Archery in M2 - Analysis from in-game 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.

**econ21** · 12-10-2006, 09:18

Excellent work, Reapz

- have you linked to or summarised it in the battlefield mechanics research sticky?

**Reapz** · 12-10-2006, 09:31

@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** · 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.

**pevergreen** · 12-10-2006, 10:31

[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** · 12-10-2006, 13:18

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** · 12-10-2006, 15:14

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.

**Carl** · 12-10-2006, 15:29

@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** · 12-10-2006, 15:34

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** · 12-10-2006, 15:35

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

**JFC** · 12-10-2006, 15:24

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:

**SMZ** · 12-10-2006, 15:28

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.