relative effectiveness of missiles

[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.

[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.