Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: Shields are better against arrows

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Re: Shields are better against arrows

    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

  2. #2

    Default Re: Shields are better against arrows

    Quote 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.

    _________Designed to match Original STW gameplay.


    Beta 8 + Beta 8.1 patch + New Maps + Sound add-on + Castles 2

  3. #3

    Default Re: Shields are better against arrows

    Quote 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

  4. #4

    Default Re: Shields are better against arrows

    Quote 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.

    _________Designed to match Original STW gameplay.


    Beta 8 + Beta 8.1 patch + New Maps + Sound add-on + Castles 2

  5. #5

    Default Re: Shields are better against arrows

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

    .......Orda

  6. #6

    Default Re: Shields are better against arrows

    Quote 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.

    _________Designed to match Original STW gameplay.


    Beta 8 + Beta 8.1 patch + New Maps + Sound add-on + Castles 2

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO