valor and accuracy

[Gilrandir]

This one is provoked by RRMike's report on his Byzhighexpert campaign where he expressed his desire to conquer trebizond asap to get access to V1 Treb archers (if I had the same conquering strategy in mind I would justify the same move by the desire to get Treb governor's office which adds 1 star to the governor in question, though). So I thought: is it worthwhile to try to get a higher-valor ranged unit (especially for the Byz)?
Well, the UNIT GUIDE says: "Where ever possible place your naptha throwers on higher ground than their targets, this increases their range and keeps them safer. Also try to get them valour as quickly as possible; it increases their accuracy tremendously." I presume it rules for all ranged units as well.
When we speak of the Treb archers issue, I don't think valor matters much (even if it does increase accuracy). We must bear in mind multi-star Byz generals. If your general has, say, eight stars who cares if your archers will have valor 4 or 5? It is of no great moment whether it will make them more accurate or more stalwart in melee (if you plan to use them that way).
But some people here expressed their doubts as to the correlation of valor and accuracy. So I would like an explicit answer to the question: Does more valor mean more accurate shooting?

[Trapped in Samsara]

"...is it worthwhile to try to get a higher-valor ranged unit...?" and "Does more valor mean more accurate shooting?"

Hi Gilrandir

I have read a number of debates on this issue down the years. I believe I am right in saying that the consensus view was that missile units do not see very much improvement in their accuracy (which I understand to be their kill rate with their missile weapon) until they achieve quite high - say, four star - valour in their own right (as opposed to 'received' valour on account of their general's stars).

Obviously +1 valour has other (moral and melee) benefits. And Treb Archers are regarded as one of those 'hybrid' units that can be committed to the hand to hand fight to good effect when a flanking opportunity presents itself. Or you're desperately trying to shore up your main battle line.

What do others think?

Best regards
Victor

Sapere aude
Horace

[Durango]

CA addressed this around the time when MTW was released. Apparently, the developers acknowledged that the meager increases in accuracy for missiles when going up in valour was unintended - it was supposed to be greater, but was never implemented.

[drone]

I read ages ago that true (not general's bonus) valour did increase the accuracy, but it took until level 3-4 before it became noticeable. Maybe it was in the numerology thread. My gut has always been that it does help, especially with artillery units. Rookie catapult crews can barely hit the broadside of a castle, but this seems to improve with valour.

I wonder what the best test method would be. You would probably want to remove armour and shields from the equation. It might be that the difference is more noticeable with lower accuracy weapons, like javelins (0.15 acc) and darts (0.3). Maybe mod a projectile so it has ArmourMod 0, Lethality 5.55, and adjust the accuracy through a series of tests with different valour levels? Misses might still hit someone else though, so the target formation will play a role.

[RRMike]

Yeah, my interest in the v1 treb. archers is due to their better melee and morale. This campaign has been a real struggle and being able to use those guys for something productive after they run out of arrows is a big bonus.

[Gilrandir]

I see your point but still I wouldn't dawdle trying to get Trebizond knowing there is juicier piece in the vicinity - Const with its high level castle and lots of offices waiting to be bestowed upon your generals.

[RRMike]

I see your point but still I wouldn't dawdle trying to get Trebizond knowing there is juicier piece in the vicinity - Const with its high level castle and lots of offices waiting to be bestowed upon your generals.

In retrospect I agree. Although the titles sat, mostly unused for years before I found suitable recipients, having const. with a shot at Greece and Bulgaria is more important than treb, which I would get in the impending attack on the Turks anyway.

[Gilrandir]

Still, when I played the Turks in high and captured Const I found the offices very handy. So never miss a chance to give more command and acumen to your generals ("star and feather 'em", as I call it).

[RRMike]

Yes, they would be except I didn't want to deal with the hassle of removing them later so I wanted to get the right men for the job, so to speak. I started with no decent generals except heirs and few good governor prospects. The quills went first but the titles that convey stars sat for over a decade. We are straying a bit though :) I only posted to address the OP, which was about getting v1 archers for their accuracy and I was pointing out that that wasn't why I wanted them.

I completely agree with you that I didn't use the best strategy when starting my game. If I ever play byz high again I would do it the way you talked about. But I doubt I ever will. I hate this game and am just finishing it now as a grudge. I can't wait to get back to playing a faction that gets better units as periods pass. ;)

[Martok]

I too will go for valoured-up archers (or other missile units) when it's reasonably practical to do so. Having ranged units that can also do halfway decently in melee gives me a much-desired/needed level of flexibilty in my battle plans. (I almost love Longbowmen more for their hand-to-hand stats than for their extended range and penetration power!)

I completely agree with you that I didn't use the best strategy when starting my game. If I ever play byz high again I would do it the way you talked about. But I doubt I ever will. I hate this game and am just finishing it now as a grudge. I can't wait to get back to playing a faction that gets better units as periods pass. ;)

I'm somewhat the opposite. I rather enjoy the challenge of trying to hold my own in a game where my troop roster becomes increasingly obscolescent over time. (It's one of the few reasons for which I will play the Almohads on rare occasions.)

Of course, I much prefer to do so starting in the Early era, as playing as the Byz or Almos in the High period (much less the Late) tends to be...tough.

[RRMike]

Of course, I much prefer to do so starting in the Early era, as playing as the Byz or Almos in the High period (much less the Late) tends to be...tough.

It's just a slog. I guess that's how best to describe it. No tactical brilliance. No beating overwhelming odds with a small force of elite troops. You play solid fundamental tactics, take your huge losses, win and move on after building several units to replace your losses. At least that's what it feels like. Of course you can still have some good wins but I'm past enjoying this game so now that my trade is flowing it's just an "out-build, bring overwhelming numbers and autoresolve" type game.

I may try the Egyptians next. I know their roster is pretty stagnant but it's good. At least for my style of play it is. I'm a spear heavy kinda guy. I love the traditional pin and flank style of play when it's possible and Saracens are a great unit in early and a good unit after that, with upgrades. Plus, Gazis are the ultimate flanking infantry, other than JHI. I absolutely love Gazis. When I played Turk high, I really didn't end up using that much JHI after the horde. They were just too slow to build from a single province.