Shields are better against arrows

**Doug-Thompson** · 10-07-2005, 05:49

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** · 10-07-2005, 06:41

Originally Posted by 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.

Which phalanx unit?

**Kraxis** · 10-07-2005, 11:55

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** · 10-07-2005, 12:19

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.

**Bob the Insane** · 10-07-2005, 13:34

For the comment on shield being effective for moving troops I believe that is only if the troops are walking. If they are running I believe they lose the shield bonus...

Also of interest Kraxis's test are obviously in BI and Puzz3D's are in RTW 1.2 (no BI) and 1.3 (BI installed). SO there could be furhter differences between the two...

It is a bit of an assumption on our part the the combat algorithims are the same for BI and for RTW 1.3...

**Puzz3D** · 10-07-2005, 13:45

I ran the archer vs hastati replay 3 times changing the hastati's armor and shield each time in RTW v1.3. I only made small changes, and the results are inconclusive. I tried making armor = 0 and shield = 10, but the foot archers then charged right away without shooting at all.

RTW v1.3: hastati (armor 5, shield 5), lost 29 with 20 volleys
RTW v1.3: hastati (armor 6, shield 4), lost 24 with 20 volleys
RTW v1.3: hastati (armor 4, shield 6), lost 21 with 19 volleys

In the last run, the archers only fired 19 volleys before advancing.

**Kraxis** · 10-07-2005, 13:55

Try horse archers against a spearunit. That should preclude them charging in. But the numbers are odd really. Especially when I see this big a difference in BI.

But it could perhaps have something to do with BI having its own exe. So in normal RTW the stats have been tweaked but in BI the shields are indeed better as it is hardcoded into the exe.

**Doug-Thompson** · 10-07-2005, 13:57

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

Which phalanx unit?

Greek hoplites.

**Red Harvest** · 10-07-2005, 15:59

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 10-07-2005, 16:03

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

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** · 10-07-2005, 17:04

Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson

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?

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

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** · 10-07-2005, 16:18

Originally Posted by 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.

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