About ammo system

**CeltiberoMordred** · 12-29-2006, 17:15

I would like to know what the community thinks about:

In previous TW, ammo was per men: it means that if your 60 archers have an ammo of 30, then they will fire 30 volleys before they expend their arrows.

In BI and M2TW, ammo is per unit: it means that if your 60 archers have an ammo of 30, they will be able to shot 60x30=1800 times. So, if your unit is decimated to let's say 5 men, they will shoot at least 1800/5= 360 volleys.

Since in M2TW exhaustion doesn't play a dramatic role in missile accuracy, it seems that it doesn't matter how much you decimate an enemy missile unit: they will cause same kills in the long term.

I liked the old system: when I reduced the number of enemy shooters I got an advantage. Now, it's weird and I think that everything I do in missile duels is pointless: their 12 remaining bowmen will cause same casualties than a fresh 60 missile unit. Even it would be better losing men, just because you will be the last player able to shoot, forcing the others to charge.

Which system do you prefer?

**Fenix7** · 12-29-2006, 17:36

per men

**Lavos** · 12-29-2006, 18:30

Tried how it works on very hard? In couple of games I played on that setting, and when killed (shot) about 70% of them archers get so low morale that couple volleys on them make them rout.
On the other hand I liked per men system more, but personally this new one don't bother me a lot, It looks to be important in close battles, especially when both armies regroup and there isn't much foot and cav left, there less archers is an advantage since they have more ammo.
Now in normal shotwar, there's always option to get close to them and shot over archers at foot and cav behind them. I'm not shure but full archers should have an advantage over decimated. At least untill their ammo runs out, but till then you should kill enough, to force him to atack, or enough to have advantage atacking.

**x-dANGEr** · 12-29-2006, 22:13

Per unit. Maybe because am used to it, but I find it way better. By decreasing a unit's men, it will be become ineffective.. 5 men firing is a very slow rate of fire.. What? 5 arrows/20 secs..x

**Monarch** · 12-29-2006, 22:35

per man. I find it hard to believe horse archers running around in cc have time to stop, de horse, and get their fallen comrade's ammo.

Its stupid, in bi it meant there was no point firing on CCing HAs because you'd only kill like 10 men and the others would just get more ammo.

**Keith_the_Great** · 12-30-2006, 05:26

it should be per man

**tootee** · 12-30-2006, 09:34

per man.. no man carry 50+ arrows around in battle

**x-dANGEr** · 12-31-2006, 08:31

Originally Posted by Monarch

per man. I find it hard to believe horse archers running around in cc have time to stop, de horse, and get their fallen comrade's ammo.

Its stupid, in bi it meant there was no point firing on CCing HAs because you'd only kill like 10 men and the others would just get more ammo.

It's just the same the other way. I can't imagine an archer out of ammo not getting the ammo of the dead archer beside him.

**Monarch** · 12-31-2006, 20:11

It still doesn't work for gameplay. Everyone who had a clue, especially in pavise vs pavise, just doesn't fire on one unit and lets it run out of ammo.

I hardly imagine not firing on a unit so it runs out of ammo is a tactic used in actually battles