Trebizond Archers

[Exile]

The unit description for Trebizond Archers indicates that their bows are superior, but the unit stats I d/l show them as having the same short bow as archers. Does anyone know if Trebizond archer bows are better..or not??

[Crandaeolon]

They are not better. All foot archers use the same missile stats, except for Longbowmen. It is a shame IMO.

There are a couple of discussions in the Entrance Hall and the Dungeon about the subject. The threads are here:

http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....;t=2801

http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....;t=1535

[Exile]

Thank you for the links. The information there certainly answered my questions. Too bad about the bows, perhaps they were intended to be in the game but not included for some reason - like foot knights.

[TheViking]

I havnt read the threads, I talk from my own experiences. Playing on hard difficulty

I only had one campain as Byz. I used Trebs in all my armys I started in early and i kept using them till the end of the game. They killed all they aimed at. armor or no armor they kept on killing. Their kills was always atleast 50-60 kills and lost about 0-5 men. Those times I had to use them as flankers after they ran out of amu they killed about 30-50 more, but then the loses was between 10-20 men more. I havnt seen other shooters, bows, xbows, arbs or arqus kill so many b4.

I fell inlove with the Trebz

I dont know about stats cus i dont read into stuff like that. Its better to go on feelings.

[Lehesu]

Yeah, I tend to base my army assortment based on their performance, not stats. (Which is why I still use longbowman.)

[hoom]

Yeah.
Sod stats.
Treb archers kill basic spearmen.
Standard archers don't.

They can even do some good damage in melee.

[Lichgod]

I fought a bridge battle vs Byz who had Treb archers. They where hitting my archers who could not hit them. The elevations looked about the same. I was impressed with the Trebs. I built them non-stop in their province when I played Byz.

Maybe someone could do some tests of Treb vs Archers/Desert Archers/Genoa Sailors/Longbow.

[Crandaeolon]

Just please don't let the "I like this unit" -thinking cloud yer minds, gentlemen

All I'm saying is that with the code that end-users are allowed access to, i.e. the files crusaders_unit_prod11.text and ProjectileStats.txt, there is no way to prove ANY difference in firepower between the various foot archers except for longbowmen. ALL foot archers (except for the Longbowmen) use the same SBOW missile type. Identical range, identical power.

If there is a difference that can be found in _objective_ testing, that's definitely ok with me as I'd really like there to be a difference

Edit: As an answer to Lichgod, both me and Kraxis and undoubtedly others have done _countless_ tests. Kraxis did find differences in firepower, I did not, barring statistical errors. (And those errors were in the favor of _normal_ archers...)

[Crandaeolon]

Alright good comrades, here's a test for you. Thanks to Znake for taking the time to help, and for the patience when he was getting shot to pieces.

Settings: Steppesinland03, arid, summer.

Attacker: 8 Trebizond Archers, 8 Archers. All valour 0.

Defender: 16 Spearmen. V2 except for the gen.

Znake deployed his gen behind the line of spearmen, so I didn't include his gen in the test. I left one of my Archer units out of the testing as well. (The little maneuver was unnecessary, I know, and resulted in 1 casualty from friendly fire. But it was a boring test )

The archers were lined up in 4-deep blocks and given orders to shoot a spear unit ahead of them until they ran out of ammo. Fire at will was off.

It was not a perfect test, but I'm gonna settle with that for now and just play the dang game.

Average kills per Trebizond archer unit: 43.6

Average kills per standard Archer unit: 44.9

Result screenshot: 00000001.jpg

Replay:
archertest.mrp

[Kraxis]

Hehe... I too love the Trebz, and I know why. They are cheap, they are ranged and they perform greatly in battle (because they attack well and are cheap enough to be expendable).

In my old tests I believe I too found the Trebz to be slightly worse than normal Archers in ranged combat. But that was so slight I willing to say they are equal. And the stats underlines this. Strangely though was the Turcomans and Jannisary Infantry, the Turcomans were by far the best archers while the JI were quite bad at killing at a range, and that can't be found in the stats. So I'm a little puzzled as I don't know if it is true some archers are better (can't be seen in stats) but my results came from 10 tests with each archer against V4 Pikemen under perfect conditions, so it was very equal and most fluctuations were eliminated (so equal archers would have quite similar results).

But anyway, keep using and fearing the Trebz, they are perfect archers. They hit well in melee and that is what you need when you need to commit the archers to melee. You don't need your men to survive, you need them to kill the enemies fast.

[Spetulhu]

The Trebs make for a good flanking force when your infantry is locked in melee with a steady enemy. Regular archers die very fast when you have to use them in hand-to-hand combat, the Treb last longer.

[Lion King]

I think the reason behind this difference in efficiency is the units formations and spacing between them, this affects how many units fire at one time thus determining how many arrows they shoot and then the kills they score. I find archers much much more effective (especially when firing at enemies below them) when they are well spaced in the staggered/loose formation, besides, it makes them less susceptible to enemy fire as well

[Crandaeolon]

Well, here's a test with Turcoman Foot, stretched out.

Same deal as in the previous one, thanks to UgliRaichu aka Bosdur for being my pincushion.

Steppes, arid, summer
Attacker 8 Turcoman Foot and 8 Archers, no upgrades
Defender 16 v2 spearmen, no upgrades
I removed fatigue, so it wouldn't interfere with the results.

Again, the test wasn't perfect (the lining up was a bit silly), but I believe it offers some useful data at least.

Avg. kills per Turcoman Foot unit: 45.0
Avg. kills per standard Archer unit: 48.0
(I believe removing fatigue raised the average kill amount a tad)

Results screenshot: 00000003.jpg

Replay:archertest2.mrp

[TheViking]

ShadeCrandaeolon: You and your friend/s should test them in real fights not like you have done. The units always behave different on a real "battlefield". hope you understand what i mean.

Ive used archers more then Trebz, many more times. I only been the Byz. once. But during that campain my trebz was more often succesful then all those times ive used archers.

example:
Lets say i only used Trebz 10 times and archers 100 times.
9 of the 10 times the Trebz was succesful.
But only 10 of 100 times the archers was succesful.

My advice to all is to test your units in full scale battles. They always behave diff then in test like you have done. I speak out of my own experience

[hoom]

Perhaps some tests where the archers/trebs are on a hill defending?

I guess it could just be the valour bonus from building trebs in Trebizond (marvelous word that )
Try valour 1 trebs vs valour 0 archers?

[Crandaeolon]

Viking:

I definitely understand what ya mean by testing in real fights. And I can pretty safely say I have enough multiplayer experience to confirm that 1 on 1 tests indeed don't reveal the whole truth.

But, in this case I'm afraid I can't think of a better test. Real fights involve lots of men moving around (archers missing due to overshooting etc.) and all kinds of distractions, like a thousand men trying to poke yer ribs with long, pointy poles (not allowing optimal fire control). That is, real fights are very _random_ and so much depends on the skill of the players.

And as ya saw from the results of those 2 previous tests, there already is a great variance in kill amounts even between archers of the same type. If I'd increase the randomness and distractions, it won't be a test of the unit, it would be a test of my skill to cope with different battlefield situations.

arrse:

One custom test I did often is the "crecy approach test". AI attacks, player defends. I found no difference between archers\trebs\turcomen. Custom tests are always a bit iffy though, as they're never neutral. On normal difficulty, the player gets a slight bonus in combat ability. On hard difficulty, the computer does. I dunno if this applies to ranged weapons, though.

I wonder if the campaign mode works differently than the multiplayer aspect? There's _some_ difference in unit stats, that's for certain, as if ya have played the campaign and then try to play a MP game without restarting the game first, ya get a "game state diverged" -message. Might this have something to do with missile units? Does anyone know?

Again, an official comment would be nice too...

[Kraxis]

Hmmm... Archers win again...

I did my test against V4 Pikemen, 100 men with 1 Armour and due to the V4 they would not run nor would they be attacked in melee until all arrows were spent. I beleived that the more they could kill the better chance one would have of finding a difference.

[Crandaeolon]

Quote[/b] ]Hmmm... Archers win again...

Just for the record, the tests could easily have gone the other way. They are definitely not proof that the standard archers would be better than trebs or turcomen.

[ShadesWolf]

I find these are a awesome unit, which are also good in hand to hand fights