Archery in M2 - Analysis from in-game testing

[Reapz]

There is a lot of discussion about missile unit balancing - is it right? Does it need to be rebalanced? This thread on longbows vs. crossbows is a good example of all the sentiment that gets whipped up around the issue. (That thread has gotten derailed into a debate over the real world of medieval armaments and history). Some people hold that the missile units are misbalanced. Some people hold that the missile units are not historically accurate. Some people cannot agree on what actually happened in history. Some other people have said that we will never really know for sure. I'm with Darkmoor Dragon who said about the other thread debating longbow vs. crossbow:

originally posted by Darkmoor Dragon
Frankly its all rather boring blather from people using google as their primary historical research tool whilst claiming some intimate and highly personalised version of historical facts that they actually dont have a clue about whatsoever. (And most of it is little more than broad sweeping statements infused with modern prejudices and hollywoodisms)

The ISSUE remains one of balancing a set of units in the game.

And in that respect the only pertinent information we require is how we believe the unit should perform IN THE GAME.

and

Should longbows have a higher rate of fire than any other bow unit IN THE FRIKKIN GAME? yes/no

Make a short list and get over trying to prove everybody else is an idiot and you a genius.

So back to the game. I undertook to battle test different missile units to try to understand the way archery works in the game. Let me say up front:
- I believe archery mechanics are pretty clear (results to follow).
- I believe that the game is not broken or out of balance.
- I believe that people who think it is broken or imbalanced are not playing the game to their best advantage, don't understand how it works, or have had an isolated experience in a battle that won't be repeated 9/10 times in identical circumstances.
- I believe these things because I tested and re-tested in game

Lets start with the argument about longbows vs. crossbows as that is a perfect place to illustrate my points:

Originally posted by Sonny WiFiHr
Pavise Xbows are better.2/3 rate fire with beter att/def stats.
I attack 1 PXbow Milanese with 2 longbow and my general save the longbowman from total destruction.
My englis troops act like they are from stone age not blodbath medieval.
Stonebow English good at harasing chicken

and

in the game, crossbowmen have about 2/3 the firing rate of longbowmen (wtf!). set up at max range, militia pavise crossbowmen will (most of the time) inflict more casualties on retinue longbowmen - even with their slightly slower rate of fire. when the retinue longbowmen run out of arrows the crossbowmen still have about a third of their arrows left, which they can use to inflict even more casualties. the only way the retinue longbowmen win is if they close to very close range and/or if they charge the crossbow militia. this is unrealistic.

For the record the Milanese have Pavise Crossbow Militia and Genoese Crossbowmen that are not militia units. I tested both because I wasn't clear which he meant.

Testing Scenario:

Single unit of each type, grassy plain, AI set to default (Medium)
Tests conducted until unit under testing depletes all missiles.
Figures represent the number of troops left alive at that time.

Took default units and varied experience plus 5 points

Repeated each test 10 times

Test Units:

English Longbowmen (No armor)
Missile Attack 6
Defence 4

Pavise Crossbow Militia (Mail Armor and Pavise)
Missile Attack 12
Defence 14

Genoese Crossbowmen (Brigandine Armor and Pavise)
Missile Attack 14
Defence 16

Results

LB = Longbowmen
PXBM = Pavise Crossbow Militia
GXB = Genoese Crossbow
+5 is added 5 experience points
+0 is added 0 experience points

Red = loss
Blue = win
numbers are Longbowmen/Crossbowmen alive after missile exchange

-------------Longbow vs Pavise Crossbow Militia ---------------Longbow vs Genoese Crossbow

--------LB +5/PXBM +0--LB +0/PXBM +0--LB +0/PXBM +5---LB +5/GXB +0--LB +0/GXB +0--LB +0/GXB +5
Test #
1-----------32/15----------22/29-----------28/40------------32/30----------19/35----------3/28
2-----------44/23----------42/35-----------15/41------------37/19----------35/29---------31/20
3-----------41/25----------43/34-----------32/30------------41/16----------34/26----------4/34
4-----------24/21----------31/34-----------10/36------------42/21----------22/37---------26/19
5-----------38/20----------41/27-----------12/31------------46/23----------30/30---------18/31
6-----------23/25----------38/30-----------19/39------------32/26----------26/35---------24/27
7-----------44/24----------42/31-----------16/28------------39/25----------32/35----------3/24
8-----------47/20----------27/29-----------25/30------------31/21----------28/35---------14/32
9-----------32/20----------38/25-----------30/35------------29/24----------27/37----------4/28
10----------43/25----------37/30-----------19/36------------34/25----------18/26---------14/22

Averages---37/22---------36/30-----------21/35-----------36/22----------27/32---------14/26

% alive--61%/36%----59%/49%------34%/57%-----60%/36%-----44%/53%----23%/43%

Observations during testing

All AI units quickly deploy in loose formation under missile fire
All missile units tested fire in volleys
Pavise Crossbow Militia discharge 24 bolts in the time it takes longbowmen to discharge 40 arrows
Genoese Crossbowmen discharge 28 to 31 bolts in time it takes longbowmen to discharge 40 arrows
Pavise Crossbow Militia stand at extreme range and trade fire with the longbowmen
Genoese Crossbowmen advance 1 to 3 times during the engagement approaching to very close range (looks less than 100 yards by scale) when they are winning (depleting opposing unit).

Analysis

Longbowmen appear on paper to be greatly disadvantaged in their stats compared with the crossbow units (missile attack 6/defence 4 compared with 12/14 and 14/16) but actually do fairly well. This is partly due to their greater rate of fire.

Unit experience is critical. If you look at Longbowmen (experience 0) vs. Pavise Crossbow Militia (experience 0) it is a pretty close balance with the longbow doing slightly better. Add 5 experience points to the crossbowmen and they kill almost twice as many longbowmen and win 9/10 engagements. Conversely add 5 experience points to the longbowmen and they win 9/10 engagements and kill substantially more crossbowmen.

Looking at the unit stats experience points translate into two things - melee bonus and defence skill bonus.

Longbowmen: Defence = 4 --> 6 with +5 experience (added 2 points to defence skill)
Pavise Crossbow Militia: Defence = 12 --> 14 with +5 experience (added 2 points to defence skill)
Genoese Crossbowmen: Defence = 14 --> 16 with +5 experience (added 2 points to defence skill)

The rate of fire of different crossbow units varies. There is a possibility that rate of fire increased with experience but I could not be sure as there was variation in all tests.

More Advanced Longbow Units

Originally posted by Sonny WiFiHr
Guy archers (Sherwood) can't beat pavise.

That is just not true

Testing Scenario:

Single unit of each type, grassy plain, AI set to default (Medium)
Tests conducted until unit under testing depletes all missiles.
Figures represent the number of troops left alive at that time.

Took default units and varied experience plus 5 points

Repeated each test 5 times (much less spread in results here)

Test Units:

Sherwood Archers (No armor)
Missile Attack 13
Defence 9 (defence skill)

Pavise Crossbow Militia (Mail Armor and Pavise)
Missile Attack 12
Defence 14

Genoese Crossbowmen (Brigandine Armor and Pavise)
Missile Attack 14
Defence 16

Results

SA = Sherwood Archers
PXBM = Pavise Crossbow Militia
GXB = Genoese Crossbow
+5 is added 5 experience points
+0 is added 0 experience points

Red = loss
Blue = win
numbers are Longbowmen/Crossbowmen alive after missile exchange

*** Note Unit Sizes: SA = 31, XB units 61***

------Sherwood Archers v Pavise Crossbow Militia ---Sherwood Archers v Genoese Crossbowmen

-----SA +5/PXBM +0--SA +0/PXBM +0--SA +0/PXBM +5---SA +5/GXB +0--SA +0/GXB +0--SA +0/GXB +5
Test
1--------26/24-----------26/30------------23/40-----------27/29------------27/45----------26/40
2--------26/31-----------26/42------------24/29-----------27/22------------30/42----------18/38
3--------28/24-----------24/37------------21/41-----------26/31------------29/35----------16/42
4--------30/24-----------27/40------------22/37-----------29/21------------25/38----------26/42
5--------28/23-----------28/40------------26/34-----------28/24------------27/41----------27/35

Averages-27/25----------26/38-----------23/36----------27/25-----------28/40----------23/37

% alive-90%/41%-----84%/62%-----74%/59%-----87%/41%------90%/66%----74%/61%

Observations during testing

All AI units quickly deploy in loose formation under missile fire
All missile units tested fire in volleys
Pavise Crossbow Militia discharge 18 to 20 bolts in the time it takes Sherwood Archers to discharge 38 arrows
Genoese Crossbowmen discharge 24 bolts in time it takes Sherwood Archers to discharge 38 arrows
Pavise Crossbow Militia stand at extreme range and trade fire with the longbowmen
Genoese Crossbowmen rarely advanced during the engagement with these stronger longbow archers but fought from extreme range.

Analysis

Sherwood Archers on paper appear to be slightly disadvantaged in their stats compared with the crossbow units (missile attack 13/defence 9 compared with 12/14 and 14/16) but actually dominate on the battlefield. Again this is partly due to their greater rate of fire.

Unit experience is less critical here but still has an impact.
Sherwood Archers: Defence = 9 --> 11 with +5 experience (added 2 points to defence skill)
Pavise Crossbow Militia: Defence = 12 --> 14 with +5 experience (added 2 points to defence skill)
Genoese Crossbowmen: Defence = 14 --> 16 with +5 experience (added 2 points to defence skill)

Conclusion - Longbowmen vs Crossbowmen

"Stonebow Milanese not good at harasing Sherwood Archers"

I think that is clear evidence that plain longbowmen can hold their own against any crossbowmen.

If you train them up they win most of the time.

More advanced longbow units devastate even the best crossbowmen - it is unequivocal.


Importance of Experience

To further test the effects of unit experience I wanted to test two identical archer units against each other and vary experience. I did this with Peasant Archers

Testing Scenario:

Single unit of each type, grassy plain, AI set to default (Medium)
Tests conducted until unit under testing depletes all missiles.
Figures represent the number of troops left alive at that time.

Took default units and varied experience plus 5 points

Repeated each test 5 times (much less spread in results here)

Test Units:

Peasant Archers (No armor)
Missile Attack 5
Defence 1 (defence skill)

Results

PA = Peasant Archers
+5 is added 5 experience points
+0 is added 0 experience points

numbers are PA/PA alive after missile exchange

-----------PA +0 vs PA +0-----------PA +5 vs PA +0
test #
1--------------17/17-----------------------21/4
2--------------14/13-----------------------36/4
3--------------12/15-----------------------32/5
4--------------14/15-----------------------36/1
5--------------16/14-----------------------36/5

Average------~Even----------------------Owned

Discussion

Note in the tests of longbowmen vs crossbowmen that although overall trends are clear there is still considerable variation in kill statistics between individual tests. Reasons for variation include:

- Random element in game battle engine?
- Deployment and formation of units can be disrupted by terrain, strong first volley from the opponent, other units in campaign battles
- Possilbe first shot advantage (if you're lucky enough to kill 4 or 5 in the first volley it is now an uneven fight)

The importance of the variation in results is that you really cannot tell much from a single battle. Maybe this is why some people have formed such strong opinions about these units - they had a single result that they wont see again if the fight another ten identical scenarios?

In asking - are these units (and the game) balanced? I feel strongly that this is all good and that the missile units are very carefully designed. Basically the effects of training your units, upgrading them, giving them armor, is far more important than the base strength of any single unit. I could make crossbowmen work for me, or longbows.

I much prefer the idea that the unit characteristics evolve according to how we play the campaign rather than simply having the game be a matter of "teching up" and unlocking or buying some uber unit that owns everything.

I would go as far as to say that if people are getting poor results against AI missile units in campaign perhaps they need to think more about how they are playing the game.
- Are you using loose formation every time? (Didn't show stats on that but it is SUICIDAL to fight balanced missile units in tight formation).
- Are you retraining experienced unit remnants to full strength?
- Are you adding upgrades to castles to enhace unit qualities?
- Are you capitalizing on the rate of fire bonus of longbowmen - move them out of range of enemy missiles when they have no more arrows or charge them in melee.

Originally posted by Sonny WiFiHr
even with their slightly slower rate of fire. when the retinue longbowmen run out of arrows the crossbowmen still have about a third of their arrows left, which they can use to inflict even more casualties. the only way the retinue longbowmen win is if they close to very close range and/or if they charge the crossbow militia. this is unrealistic.

Um - if you leave them sitting ducks to let the slower enemy missile units catch up and shoot their allotment that is just silly. It might be realistic for stupid generals?
- Are you considering the bonus effects of General's attributes?
- Are you using terrain to good advantage?
- Are you taking heed that disrupting unit formation temporarily interrupts their firing. Shake the enemy units up. Try to get the first shot in and kill a few to tip the stats in your favor.
- Are you targetting correctly? If you have 3 units vs three units do you target three on one or one on each one? (I'm not giving up all my tactical secrets)

In summary:

The more I play and test this game the more I take my hats off to the developers. It has layers of complexity that allow serious or more diligent gamers to use their brains to find strategies to prevail in many different ways. You could actually take either crossbows or longbows and do well if you play smart.

I don't play M2 online atm but I have competitively gamed in ladders and competitions in other games. I find good gamers just know more than less good ones about the tools they are using. I'm not saying this to slight others - I am saying that if you aren't getting results you expect using units in game consider that the problem is you and your gameplay not the game. Be willing to learn not just complain.

A final note on the historical accuracy debate. Consider that the longbow was refined about as much as it got to be early in the time range of this game. However crossbows evolved from weak wooden things that drew 250 pounds to steel killing machines drawing over 1,000 pounds by the end of the game era. Armor evolved from mail to plate in various forms. These two variables tipped the scale. It is a moving picture in other words. BTW best armor in that era - Milanese. Quite right that their armored crossbowmen are harder to kill. It is great to watch those elite crossbowmen come up close to failing opponents to increase kill rate and finish them off. I reiterate - I think the developers have done a great job. I wish more people acknowledged it and less people said nerf this and fix that without really thinking about what they are saying, checking their facts, and testing the game - repeatedly.
/end rant

[Reapz]

Alright after I posted this the columns on my tables were out of alignment even though they looked fine on preview - apologies but I cannot edit it
You might need to broaden the page or can one of the mods let me edit it?

[Dr_Who_Regen#4]

Nice testing..Bravo for taking the time to put together an analysis on the subject....interetesting to see what an impact experience has.

[Carl]

Random Question. Do you let both units (i.e. crossbowmen AND Longbowmen) deplete their ammo, as the way your putting it that dosen't sound like what you've done. Re-run the tests doing that and i bet the results would change in the Crossbows favour, just becuase it's nearly even ATM.

Of course if you did let the crossbow men expand all their ammo, then ignore the above.

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Well testing can help..but to my eyes longbowmen should discharge 40 shots to a crossbows 15...and that doesnt happen...not at all.

Range isnt as good either...

So no hats coming off here...it needs a fix...and I have plenty of in game testing to suggest that the ROF is not correct...just watch the archers delay in the longbowman animation...

[AussieGiant]

Random Question. Do you let both units (i.e. crossbowmen AND Longbowmen) deplete their ammo, as the way your putting it that dosen't sound like what you've done. Re-run the tests doing that and i bet the results would change in the Crossbows favour, just becuase it's nearly even ATM.

Of course if you did let the crossbow men expand all their ammo, then ignore the above.

Reapz has stated that all the testing involves the units expending all their arrows.

[magnum]

For the units he tested with, the ranges are all the same, 160. In game, all Longbows have a range of 160, while crossbows have either a range of 160 or 120, depending on the unit.

[Turpitudo]

Great empirical testing. After all it is a game which needs balance to all factions, that is what you quite nice demonstrated. Some people are calling for improved longbowmen, some are calling for improved waragian guards. I like the fact that there are no real über units in this game (besides the tank elephants) like there were in MTW for example with the JHI. To single a unit out is no good idea for a strategy game, if you want to keep the balance that every faction has at least one unit to counter another.

[dopp]

Excellent stuff that confirms CA took a balanced approach combining both legend and gameplay. Longbows also have numerous other advantages over pavise crossbowmen, making them very versatile:

I can see how the pavise deal is a problem in archery duels, mainly because the longbows don't have that option themselves. But the pavise armor bonus ingame can still be pierced easily by longbows with their AP, so the crossbows only have a minor advantage compared to what they might have IRL if they had pavises and the longbows didn't. The longbowmen get a unique ability to plant stakes, something that every unit should be able to do (the Flemish dug holes around their pike formations to channel the attacking knights at their weapons) but only they can ingame. They get indirect fire in a rather improbable way (who's spotting for them?), whereas the crossbows firing in an arc is a bug that kills nothing. They can fight knights in melee with AP weapons. Their rate of fire is twice that of crossbows and four times that of muskets, a high-end troop that requires 15 more turns and 27k more florins to produce than retinue bowmen. They are quite uber.

The range for longbows and steel_crossbows (what pavise crossbowmen and militia use) is 160. Equal. The range of normal bows (including some of the composite bows), arquebuses and crossbows is 120. The range of heavy muskets is 180, just a fraction higher.

All bows have a delay in the firing animation, even crossbows. Guns have a delay in the firing animation too of about 2 seconds after the back rank has reloaded, compared to bow's 1 second. That's normal. This is actually a welcome change for me as my Trebizond archers were always out of ammo too early in the battle.

Armor upgrades, if implemented as originally intended, would have dropped the 'armor gap' between the two units to about 2 points + 6 for shield, instead of 13 points as it is now. That waits on the patch, but might swing the advantage back to the longbows.

One thing though: the defense skill is not used in shooting, so the only benefit of higher experience is increased kill rate.

JHI are still uber in M2TW. That's why everyone else with similar units (Varangians etc) is screaming bloody murder.

[ZachPruckowski]

Random Question. Do you let both units (i.e. crossbowmen AND Longbowmen) deplete their ammo, as the way your putting it that dosen't sound like what you've done. Re-run the tests doing that and i bet the results would change in the Crossbows favour, just becuase it's nearly even ATM.

Of course if you did let the crossbow men expand all their ammo, then ignore the above.

Seems almost worse to compare those numbers (no offense). I wouldn't have let my longbowmen stay within range of the enemy if they were out of arrows. Why should the test?

[Kobal2fr]

Very good post and analysis, thanks !

Regarding the columns thing, they are only borked when viewed in 1024*768 and lower and are fine in higher resolutions, so I assume posting a 1280 pixels wide *1 pixel high image would solve the problem for us low res folks.

[PaulTa]

My two cents-

First off, great job on the testing. I would have liked to have seen the tests between retinue or Yeoman longbowmen, so that it was top tier crossbowmen and top tier longbowmen. I might end up doing that myself if you don't have any plans for further testing.

Ok, as it stands now with the passive AI bug, I believe that crossbowmen are superior. Crossbows, in general, have a slower rate of fire with a higher damage rating. If the ranged unit is allowed to discharge all of it's ammunition, then crossbowmen naturally should win the scenario.

When the passive AI is fixed in upcoming patches though, longbowmen will be superior. Their ability to discharge more ammunition in the same amount of time means that the enemy will take more fire and consequently more casualties before reaching the point where the two armies engage in melee combat.

Not only that, but longbowmen do have the ability to use fire ammunition, which is often underrated on the forums here. Fire ammunition helps break morale, which is often critical to winning the battle. I would much rather route a unit of swordsmen at 3/4's strength and take them as prisoners then kill half of them and then have to dispatch the other half in melee combat while taking casualties. Crossbowmen do not have this option (which is also handy in sieges for igniting siege equipment, by the way).

Conclusion- Longbows will not only be more useful on the battlefield, but overall have more utility (not even taking into account wooden spikes placed in the ground, mind you). While crossbows do have their distinct function, I would take a longbow over a crossbow any day of the week.

[andrewt]

I don't get the logic of people saying longbow units should beat crossbow units or they're weak. Crossbow units are armored and have a pavise. Longbow units have no armor. Looking at the numbers, longbows do more damage than crossbows if they pull around equal in fights with crossbow units.

[Reapz]

Thanks to all for the feedback. Some specific responses:

@Carl

I tested two scenarios. One where the units had different rates of fire - or in other words one finished before the other. In the second the units were identical and finished at the same time.

In the first scenario if my test unit depleted its arrows I stopped the trial even if the enemy had arrows left. Reason: when I campaign and I exhaust all the arrows I withdraw the unit and don't leave it to be riddled with projectiles just to 'make if fair'. If I shoot you with a machine gun, while you fire back with a bolt action rifle, I don't stand around waiting until you shoot 300 rounds just to make us even. The longbow relies on increased rate of fire to match crossbows. That is the historical accuracy everybody is fussing about. I'm not going to nullify that by having them wait around to take hits after they can't fire back.

In the second situation with even rate of fire units I let both exhaust their projectiles.

@ Barry Fitzgerald

Originally Posted by Barry Fitzgerald
Well testing can help..but to my eyes longbowmen should discharge 40 shots to a crossbows 15...and that doesnt happen...not at all.

Range isnt as good either...

So no hats coming off here...it needs a fix...and I have plenty of in game testing to suggest that the ROF is not correct...just watch the archers delay in the longbowman animation...

Ok so sieges should last a year? It should take two weeks to traverse Anatolia with an army? Surely you aren't complaining that the rate of fire of longbowmen in game isn't the same as real life. The game spans 450 years. The point is that the dev's made it so longbowmen fire faster than crossbowmen to a point that it offsets the increased armor and attack points of crossbows. But the game still allows you to train units, or upgrade them, in game, in ways that can potentially confer decisive advantage in favor of either unit. I'm sorry but I think that is great programming and I'm not about to complain to the dev's that they got the longbow/crossbow fire ratio wrong in animation. If you read the thread on cavalry kill stats vs animations you will see that animation frequently does not match the kill statistics. The kill statistics are pretty reasonable IMO. They allow for a good strategy game - and that's what we're doing here - strategy gaming. Exactly matching timing isn't the issue, it is matching the respective weapon strengths allowing for additional variables like seasoned vs. battle naive units, armor upgrades, morale etc. I think the devs did that admirably. It isn't a projectile simulator it is a strategy game.

@Turpitudo

Originally Posted by Turpitudo
After all it is a game which needs balance to all factions, that is what you quite nice demonstrated. Some people are calling for improved longbowmen, some are calling for improved waragian guards. I like the fact that there are no real über units in this game

I agree entirely. To be fair I want to acknowledge what Husar said in this thread:

Originally Posted by Husar
I think ranged units get more accuracy with experience, so while real longbowmen might have been an elite unit, the game won't let you recruite them as gold-chevron units, you have to get them to that level by gaining combat experience. That's why this is called a game, otherwise you could just watch a movie where the victory is shown without you adding anything to it. You are supposed to develop your own über-elite-ownage longbows instead of the game giving them to you. Almost every unexperienced unit is prone to dying or running in the game and there are not many freshly trained units that can beat anything. My halberd militia for example should be able to win quite a few fights, but due to their low morale, they often run way too early and thus lose fights they could win with higher morale. I am pretty sure longbowmen with high experience kill more units per volley because they are more accurate. I've seen some highly experienced arquebusiers, every volley of them killed about the entire front row of an enemy formation, maybe even more, a newly trained unit is a lot less accurate.

@dopp

Originally Posted by dopp
the defense skill is not used in shooting, so the only benefit of higher experience is increased kill rate.

I wondered about that. Do you think the issue might be restated that while defense skill is not used in shooting it means slower death rate. More surviving archers means increased volume of arrows fired => increased kill rate compared with a unit that is losing archers faster and therefor effectively shooting with less men?

@ZachPruckowski

Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski
I wouldn't have let my longbowmen stay within range of the enemy if they were out of arrows. Why should the test?

That was my thinking exactly

@PaulTa

Originally Posted by PaulTa
I would have liked to have seen the tests between retinue or Yeoman longbowmen, so that it was top tier crossbowmen and top tier longbowmen.

In the English army selecton in battle testing those were the two longbow options that I saw - regular longbowmen and Sherwood Archers (which I think are top tier?) I don't do multiplayer however so I might have missed a way to access aditional unit types? I wouldn't mind doing a few more tests if there are additional longbow units I can access for battle testing.

[dopp]

The Retinues are the armored ones. You might have thought they were billmen or something. They have higher attack (8) and as much base armor (no shield) as the pavise crossbows. Prediction: they will rip the crossbows apart.

The defense skill only applies in close combat, according to the descr_unit file. This may or may not be accurate, since I notice that light skirmishing missile troops (cossack muskets for example) with reduced or no armor upgrades have very high defense skill (9 in this case). They don't need to fight in close combat (especially Sherwoods who unlike normal longbows have no AP weapons), so why give them a defense skill that is so high? But yes, unit experience still affects the test because you can kill the enemy faster and cut down on return fire, increasing your advantage with every salvo.

[Shahed]

Damm.... WTFPWNEDBBQed ?!!?

What a great job, and the columns are looking fine on my screen.

[econ21]

Excellent work, Reapz - have you linked to or summarised it in the battlefield mechanics research sticky?

[Reapz]

@dopp & PaulTa

You were right I overlooked them with their multicolored tunics

Testing Scenario:

Single unit of each type, grassy plain, AI set to default (Medium)
Tests conducted until unit under testing depletes all missiles.
Figures represent the number of troops left alive at that time.
Repeated each test 10 times

Test Units:

Retinue Longbowmen (RL)
Missile Attack 8
Defence 14 (Armor 5, Def skill 6, Shield 3)

Genoese Crossbowmen (Brigandine Armor and Pavise)
Missile Attack 14
Defence 16

Results

RL - Retinue Longbowmen
GXB - Genoese Crossbowmen
Red = loss
Blue = win
numbers are RL/GXB alive after missile exchange

-------------RL vs GXB
test #
1--------------37/33
2--------------47/24
3--------------34/30
4--------------29/34
5--------------34/39
6--------------43/29
7--------------40/27
8--------------39/31
9--------------34/38
10-------------38/33

Average-------38/32

[andrewt]

The Retinues are the armored ones. You might have thought they were billmen or something. They have higher attack (8) and as much base armor (no shield) as the pavise crossbows. Prediction: they will rip the crossbows apart.

The defense skill only applies in close combat, according to the descr_unit file. This may or may not be accurate, since I notice that light skirmishing missile troops (cossack muskets for example) with reduced or no armor upgrades have very high defense skill (9 in this case). They don't need to fight in close combat (especially Sherwoods who unlike normal longbows have no AP weapons), so why give them a defense skill that is so high? But yes, unit experience still affects the test because you can kill the enemy faster and cut down on return fire, increasing your advantage with every salvo.

Actually, cossak musketeers are decent in close combat. They have 10 or 11 attack, I forgot which. They're not going to beat any elite troops on a even numbered fight, but they can be used to melee as a last resort. It's inevitable for any unit to get into close combat and the high defense skill of some light skirmishers makes them very vulnerable to missile fire while not dropping dead immediately in case they have to be in a melee.

[pevergreen]

[QUOTE=pevergreen]Longbows are incredibly powerful. But so are Crossbows. Remember citizens with a few hours crossbow training could kill a knight who had trained for his entire life.

Look at the armour difference for Close Combat. Milanese have the best pavise crossbowmen for a start, wearing chainmail.
Longbowmen are archers, not meant for combat, wearing leather...not even padded. Retinue Longbowmen can handle themselves, but skirmishers/archers arent meant to fight. they are meant to shoot. Pavise Crossbowmen are meant to win any archer fights, they have armour and HUGE SHIELD on their back.[QUOTE]

[Carl]

In the first scenario if my test unit depleted its arrows I stopped the trial even if the enemy had arrows left. Reason: when I campaign and I exhaust all the arrows I withdraw the unit and don't leave it to be riddled with projectiles just to 'make if fair'. If I shoot you with a machine gun, while you fire back with a bolt action rifle, I don't stand around waiting until you shoot 300 rounds just to make us even. The longbow relies on increased rate of fire to match crossbows. That is the historical accuracy everybody is fussing about. I'm not going to nullify that by having them wait around to take hits after they can't fire back.

AND

@ZachPruckowski

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski
I wouldn't have let my longbowmen stay within range of the enemy if they were out of arrows. Why should the test?

That was my thinking exactly

The problem with these stances is that in reality, that isn't what you'll be doing, unless your dumb you'd keep them around as a light flanking unit. So in reality they would be taking all the extra arrows.

(Except of course you probably wouldn't engage in an archery duel anyway in a real battle.)

In addition I was under the impression this thread was indenting to test the outright killing power of both units. Unless you let the Crossbowmen expand all their arrows your not getting a fair comparison their anyway.

In effect, for this to be a scientific test you have to apply the same conditions to both units, so if you let one exhaust it's arrows, you have to let both exhaust their arrows.

[SMZ]

unless your dumb you'd keep them around as a light flanking unit. So in reality they would be taking all the extra arrows.

Unless he's dumb, he'll leave his archers standing around taking missile fire?

*blinks* *blinks again*

If I want to use my archers as a light flanking unit, I'm going to immediately run them around to the flanks and attack... at most they'll take two or three more volleys while doing this, since they'll be on the move the accuracy of those volleys will be less. If my main force is farther back for some reason, I am going to have my bowmen fall back out of range, and attempt their flanking maneauver after the infantry is there to support them. And that's IF I want to use them to do light flanking at all, which I would never consider unless I really had no other option. I don't want my bowmen soaking up casualties. That's what the infantry is for. If I want to flank, that's what cavalry is for.

Sorry, but 1. if the AI leaving units standing around taking fire is a bug, then I gotta think a human brain should be able to figure out that's a bad idea too, and 2. LONGbowmen are a last ditch melee unit, you don't use your LONGbowmen for anything other than shooting enemies at a LONG distance, unless you really have no other options.

One of the best point of missile units is that they can gain chevrons quickly due to their ability to cause casualities while not taking thier own... using them in melee is the foolish choice in my opinion.

[JFC]

I have to agree with Carl.

Most of the issues that have been posted have little to do with the sheer staying power of the Longbowman and the all out shooting match between two Missile Units, but with actual rate of arrow loosing and killrate of the arrows for the Game play against Any Unit. Other threads in the .org and .com have gone to extensive lengths to discuss the historical aspects of both Crossbow and Longbow on their lethality on the historical Battlefield, which has been great .

I know that the Longbowmen should be lesser armed ie minimal chainmail etc, But that's not their use. These chaps are highly trained missile units only. So IMO they should have even quicker reload times and more lethality, even if it's just a tad. That's just what I want for the Game otherwise the English ATM (prior Patch) don't really have that much going for them.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I know 3 second loosing would be a bit wrong for 'A Game'(might as well play company of heroes), but the Longbow in the Game is supposed to be the English Medieval Machine Gun! Even in the startup, the English are prized for Infantry (bugged) and the Longbow.
My issues are also the rate of fire and the power of the arrows which should have the BODKIN Armour piercing heads. I had 4 units of retinue Longbowmen letting loose at about 40 Kyote Priests.
That's 480 top notch Arrows being fired at 40 padded americans armed only with 2x4s with a bit of sharpened gravel stuck in the sides.
That's basically 12 arrows per man.
You should expect first shot, even with arrows falling short/going too far/missing, to be goodbye fellas right? We ALL know it should have. Wrong. It took a good 7 shots to whittle them down.
That's 3360 Arrows.
84 Prime Enlgish Arrows for each of those yodelling Wolf-men.
Something that should have taken less than a minute. Which we ALL know didn't.

[SMZ]

The point of the tests from my understanding wasn't which unit can dish out the most potential damage... it was which unit is going to be the most useful in battle. The AI Passive bug, is just that a bug... only the most boneheaded of moronic imbecils for a commander would leave his troops standing around while they get shot at. The computer should not be this stupid, that's why there was a massive outcry about it. Once this is fixed, I expect a unit of crossbowmen will very rarely use anything approaching their full complement of bolts.

Additionally, one would hope that human commanders would be smarter than bugged computer ones.

[Carl]

@SMZ: I'm basing my opinion off Agincourt, where you pretty much HAVE to use your longbow men in CC on occasion to tip the balance. Sure they don't do well, but it's not that bad when all your trying to do is tip the balance in your favour in a drawn out combat. Basically what I’m saying is that in a longbow heavy army, I’d expect to not have anything else I COULD flank with because all my non-longbow units would be tied up in head to head fights keeping the surviving enemy infantry line locked in place.

Of course you could pull them back then run them forward as you suggest. However that leaves your infantry fighting the enemy infantry for some time while you run them back to the fight. In the end though I doubt you would be engaging in archery duels anyway.

The big point here however is that this was a test, it needs to be scientifically done if it’s to actually have any meaning. In other words you have to apply the same conditions to everyone under test. A much fairer test would have been to take a BIG tough infantry unit, put them somewhere where they can’t move from (or somehow make them just stand their). Then let the Longbow men and crossbowmen shoot at them until their arrows are exhausted. I bet the crossbows would win by a clear margin then.

[Carl]

Once this is fixed, I expect a unit of crossbowmen will very rarely use anything approaching their full complement of bolts.

That depends on how long the battle lasts and what sort of battle it is. A Long Siege battle might see them exhaust their bolts. Of course, since all my experience is demo related I can't say anything for sure ATM. After Christmas of course is another matter~:D.

[SMZ]

It is a scientific test however. Both units have this same condition: time.

EDIT: ahhhhhhh, I see - well wordems, I'm thinking from a campaign perspective - seen, and understood where you're coming from in that case

[Biggus Diccus]

............
The more I play and test this game the more I take my hats off to the developers. It has layers of complexity that allow serious or more diligent gamers to use their brains to find strategies to prevail in many different ways. You could actually take either crossbows or longbows and do well if you play smart.
............

Like Crossbows (and Archers) firing vertically, projectiles behaving like mortar fire? (Sorry couldn't resist )

Very thorough and useful tests though!

[dopp]

The test were conducted in response to the other thread's OP claim that longbows always lose to pavise crossbowmen in a shooting match. The results indicate that longbows are actually slightly better in a head-to-head match, even when the crossbowmen are allowed to shoot off all their ammo. The test seems to be fair, given the questions it was trying to answer. Comparing kills against a stationary target is something else altogether.

As for how gimped the English are in the campaign game... I dunno. Billmen are broken for now but that may change, English knights are okay, Longbows are pretty good when used enmasse with stakes out. A nice secure starting position (although not as secure as MTW), good ships, naval bonuses, trade routes, shortest distance to the Americas, decent tech tree, plenty of opportunity to infere on the continent... is there really something wrong with them?

[Carl]

@Dopp, fair enough, that longbow thread has drifted so far off the initial topic now that I’d forgot what it was initially about. So I was looking at it more as a pure "Which kills more overall".

@SMZ: No sweat, good point about time, as I said, I was looking at a more max kill test scheme which threw things off heavily. In that situation it's really better to let both sides shoot all their ammo off. In an archery duel competition time IS actually a better measure IMHO