Archery in M2 - Analysis from in-game testing

**magnum** · 12-10-2006, 03:22

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.

**dopp** · 12-10-2006, 04:20

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:

Originally Posted by dopp

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.

**Kobal2fr** · 12-10-2006, 04:50

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** · 12-10-2006, 05:15

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** · 12-10-2006, 06:52

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** · 12-10-2006, 07:58

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** · 12-10-2006, 08:47

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** · 12-10-2006, 08:57

Damm.... WTFPWNEDBBQed ?!!?

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

**andrewt** · 12-10-2006, 09:55

Originally Posted by 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.

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.