Shields are better against arrows

**Puzz3D** · 10-08-2005, 18:24

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 10-08-2005, 21:18

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** · 10-09-2005, 02:05

Originally Posted by 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

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** · 10-09-2005, 11:29

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

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

**Puzz3D** · 10-09-2005, 19:46

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

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.

I drew the conclusion from two statements. When I said mobility is an advantage, you said, "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.". Then I pointed out that, in RTW v1.3, foot archers can beat melee infantry at equal cost, and you said, "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.". Are you saying that HA should beat melee infantry frontally at equal cost?

I just demonstrated in custom battle that 900 denari Hunic elite warriors can beat 680 denari melee infantry frontally only using half of their arrows. The extra 220 denari cost of the hun unit is due to its higher mobility. I don't see a problem here except that 220 denari might not be the optimal value of mobility. Depending on how well a player uses mobility, he may feel it's overpriced or underpriced.

I checked Hun horde archers (66 men, 680 denari) vs lumitanei (81 spearmen, 380 denari) in custom battle. When I controlled the Hun horde archers, I was able to reduce the advancing lumitanei to 45 men with my arrows, and then charge and easily beat them in melee. When I controlled the lumitanei and stood stationary, in close formation, facing the Huns at max range, the lumitanei lost 70 men to the Hun's arrows. The Huns had a very slight height advantage. I couldn't find a flat map in BI.

I do see a significant alteration of gameplay in BI compared to RTW because foot archers do not beat melee infantry at equal cost. Having foot archers at equal cost beat melee infantry fits into a rock, paper, scissors system, but it seems BI isn't set up like that which puts foot archers, at least the standard ones, into a supporting role as they were in MTW.

**Orda Khan** · 10-09-2005, 21:18

I still fail to grasp how my comments about cost and effectiveness of arrows can be equated to mean beating infantry in melee.

.......Orda

**Puzz3D** · 10-09-2005, 22:25

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

I still fail to grasp how my comments about cost and effectiveness of arrows can be equated to mean beating infantry in melee.

Because if the effectiveness of arrows is increased by much the HA will be beating melee infantry at equal cost frontally without any flanking, and that idea of charging HA with light cav doesn't work for Hunnic elite archers which are better in melee than light cav pumped to equal cost.