of the crossbowmen (I think they normally kneeled out of the way when at rest).
Also, AFAIK it wasn't all that unusual to have (often rather lightly eqeuipped) horse-archers form up at the rear of shock cavalry while the latter were stuck in and lob arrows over their heads into the rear of the enemy formation. Back in the days when infantrymen commonly carried javelins the rear ranks often tended to "add their weight" to the melee in similar fashion. Not necessarily terribly accurate, but it's not like they really had that much better things to do either.
Just something to think about.
Mind you, for obvious reasons missile troops tended to operate in relatively loose order since most such weapons (particularly slings) need a bit of "elbow room" to use effectively. This likely left enough free space between the men in a rank that at the very least the guys immediately behind them would have had little trouble firing through the gaps, and if for example the front ranks kneeled to fire (dunno if they ever did though) presumably ranks further back could also have clear lines of fire.
Then again, infantry archers normally shot massed plunging fire anyway and slingers were virtually by definition loose-order skirmishers. AFAIK crossbowmen normally operated in either rather shallow formations (probably no more than about four or five deep tops, plus possibly an additional front rank of heavy troopers for close defence and absorbing incoming missiles) or as dispersed skirmishers, so...
Firearms had one advantage over most others in that they took quite little "elbow room" to use properly, which allowed massing the soldiers more closely and hence more focused firepower. 'Course, those guys at least always topped out at a three-rank salvo fire (which also tended to leade them sitting duck since everybody then had to spend the next minute orhalf reloading), but this came to be regarded as worth the sheer shock and firepower.
My post was, without question, the dumbest thing I have written in quite some time. Note to self: do NOT post during a busy work day when you don't have time to read the whole thread. Thank you for your restrained retort, Orda, a more severe thrashing would not have been inappropriate. Sorry to all for my rather lame intrusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
- DCD
Palamedes doesn't specify how they are reducing the effectiveness of back ranks. It could be by reduced accuracy or by fewer men firing. Reduced accuracy would be a more severe penalty because it would waste arrows.Quote:
Originally Posted by dcd111
When I tried deploying in deep formations it seemed like all archers did shoot so I guess accuracy is reduced.
CBR
No need for an apology :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by dcd111
......Orda