Back rank archers firing as in RTW.... (merged thread)

[Lusted]

And this is a major probelm for you because?

If this affects your decision to buy the final game, i've got to say, thats your loss.

[Bob the Insane]

To be honest as its part of the RTW engine I did not really expect this to change (though I did hope it would)...

It's not the end of the world or anything but it would (and was in the old engine) a nice little realism piece...

[Fenix7]

After testing in the battle of agincourt Ive discovered that archers continue to fire as easily from the further back ranks as in front....

Archer line you mean? I don't see any ''realistic problem'' here. Has anyone noticed if this is same with the gun units? This would be a little bit of a ''realistic problem'' but if moralepenalties, bonuses, fatigue, killing speed, overall faction balance, smooth gameplay, good multiplayer support - lobby, etc will be well done, then I wouldn't mind that small error.

[Myrddraal]

However, I think with crossbowmen only the front rank fire? (I haven't played it yet but I think that's right)

So maybe it'll be moddable.

[CBR]

The big problem is that deep formations of missile armed units can all shoot even though a majority of the men actually are out of range. I have seen deeply formed javelin armed units deliver salvos of javelins that near wiped out whole cavalry units. Its not realistic nor good for balance.


CBR

[myz]

just think of it this way, they organize the ranks so that guys with more strength, draw strength or arm length, get to stay in the back, while guys that are weaker stand in front, so the range evens out.

[Palamedes]

You will be happy to know that rear lines are very ineffective in M2TW. As a matter of fact even units standing too close behind friendly units will have a reduced missile effectiveness.

So missile tactics will be a big part of M2TW which I am very happy about, always prided myself on good missile tactics.

Jason

[Ulstan]

I don't really see this as a big problem. If it's archers, they're all firing skywards anyway.

If it's crossbowmen, and I find it annoying, I'll just deploy them in long lines 2 deep.

[CeltiberoMordred]

Good to know that rear missile lines have a penalty again. Thanks for the info. A shame that deep formations can fire even with the majority of the unit standing out of range, though.

[Orda Khan]

Shooting directly, at a close target, there should be a penalty for both crossbows, arquebusiers and archers alike (or you kill your friends)
Shooting at a longer distance this penalty should fall mainly with Xbow and arqs and to a lesser degree with archers. A deep formation will have little real effect on 'range' for archers, since we are talking a few feet and not much more from front to back of the unit. This should not be so with flatter tragectory missiles.
Accuracy would arguably be affected but pumping arrows into a large body of men was the usual technique, as opposed to selecting an individual target

......Orda

[Furious Mental]

I don't think that's a good idea. Guns should be alot more effective at close range, not less.

[Puzz3D]

You will be happy to know that rear lines are very ineffective in M2TW. As a matter of fact even units standing too close behind friendly units will have a reduced missile effectiveness.

So missile tactics will be a big part of M2TW which I am very happy about, always prided myself on good missile tactics.

Jason

Well that's quite nice to hear that this feature made it back into the battle engine. In STW, it was archers in close formation who were more than 2 rows back and in loose formation more than 3 rows back who had reduced accuracy, but this didn't happen if the unit was on a slope which allowed men in the back to see over the heads of those in front of them. I think it's important because it will penalize players who keep their missle units close behind their melee units, and penalize players who keep their missle units in something like a square formation.

I know the old battle engine had men in an archer unit not shooting if they were out of range, but you can argue that they all should shoot for the typical kind of formations you usually see because the open fire range is an effective range not a maximum range. For most formations, when the front row of men is within open fire range all the men in the formation are within maximum range.

Accuracy would arguably be affected but pumping arrows into a large body of men was the usual technique, as opposed to selecting an individual target.

Yes, but in the game men do select individual targets. Of course, they can miss their primary target and still hit a different man.

[Gustav II Adolf]

I think it will make archers overpowered if they can shoot equally effective when they are in deep formation. Units deeper in formation can not see the enemy and will aim very poorly. It ads to the tactical challenge to get as much men as possible in good firingposition.

G

[x-dANGEr]

You will be happy to know that rear lines are very ineffective in M2TW. As a matter of fact even units standing too close behind friendly units will have a reduced missile effectiveness.

So missile tactics will be a big part of M2TW which I am very happy about, always prided myself on good missile tactics.

Jason

Yummmy!

Good job there!

[Martok]

You will be happy to know that rear lines are very ineffective in M2TW. As a matter of fact even units standing too close behind friendly units will have a reduced missile effectiveness.

So missile tactics will be a big part of M2TW which I am very happy about, always prided myself on good missile tactics.

Jason

Thanks, Palamedes. That's very good to hear.

[Geoffrey S]

You will be happy to know that rear lines are very ineffective in M2TW. As a matter of fact even units standing too close behind friendly units will have a reduced missile effectiveness.

So missile tactics will be a big part of M2TW which I am very happy about, always prided myself on good missile tactics.

Jason

Thanks!

Which makes this topic spiteful spam, really.

[Bob the Insane]

Which makes this topic spiteful spam, really.

I disagree... A forum member brought up a concern and we discussed it. And it just so happens that a CA member dropped by and was kind enough to put us straight... Good alround and if the thread had not been created then we would not know this...

Neither spiteful nor spam...

[econ21]

Edit: Re-opening the thread as people still want to debate the issue.