Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Janisssary Archers

  1. #1
    Member Member Kristaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Livonia
    Posts
    464

    Default

    Hmm, previously read quite a few posts hinting at superior missile shooting quality of Janissary Archers. However, a lookd at the file "crusaders_unit_prod11.txt" suggests janissary archers use the short-bow: the same shortbow used by vanilla archers in the game... Shorbow stats are listed in "ProjectileStats.txt" and are not impressive at all. My impression from the unit description was that janissary archers should be using crossbows of sorts with armor penetration qualities... However, the info in "crusaders_unit_prod11.txt" suggests one should not build janissary archers at all: just go for janissary infantry for their superior melee qualities...
    Kristaps aka Kurlander
    A Livonian Rebel

  2. #2

    Default

    ShadeCran did a test with me on this. So far, havent seen any of these exclusive archers shoot better than vanilla archer as you suggested.

    --Bosdur a.k.a UgliRaichu--

  3. #3
    Senior Member Senior Member Hakonarson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    1,442

    Default

    Jannisaries used good composite recurve bows that should be comparable to longbows.

  4. #4
    AKA Leif 3000 TURBO Senior Member Leet Eriksson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    n0rg3
    Posts
    3,510

    Default

    they have shorter range than longbows,but in an archer duel the janissary archers defeat the longbows with pretty small casualties.very good killing machines too.
    Texas is Gods country! - SFTS
    SFTS = The rest =


  5. #5
    Member Member Tigger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    London
    Posts
    40

    Default

    "vanilla" archers

    What's all that about then? It'll be "chocolate" seige engines next

    I don't know what the worlds coming to..






  6. #6
    Member Member Kristaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Livonia
    Posts
    464

    Default

    I did not dispute that janissary archers were 'better archers' in the history. However, in the game they are not.

    To convince yourself look at the stats in

    crusaders_unit_prod11.txt
    projectilestats.txt

    in our Medieval Total War directory. According to crusaders_unit_prod11.txt, Janissary archers use a shortbow: the same shorbow used by the simple "archers". A glance at projectilestats.txt {lists stats for all projectile weapons in the game: i.e., reload speed, accuracy, armor piercing, range, velocity, etc.}, will prove that shortbow is not a formidable weapon at all. Since missile stats appear to be determined by weapon quality only in MTW, janissary archers as they stand now are bound to be as good in ranged combat as "vanilla archers"... I do not argue that they are better in melee than the vanilla archers though. However, if you buy them for their melee qualities: janissary infantry appear to be a far better choice (they also use "shortbows" in the game).

    As to comparison of janissary archers versus longbows: it is quite possible that they 'outshoot' longbows in limited tests. The only two advantages the longbows have versus "shortbows" in the original/unmodded "projectilestats.txt" are increased range and decreased armor modified. In terms of kills, longbows should be no better than vanilla archers when shooting against unarmored opponents (again, here I speak about the game, not the history).

    To summarize it all: I am just surprised that the developers have given a 'shorbow', the same ranged weapon used by archers, to such elite missile troops as janissary archers...
    Kristaps aka Kurlander
    A Livonian Rebel

  7. #7

    Default

    Hmmm main point of why i am not using vanilla archers is that they have the vulnerable to missiles trait

    I do not know much about stats but this doesnt sound that good now does it?

  8. #8
    Bored Avid Gamer Member Alrowan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Sydney, Australia... that place down under...
    Posts
    2,603

    Default

    i love JA, they have better accuracy, something i really enjoy
    Llew Cadeyrn/Alrowan - Chieftain of Clan Raven

  9. #9
    (Insert innuendo here) Member Balloon Bomber Champion DemonArchangel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Washington D.C
    Posts
    3,277

    Default

    well actually
    JA get kicked in the nuts by LB's but own arbs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat View Post
    China is not a world power. China is the world, and it's surrounded by a ring of tiny and short-lived civilisations like the Americas, Europeans, Mongols, Moghuls, Indians, Franks, Romans, Japanese, Koreans.

  10. #10
    Bored Avid Gamer Member Alrowan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Sydney, Australia... that place down under...
    Posts
    2,603

    Default

    heh.. well turks lack in later ranged wars, but what they lack in arrows they make up in overall speed
    Llew Cadeyrn/Alrowan - Chieftain of Clan Raven

  11. #11
    Member Member Kristaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Livonia
    Posts
    464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Alrowan @ Mar. 08 2003,04:12)]i love JA, they have better accuracy, something i really enjoy
    According to the "ProjectileStats.txt", JA's do not have better accuracy. They use shortbows and hence, their accuracy is 0.63: the same as other archer units.
    Kristaps aka Kurlander
    A Livonian Rebel

  12. #12
    Member Member Praylak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Ont, Canada
    Posts
    243

    Default

    Alright then. So what are we paying 70 per unit in upkeep for? Ottomans are 50 in upkeep, and they at least have axes.

    Like already suggested, I think the JA are broke because they are fubar when you consider the Janissary Infantry. I have heard of the accuracy issue, but like you say, the cursader and projectile file state otherwise.

  13. #13
    (Insert innuendo here) Member Balloon Bomber Champion DemonArchangel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Washington D.C
    Posts
    3,277

    Default

    first of all, in this game, you go by how the units FEEL not by their stats. The stats are misleading. In my extensive battery of tests, it showed that JA killed better than Janissary infantry, Trebizonds, Nizaris, Vanilla archers, futuwwas, desert archers and psiloi archers (I had a friend design those for me)
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat View Post
    China is not a world power. China is the world, and it's surrounded by a ring of tiny and short-lived civilisations like the Americas, Europeans, Mongols, Moghuls, Indians, Franks, Romans, Japanese, Koreans.

  14. #14
    Member Member Praylak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Ont, Canada
    Posts
    243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (DemonArchangel @ Mar. 10 2003,20:05)]first of all, in this game, you go by how the units FEEL not by their stats. The stats are misleading. In my extensive battery of tests, it showed that JA killed better than Janissary infantry, Trebizonds, Nizaris, Vanilla archers, futuwwas, desert archers and psiloi archers (I had a friend design those for me)
    Now thats a very interesting statement, indeed.

    I always found it strange how some units appear to do better or worse than what the stats show on them. Just a quick example...For me, all archers considered, Trebizond archers (Futuwwas taking a close second) outperform any other archer I have used. (I have not used JA's to any extent) Yet the stats clearly show the Longbow has greater range, and penetration power. Now I've played every major faction at least half a dozen times each. I have taking into consideration General command levels, valour, battlefield conditions, etc, etc. But I still cannot explain why them trebs average 60-99 kills in any given battle with just arrow fire alone?

    Now, back to your "feel" conclusion. I would be interested in hearing why you or anyone else for that matter, thinks the stats are misleading....? Because logically, or I mean, statistically speaking, it don't add up.

    If you honestly believe JA's outkill any other archer, I can accept that as gospel. But there has to be an explanation. I'm officially naming this topic the "feel-phenomena"

  15. #15
    Member Member Daevyll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Alrowan @ Mar. 08 2003,22:24)]heh.. well turks lack in later ranged wars, but what they lack in arrows they make up in overall speed
    You should try an army consisting of the following:

    10 Janissary Infantry
    2 Futuwwas
    2 Horse Archers
    2 Mercenary Boyars (or equivalent)

    Each and every unit in that army can shoot.... it is quite a sight.

    The tattered remains of your enemy will usually bounce off the JI due to all the casualties etc (especially with a high-Dread general), after which your Boyars can finish off any units not yet routed and your HA can pursue them off the map.

    loads of fun.

  16. #16
    Member Member Kristaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Livonia
    Posts
    464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Praylak @ Mar. 10 2003,23:25)]Now I've played every major faction at least half a dozen times each. I have taking into consideration General command levels, valour, battlefield conditions, etc, etc. But I still cannot explain why them trebs average 60-99 kills in any given battle with just arrow fire alone?
    now, in my experience, 60 kills per archer unit is pretty average in the Early period. could it be that your observation of higher amount of kills for trebizond archers can be attributed to weaker {less armored} enemies? (i.e., I have had my vanilla danish archers kill up to 180-200 peasants per unit with arrow fire alone when firing into crowds of Livonian rebel peasants...). another potential explanation: your trebisond archers were likely to fight in much better weather conditions (no rain) than the northern european archers, for example...

    as to the 'feel' issue: I agree. i want to see some hard numbers before I get convinced that a unit (JA in this case) is superior to others. IMHO, stats are used by the battle engine to calculate the probability of a kill: add to that height differences, cover {such as trees}, weather, opponents movement speed, formation, etc. and you should have a pretty good idea of what the chances are for a unit member to score a kill. out of this barrage, only the weapon and unit stats is what differentiates one unit from another in MTW: the other factors affect all units in a pretty equal fashion (well, arbalesters do not appear to suffer 'rain' penalty).
    Kristaps aka Kurlander
    A Livonian Rebel

  17. #17
    AKA Leif 3000 TURBO Senior Member Leet Eriksson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    n0rg3
    Posts
    3,510

    Default

    I used Janissary Archers extensively,from my conclusions they killed more,and in a straight archer duel with longbows they defeated them.they are pretty good,especially against spearmen and men-at-arms,thats just my "feeling" after all.

    EDIT:also if you did'nt notice yet,the JA fire arrows from three rows,the JI only fire arrows with the first row.



    Texas is Gods country! - SFTS
    SFTS = The rest =


  18. #18
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default

    I'm pretty sure it's all in the stats. The units are not "hard-coded" in the exe file. Janissary archers or any other shortbow armed unit of the same valour, with the same leader, will inflict no more kills than vanilla archers against the same passive enemy. I've seen reports of randomised trials that are do not refute that belief. If anyone wants to prove otherwise, it's easy enough to do - you just have to make sure you have enough observations (there is a lot of randomness, so looking just at how one unit compares in one instance to a rival in another can't be conclusive).

  19. #19
    Magister Vitae Senior Member Kraxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Frederiksberg, Denmark
    Posts
    7,129

    Default

    Simon I did exactly that before the patch...

    I tested every single archer unit under perfect conditions on a flat map 10 times each (some of them more).

    The Jannisary Archers and Turcoman Foot simply left the others behind (ok that was a little too much). They averaged 6-7 kills better than the next group (Archer, Trebz and most others), another 5 after those came the Ottomans and a whopping 7 another the Nizaris and JI came in...
    I removed all fluke tests (too many kills or too few, that was why some units had more tests than others) so chance is pretty much eliminated in a sense of major luck.

    Personally I believe it has something to do with the formation of the units. The winners, the Turcomans are the most loose in formation of all...
    You may not care about war, but war cares about you!


  20. #20
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default

    Kraxis, your tests are interesting. Your formation hypothesis is testable since you can change that in the xls file. It's not immediately clear it fits the pattern of results you report. The Janissary Archers are close formation - the smallest - and there are a number of other open formation units, like desert archers that don't seem to have performed well.

    However, I believe formation may affect accuracy after hearing what the devs have said about friendly fire etc. [People have also reported much better improved results for firing into the flanks, which could be related.]

  21. #21
    Swarthylicious Member Spino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    2,604

    Default

    Keep in mind that the optimal formation for missile units is either single or double rows (I remember reading about this somewhere in these forums). Suppposedly any more than two rows adversely affects the accuracy of the guys in back, not to mention that deeper formations leave a unit more vulnerable to incoming missile fire. Obviously it makes the same missile unit more vulnerable to routing in melee situations but there are very few missile units that should be hacking and chopping instead of aiming and shooting...


    As always, someone please correct me if I am misquoting someone or am completely wrong...
    "Why spoil the beauty of the thing with legality?" - Theodore Roosevelt

    Idealism is masturbation, but unlike real masturbation idealism actually makes one blind. - Fragony

    Though Adrian did a brilliant job of defending the great man that is Hugo Chavez, I decided to post this anyway.. - JAG (who else?)

  22. #22
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default

    Yup, Spino, that is my understanding. The official advice is that it is best to deploy either two wide on close formation or 3 wide on loose.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO