relative effectiveness of missiles

[crpcarrot]

Valor doesnt give that much of an increase so dont count on upgrades to boost your missile power.


CBR

doesn't valour above 4 start to really show a difference?

been a while since i played havent got any upto 4 in my current campaign yet. i know i know i'm being lazy.. but no time to do testing so would appreciate any update on that

[CBR]

I think it starts to become noticable after valor 4 yes. I also think its a question of what unit (what accuracy the weapon has) as it seems arqs, that has low accuracy, does seem better with just a few valor on it. But not sure though.

I play mostly MP and valor can max be 4 there and in general its not worth getting valor to get better missile power.


CBR

[LoboSoulman]

I like to be on a hilltop with attacking enemy units walking up slowly while i pepper them with arbs.
But sometimes when u get attacked again and again u get sick of the slaughter :)

[EatYerGreens]

Of course a good trick to enhance arqs is to put them in 2 ranks only, hold position and fire at will off. Then wait until enemy is close and then put unit on fire at will. That way you ensure all fire at the same time and at a more effective short range.

But in general they are not that good and better to invest in arbs if you want real killing power.
CBR

From experience with STW, I found that three ranks gave the smoothest performance for the unit as a whole. Zoom in close enough and you can see the forward rank fire, then shuffle to the back rank to reload, then take their turn to ripple forward for their next shot. With two ranks, you get bang, bang, pause, pause (during which time they are vulnerable to a charge for maybe 20-30 seconds). With three ranks, it's a constant bang, bang, bang. Okay, it's now only 33% firing, not 50%, but anything which approaches them will get steady mangling and no breathers. If I hear right about this morale hit when under fire, then that stays continuous. Very effective if you have multiple Arq units side by side, all aimed at the same approaching unit.

Another thing to beware is that the width of the two-rank formation is such that the guys on the ends might regard the target unit as out of range and not take part in the volley - e.g. when defending a bridge from a short distance back and the target unit has narrowed itself to the width of the bridge. The diagonal distance to it, from the ends of your 2-rank, might be slightly too far, even though the unit-fire icon shows green. If your graphics settings inclide smoke, you'll sometimes see the visible evidence of this partial volleying.

In STW, I used to use Arqs for two specific roles. One for river defence (always with a reinforcement stack of archers, for poor weather). The other was as cheap, low maint, garrison troops, reasoning that following an unexpected attack, I could retreat them to the fort or castle and any castle assault would be very expensive for the attacker. The AI knows this and will try to starve them out instead, which gives me time to roll up reinforcements and attempt to lift the siege.

[CBR]

Actually at 2 ranks only, you get volley fire with all men firing. For continous firing then 3 ranks is best but for that controlled pointblank salvo that can kill a lot and rout an enemy unit (including cavalry) the 2 rank formation is great but requires good control.

STW seems to have a bit of a problem with switching fire at will on as there is big delay IIRC (only had a quick test) but in MTW it works much better and I use it Samurai Wars mod (STW for VI) whenever I can to stop a cavalry charge.

One tactic of mine is to have 2-3 guns in 3 rank formation doing the normal shooting against enemy guns and 1-2 standing a bit back in 2 ranks waiting in case the enemy tries to send cav against my front gunline.


CBR

[Ludens]

I think it starts to become noticable after valor 4 yes. I also think its a question of what unit (what accuracy the weapon has) as it seems arqs, that has low accuracy, does seem better with just a few valor on it. But not sure though.

I play mostly MP and valor can max be 4 there and in general its not worth getting valor to get better missile power.

I remember that in S:TW there was a set increase in accuracy for every honour point the unit gained. The increase was equal for all units so samurai archers, which already had good accuracy, didn't benefit from it much, while arqubusiers and musketeers, with low accuracy, clearly performed better at higher honour. Does it work the same way in M:TW?

[CBR]

I cant remember any specific tests done for arqs in MTW but from battles I sometimes have seen very effective salvos from valor 3-4 arqs so yes I think they get more out of valor because of the very low accuracy they start with.


CBR

[CBR]

I ran a test with Yuuki last night and it showed you only gain a bit by having valor 4 on arqs so it appears that low accuracy weapons is the same as high accuracy weapons. Its not something you should focus on in the hopes of gaining some big advantage.


CBR

[crpcarrot]

i think the valour affect is more apparent in catapults dont know if the same valour effects are present in both types of units. i havent done any tests (just lazy i guess :D) but in the the battles i've played in the lat few days valour 4 does seem to make a difference maybe a single volley has not got much change but overall by the time they have finished they seem to kill more quicker.

by the way this is all SP never played MP as i never got the hang of hamespy

[antisocialmunky]

You can always increase the attack of those handgunners since they are hybrid swordsman.

[Puzz3D]

Longjohn's comments about gun use from Gamespot's Shogun Strategy Guide:

"Which formation should you employ? The gunpowder units are very inaccurate at long range, thus can't inflict much damage without their ranged weapons striking consistently. In medium-range encounters, it's useful to use a three-rank deep formation to fire more often. As you near close range, however, it's more important to hold for an accurate, massive blast.

Employing close-ranged, mass gunpowder attacks should prove highly effective (in formations of one or two ranks). The gunpowder units are relatively inexpensive, so it's easy to employ them en masse. Close-range blasts can kill several enemies in a single volley, potentially causing a cascading effect, lowering enemy morale."


About artillery from the Brady's Official MTW Strategy Guide:

"Artillery becomes increasingly accurate the more shots you take at the same target, as the crew ranges in on it. If the artillery has to turn, your accuracy is lost and the crew will start ranging in again. Of course, there's no guarantee that a crew's first shot will be on target, or in the case of a rookie crew firing at long range, anywhere near it."

"You can't influence a crew's accuracy except by shooting at nearer targets. But, if a crew scores kills on the enemy, its valor rating increases and its ability to range in improves. High valor artillery crews can put their first shot within a couple of meters of the target."

Note: There is no mention in the MTW Guide that increasing valor improves accuracy for archers, xbows or guns.

[EatYerGreens]

As I see it, the thing about volley firing was that it was to compensate for the low accuracy of the individual guns. These units should not be capable of picking off an enemy general, for instance. What they can do is fire at a solid block of infantry or cavalry and hit something as the bullets pass through the depth of the unit. Loose formation should largely negate this effect but equally diminishes its attack strength, so one only needs to time the volley for the moment it inevitably closes its ranks at the last moment.

Strictly speaking, arqs should receive a progressive penalty according to how small the advancing unit is and how many ranks deep it is. For instance, a 15 man cadre, reduced to a single rank has no depth to it, so the bullets now need to be accurate to have a hope of hitting any of them.

On occasion, when using a pez unit as stationary arrow fodder, as an alternative to loose formation to reduce the casualties, I've tried spreading them out into a very wide formation, just one rank deep. Because arrows scatter forward and back (variation in range of shot) as well as side to side (in crosswinds), it becomes harder for the arhers to precisely drop their arrows onto the single rank and I've had some success with this method. Just get them to run like hell if a unit advances towards them as they can't fight effectively in a single rank. Arqs might have some success against this tactic but you only need to set them in loose formation to make the gaps so big that they keep missing.

Beware that a single rank of 100 men takes a long while to properly space out to loose formation standards or vice versa plus the low morale units will sometimes spontaneously rout when they sense a lack of fellows to front and rear of themselves as individuals. Being so spread out, a hit by a tight cav formation might only score 10 casualties, instead of the 50 you'd expect if they tried to fight back but the remainder will rout and scatter anyway, which is not exactly an effective use of a unit.

[DensterNY]

Even though I haven't really developed up to Pavise Arbalesters in my first full campaign I am anticipating their arrival from reading this post. I can see from what you guys have said how valuable they'll be for defensive armies... perched atop a hill raining wave upon wave of death on my enemies...

Wow, another element of MTW that just amazes me... as each age approaches and technology pushes forward the Art of War takes on another angle.

[Ludens]

I ran a test with Yuuki last night and it showed you only gain a bit by having valor 4 on arqs so it appears that low accuracy weapons is the same as high accuracy weapons. Its not something you should focus on in the hopes of gaining some big advantage.

Thanks, that is what I wanted to know. So valour for missile troops is relatively unimportant, unless you plan to use them in melee.