Missile accuracy vs. kill speed?

[LittleRaven]

I was looking at the attack values for some of these archers, and it's hard to believe that they're stacking up the kinds of kills you guys are talking about.

Slingers have an attack of 4. How the heck are they doing arbelest-type damage?

Now archers tend to have higher attack values...and some egyptian archers have very good values...but slingers?

[Kraxis]

I was looking at the attack values for some of these archers, and it's hard to believe that they're stacking up the kinds of kills you guys are talking about.

Slingers have an attack of 4. How the heck are they doing arbelest-type damage?

Now archers tend to have higher attack values...and some egyptian archers have very good values...but slingers?

I think I can answer that. They have a low trajectory, so the bullets, if they miss, have a much greater chance of a hit. The target fills a much larger part of the projected area the bullet can hit.

[desdichado]

I think I can answer that. They have a low trajectory, so the bullets, if they miss, have a much greater chance of a hit. The target fills a much larger part of the projected area the bullet can hit.

Kraxis,

Not sure what you're trying to say here "if they miss, have a much greater chance of a hit"???????

Someone posted once the number of arrows fired by the English at Crecy I think and an estimated number of casualties caused. Kraxis - do you know the figures?

The ratio was quite low. So missile units destroying heavy infantry in only a few volleys seems too much to me. Light infantry of course another matter.

I also remember for RTW that pikemen/hoplite units were supposed to get some protection from arrows from their pikes disrupting their flight - anyone know if this actually happens??

[Sjakihata]

Kraxis,

Not sure what you're trying to say here "if they miss, have a much greater chance of a hit"???????

Quite simple really. He means that if archers who use a high trajectory miss their shot, the arrow tends to go either infront of the intended target or behind it ie. hitting the ground in both cases. In lucky occasions the arrow will miss the intended target and hit somewhere else in the unit, this is not happening often though, due to high trajectory.
Slingers, on the other hand, use low trajectory. So when they sling on a target, say a guy in the front row, and 'miss' that guy, chances are that they will hit another guy in the 2nd or 3rd row. This is much higher than archers due to low trajectory.

and I agree completely with Kraxis.

[Thoros of Myr]

and I agree completely with Sjakihata

a nice advantage of slingers.

[Jagger]

I have to agree that archers and slingers are deadly.

I hired some mercenary Belearic slingers. I used them against a single unit of stationary Libyan spearmen with this huge shield. I watched the slingers closely because it was a small battle with my three units against one Libyan. The slingers mowed them down.

My first thought was that huge shield should have protected the entire body of the Libyan soldier except the head. Unless the shields are penetrated, those slingers shouldn't have hit, much less killed, many of those stationary Libyans.

Archers are very expensive and very effective. As the Gauls, I am using those forester archers. Typically they kill between 2 to 3 times their numbers in each battle.

Something is wrong with the kill rates of archers. Or shields aren't working.

[desdichado]

Sjakihata,

thanks for clearing up. Man in front ducks his head, man behind loses his!

One thing I've noticed tonight is that casualties from missile fire seem to get healed more often than casulaties from hand to hand.

Two battles in a row my merc unit of slingers has healed every single casualty, 20-30 each time and it is all from missile fire. My cav units were in h2h and almost no casulaties healed. Admitedly my general has a chirugeon on his retinue but the difference is quite amazing.

[Red Harvest]

I have to agree that archers and slingers are deadly.

I hired some mercenary Belearic slingers. I used them against a single unit of stationary Libyan spearmen with this huge shield. I watched the slingers closely because it was a small battle with my three units against one Libyan. The slingers mowed them down.

My first thought was that huge shield should have protected the entire body of the Libyan soldier except the head. Unless the shields are penetrated, those slingers shouldn't have hit, much less killed, many of those stationary Libyans.

Archers are very expensive and very effective. As the Gauls, I am using those forester archers. Typically they kill between 2 to 3 times their numbers in each battle.

Something is wrong with the kill rates of archers. Or shields aren't working.

That is my impression as well. (It is cool when you are zoomed in to hear shots pinging off the shields and see the shields move, though.) With large shields those Balearics should have fairly low kill rates. Soft lead is not going to be a good penetrator at the velocities they would get from a sling (surface area will be high.) I agree with the threads discussing their bone smashing effect though against unarmoured/unshielded portions of the body.

Interestingly, I get few kills with Balearics vs. the body guard cav. Most shots are misses, even up close. You would think the horses wouldn't be too happy about getting clobbered with led balls.

My Balearics got mowed down by archers though! A single volley from a single unit of archers on flat ground took out 14 of 80 slingers!!! I made my slingers run away as quickly as possible.

Last night with a single two exp. chevron Balearic unit I mowed down a unit of armour upgraded Hastati, and armour upgraded Principes, before switching to deplete two velite units by over half, and the third by a third. I also shot down a quarter of the body guards before I ran out of ammo, then finished everyone off with a cav rush. I was slightly uphill and the shots were frontal and stationary. This is not atypical for Balearics against staionary units in my experience on "very hard."

[Kraxis]

Quite simple really. He means that if archers who use a high trajectory miss their shot, the arrow tends to go either infront of the intended target or behind it ie. hitting the ground in both cases. In lucky occasions the arrow will miss the intended target and hit somewhere else in the unit, this is not happening often though, due to high trajectory.
Slingers, on the other hand, use low trajectory. So when they sling on a target, say a guy in the front row, and 'miss' that guy, chances are that they will hit another guy in the 2nd or 3rd row. This is much higher than archers due to low trajectory.

and I agree completely with Kraxis.

Yep, but not only that.
If an arrow misses its target (man, as every archer targets a single man in TW) it is likely to the ground besides him, if lucky it will hit one of the guys around him.
A slingbullet on the other hand if it misses the target to either side will be presented with a much denser target in the form of depth and frontage. Even if it falls into a lane in the unit it is likely to hit a guy some way down the lane (the bullet is not likely to have come from a man who could look down the lane and see open land).

I'm surprised though that archers kill slingers easily. Historically it was the other way around. Archers hated the slingers, possibly because the bullets were almost invisible?
It must be noted that archers were usually more effective against shielded enemies, as the arrows could penetrate the shield if lucky, bullets couldn't. Also archers could be formed much tighter than slingers, so fire for effect would be much more effective from archers...

[Oleander Ardens]

Well a sling had a longer effective range than most bows, at least there a a good deal of qoutes regarding it. As a ranged trooper used to spread killing without taking it getting shot should have been pretty bad, especially if you had only little protection...

In any case it seems that CA made the Slingers slowfiring heavy-hitters with normal range while archers are weaker faster shooters with higher accuracy, sometimes longer range and and a extra tactical option - flaming arrows...

So a combination of both should be rather effective, especially if you have Balearic Slingers and Foresters

Yeah and Slingers are a great option in wet climate, at least some random tests didn't show any affection by rain, and didn't seemed to be bothered by the Pikes - although I need more testing to confirm this

Cheers

[Red Harvest]

I was checking the units stats and it appears that all archer units (mounted, foot, etc.) are "piercing" while slingers are listed as "blunt." It does not appear that archers are divided into armour piercing vs. "standard" bow, but I have not dug into this very deeply.

I find the "blunt" spec hard to reconcile with the effect some slingers have on shielded and armoured opponents at range. Of course, I'm thinking specifically of the Balearics, and they have really high stats, so perhaps this is an unfair representation of slingers in general.

[Red Harvest]

I was looking at the attack values for some of these archers, and it's hard to believe that they're stacking up the kinds of kills you guys are talking about.

Slingers have an attack of 4. How the heck are they doing arbelest-type damage?

Now archers tend to have higher attack values...and some egyptian archers have very good values...but slingers?

I don't know why, but they are very effective. I'm talking about the mercenary variety. I've used them to mow down multiple units of shield protected men in the town square and I kill hoplites with them too.

Hazarding a guess, don't the projectile stats include an "accuracy" factor? If so, it might be a tad high. If I sling 100 balls at 50 yards, what percentage will actually be "on target?" (I dunno, it's just a question.) And if I'm on target, what percent will hit a shield or armour, etc. and do little damage other than aggravating the poor sap taking the beating--I think this 2nd part is the missile attack rating.