Shields are better against arrows

[Kraxis]

Ok... We have ever since the first reports of the game suspected that the shields are somehow more effective than their mere stats seem to indicate.

So I decided to test it out. By fluke I had noticed that the total armour (shield + armour) to the front of the Limitanei is 11 and Gallowglasses have 10 inherent armour. Very fitting I thought, so I modded the Gallows to have 11 armour to make it even.
Then I made a fight with Horde Horsemen (the same and weakest HA for all the hordes) with me as the infantry. I chose HA over infantry archers because they tend to keep their distance and actually use their arrows.
And since I have previously managed to rip a unit of Gallowglasses apart with a HA unit I chose to keep them in four ranks in Loose formation (same with Limitanei of course). I kept facing the HA at all times when near their range.

The results were staggering!
The Gallowglasses lost no less than 63 men, while the Limitanei lost 26. Thi also fits nicely with our observations of the arrows in the back and against unshielded men are quite effective.

[Doug-Thompson]

There. That should make the phalanx "phans" very happy. Good work as usual, Kraxis.

[CBR]

Hm interesting. Do we have any test done in 1.2?


CBR

[Doug-Thompson]

Hm interesting. Do we have any test done in 1.2?


CBR

Maybe somebody reading this thread can do one. wink wink, nudge nudge.

I can say from experience, though, that even shield-bearing infantry took heavy losses from the front in R:TW.

Still, a test for 1.2 would obviously be best.

[professorspatula]

It's laughable at times how effective those shields are against archers. If on the move the shield effectiveness was less it wouldn't be so bad, but 1000 arrows aimed at 81 men and zero casualties is hilarious. It's like throwing paper aeroplanes at an elephant and hoping it falls over and dies before it tramples over you.

If shields do gain a sizeable bonus against missile fire, then I suppose CA have kind of gone a bit more towards the paper/scissors/stone type setup, whereby the unit is more effective against a certain type of troop (non-shield infantry for example) and rubbish against something else (anyone with a bit of armour and a large shield). Here's to aiming at units backsides.

[Kraxis]

Well, I think it comes from our own complaining that archery was so efficient in RTW. And honestly it was very efficient. Even Legionaries in Turtle could get depleted rather fast.

Also some people loved to bring many units of horse archers and then blast the enemy apart with little meneuvering. Now they have to be careful of where the arrows actually go. Into the back and the losses are very unpleasant.

Oh, I haven't tested if CA has kept the running = no shield effect. But I suspect it is still there.

[CBR]

Hm I didnt think missile were very good against heavily armoured troops in 1.2 but were very lethal against the non/low armoured troops...


CBR

[Puzz3D]

Ok... We have ever since the first reports of the game suspected that the shields are somehow more effective than their mere stats seem to indicate.

I did some tests in custom battle of basic foot archers vs hastati in RTW v1.2 and RTW v1.3. I only observed a slight difference in kills/volley, but I did see something that would lower the kills in RTW v1.3, and that was the archers only used 2/3 of their ammo in v1.3. As a side note, the rate of fire has been increased in v1.3.

The archer is AI controlled, large units (80 men + 1), flat ground, max range and the hastati are in the default 4 rank formation. I did a couple of tests in each version.

RTW v1.3: 28 kills in 145 seconds with 20 volleys
RTW v1.3: 29 kills in 145 seconds with 20 volleys
RTW v1.2: 37 kills in 255 seconds with 30 volleys
RTW v1.2: 40 kills in 255 seconds with 30 volleys

The archer has 30 ammo in both versions, and after 20 volleys in v1.3 the archer charges, but stops and shoots 3 more volleys at short range before engaging in melee. So, it does have more than 20 ammo, but doesn't use it all at max range.

The rate of fire is 8.5 seconds/volley in v1.2, and 7.25 seconds/volley in v1.3.

[Doug-Thompson]

Interesting stuff, Puzz3D, but it doesn't explain (at least not to my satisfaction) how a large unit of R:TW 1.3 Persian cav can fire it's whole load into an advancing phalanx and only get eight kills.

[Puzz3D]

Interesting stuff, Puzz3D, but it doesn't explain (at least not to my satisfaction) how a large unit of R:TW 1.3 Persian cav can fire it's whole load into an advancing phalanx and only get eight kills.

Which phalanx unit?

[Kraxis]

Well, in my tests I was sure the horsemen had used up all their arrows as they never closed on my men, but they stopped shooting. That was the reason behind choosing the weakest horse archer (so they wouldn't charge too soon).

But fair enough, I will do another test.

[Kraxis]

This is embarassing...
I have made a mistake, I upped the defensive ability rather than the armour of Gallows. No wonder the spread was so high.

But with the correct values in place it wasn't all that different really.

Gallows: 53 losses
Limitanei: 20 losses

I know all arrows have been used because te horsemen whips out their little swords and just sits there waiting for my men. And as we all know hose archers bring out their swords when they have no more arrows. But in any case I waited a minute or so (3x time) so that any unspent arrows might be used up.

[Doug-Thompson]

Which phalanx unit?

Greek hoplites.

[Red Harvest]

Interesting stuff, Puzz3D, but it doesn't explain (at least not to my satisfaction) how a large unit of R:TW 1.3 Persian cav can fire it's whole load into an advancing phalanx and only get eight kills.

Historically, this is right on the money. It took a lot of time to wear down hoplites/phalangites with archery. Carrhae, Thermopylae, and even Samarkand illustrate this.

Greek hoplites were pretty good units if memory serves, something like +5 shield and +6 armour? Firing into the rear would be the key to killing them. Of course, that wouldn't work so well 1 vs. 1.

[Doug-Thompson]

Historically, this is right on the money. It took a lot of time to wear down hoplites/phalangites with archery. Carrhae, Thermopylae, and even Samarkand illustrate this.

Greek hoplites were pretty good units if memory serves, something like +5 shield and +6 armour? Firing into the rear would be the key to killing them. Of course, that wouldn't work so well 1 vs. 1.

I don't have any problem with it either, RH. I did fire from behind (giving myself two units) and wiped them out. My point was that less ammo wouldn't explain that sharp a drop in effectiveness.

[Puzz3D]

My point was that less ammo wouldn't explain that sharp a drop in effectiveness.

It wouldn't explain the difference that Kraxis observed, but neither his nor my tests have been corroborated either. CBR and I may do more extensive tests this weekend using multiplayer where you can get more control over the conditions and eliminate the AI, but it's very time consuming. I guess there are two issues. Is the archery effectiveness in RTW v1.2 different from RTW v1.3, and is that different from BIW v1.4?

Alongside this shield bonus, many inf units have anti cav bonus as well, so I see no great threat materialising among Hun ranks due to their pathetic inf choice.

Mobility is an advantage. You can surround infantry and shoot at the units which are not facing you effectively eliminating the shield, and you can utilize the fast movement and the delay to orders to charge into flanks which eliminates the anti-cav bonus. Even if the infantry use shiltrom, half the men will be facing the wrong way to protect from arrows.

[Orda Khan]

Interesting stuff, Puzz3D, but it doesn't explain (at least not to my satisfaction) how a large unit of R:TW 1.3 Persian cav can fire it's whole load into an advancing phalanx and only get eight kills.

While I am in favour of better frontal protection due to shield and/or armour, the rate of kills seems a bit ridiculous. I have noticed, playing as Huns that archer dominant factions appear to have similar disadvantages to those the eastern factions suffered in MTW. Huns were supposed to be the great threat yet this is not the case. Alongside this shield bonus, many inf units have anti cav bonus as well, so I see no great threat materialising among Hun ranks due to their pathetic inf choice.
All this may have been 'right on the money' at Thermopylae, however it is historically inaccurate regarding Hun campaigns, where their bows were their great strength.
I wish there was some middle ground once in a while but sadly arrows seem to be either very effective or non effective

......Orda

[Dorkus]

This is interesting. Can people run more tests? (BI is in the mail, so I can't)

You need to do at least 10 runs, I think, to get a good generalization from the results. (though even one run with such staggering differences is certainly suggestive)

[Orda Khan]

Mobility is an advantage in SP, however in MP against a player who glues his flank to the red zone, that mobility is not worth the price of the pony

.....Orda

[Puzz3D]

Mobility is an advantage in SP, however in MP against a player who glues his flank to the red zone, that mobility is not worth the price of the pony.

I tried Parthian foot archers (standard 190 denari 80 man archer) upgraded to experience 5 (484 denari) vs principes (490 denari and 80 men). Shooting frontally the archers can kill 50 principes. The archers can then defeat the remaining 30 principes in melee. So, at least in RTW v1.3, it appears that ranged inf beats melee inf at equal cost which means static camping can be beaten frontally if you have the proper counterarmy.

[Orda Khan]

Which brings me back to the Hunnic archers which cost over 700 denarii at exp 0 or Hun horde archers at over 600 denarii at exp 0

.....Orda

[Puzz3D]

Which brings me back to the Hunnic archers which cost over 700 denarii at exp 0 or Hun horde archers at over 600 denarii at exp 0

I hope youi're not suggesting that Huns or any other faction which depends on the mobility of their cavalry should be able to win when they can't use that mobility.

Hunnic elite warriors (66 men, 6/10/15 chg/att/def for 900 denari) beat comitatenses (81 men, 2/8/25 for 680 denari) frontally in melee after killing about 10 men with their arrows which they can do in about 15 volleys.

I tried Sarmatian virgin archers (380 denari) vs limitanei (380 denari), and they could only kill about 17 limitanei with their arrows which is far too few for them to win in melee. So in BI, ranged inf do not beat melee infantry at equal cost.

It would seem that in BI, if flanking isn't possible, you are going to have to use a faction that can field strong infantry, and that will just give you even chances of winning at best.

[Orda Khan]

I hope youi're not suggesting that Huns or any other faction which depends on the mobility of their cavalry should be able to win when they can't use that mobility.

Did I say that? You quoted stats from an exp 5 Parthian archer which is just over half the cost of HA at exp 0 so where do you draw this conclusion from? That an archer can be pumped up ( imagine upgrading him to HA cost ) to dispatch inf, yet 'mobile' HA register paultry kills and then have all the attack value of a wet lettuce is a bit worrying. It's beginning to sound a lot more like MTW. Mobility can be countered but when units become 'uber' the game is ruined

.....Orda