About ammo system

[CeltiberoMordred]

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]

per men

[Lavos]

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]

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]

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]

it should be per man

[tootee]

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

[pevergreen]

In M2TW, some individuals in the unit dont fire. Thats unfair for those guys.

[ELITEofBLIZZARD]

I'd prefer per man to but Mordred, archer duell isnt pointless at all.

ok, its hard to fire all your arrows with one unit if its unter 20 men. but the damage a peasant archers at 15 men isnt worth to mention it. if u have 6 old mtw/vi guys in a battle... hell u need to shoot or u wont have a chance ;)

i play just for fun a german ladder which consists beside Shagall and me only of Rome players. They dont know how to shoot, well we know and thats why we win nearly all our games. if u want some vi style duells, come and play with us

[sapi]

Another vote for 'per man' here ;)

[x-dANGEr]

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]

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

[ELITEofBLIZZARD]

One right point one not complete right point monarch ;)

You are right... its hard to estimate how many arrows your opponent has left. Therefore its nearly senseless to try get him out of ammo. But still mine/our tactic is to kill as many enemy archers as possible. But u need to change your front row of archers to save man and ammo. And later its all about skirmish... kill enemy archers and shoot his troops... like it was in vi... and with their att/deff stats pavs can be used as blockers very well. i dont think shooting has become much easier or trivial with mtw2.

[RtkBedivere]

IN a game that is currently running away from archer battles and skirmishing tactics im in favor of any extra strength the archers will get. I mean i dont want super archers running around but i like the way it is but mabey with a little more realism added. Say they cant pick up arrows from comrads whos corpses are at teh other end of the feild. Also horse archers as monarch stated earlier shouldnt be able to pick up ammo at all unless they are left standing still.

[x-dANGEr]

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

A unit with 40 men will have it's men die at a fast rate till it counts down to 20 or less. So, a good thing would be to reduce the ROF of the enemy's archers by taking the best of what accuracy makes, and reduce all his archer units' numbers to 20, and then start eliminating them one by one.

Strangely though, that didn't really work in RTW. Even though on papers it did, but it seems "switching" targets for your archers delays them somewhat!

[RTKMercurius]

Per unit, because knowing how to rid your enemy of ammo or numbers gave the knowledgeable player advantages over the other.... which is why it pays to study the game.

Also, armies in real life had reserve supplies and runners to fetch.... foot missiles and HA could go back to the rear to load up.... so per unit seems a respectable compromise (and who wouldn't jump off his horse to get more ammo, if you were safe to do so)....

"Crossbowmen, whether Genoese or otherwise, were essentially a static, or at least a defensive, form of infantry. King Philip's decision to send them forward against the English at Crécy, particularly as they were sent without their pavises, strongly suggests that the men in command of the French army during this battle had no real idea of how to use what were at that time regarded as the finest infantry in Christian Europe. The failure of the Genoese crossbowmen and their other infantry at Crécy was relatively brief and easily explained. They were used to forming part of disciplined and structured armies in which they would be closely supported by equally professional cavalry. Not surprisingly, therefore, the Genoese were not keen on advancing without proper preparation, without their pavises and without adequate reserves of ammunition from the supply waggons. Furthermore, they would be attacking at the end of a long day's march with the setting sun directly in their eyes. Their officers complained to the Count of Alençon, to whose battle or division they appear to have been attached, but were ignored."
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/content2.php/cid=199

[Puzz3D]

You are right... its hard to estimate how many arrows your opponent has left. Therefore its nearly senseless to try get him out of ammo. But still mine/our tactic is to kill as many enemy archers as possible. But u need to change your front row of archers to save man and ammo. And later its all about skirmish... kill enemy archers and shoot his troops...

That's what I think is bad about the per unit method of ammo. The endgame should not be determined by a few shooters with a huge amount of ammo at the end. When the ammo is per man the value of the shooter drops more rapidly as men are lost. You have to win the skirmish decisively and with conservation of ammo for the remaining shooters to be decisive in the endgame. To win the opening skirmish decisively you need more shooters than the enemy or he has to manage his shooters poorly or you have to make effective melee attacks on the enemy shooters presumably with cavalry.

like it was in vi... and with their att/deff stats pavs can be used as blockers very well. i dont think shooting has become much easier or trivial with mtw2.

BTW, one of the improvements made to the STW engine was to switch from per unit ammo to per man ammo in MTW. In Samurai Wars for MTW/VI, we compensated for that by increasing the ammo of archers from 28 to 36. Guns got a reduction in ammo from 40 to 20 because conservation of ammo was now a factor that could be balanced for the typical length of a battle. This avoids the long boring xbow shootouts typical in MTW. Uncontested shooters are therefore more dangerous, but decimated shooters less dangerous. You have to be more conservative about loosing men in a shooter unit if you want them to remain effective near the end of a battle.

IN a game that is currently running away from archer battles and skirmishing tactics im in favor of any extra strength the archers will get.

Per unit does that, but I would say it's the wrong solution to that issue. The right solution would be to make the archers more effective.

Per unit, because knowing how to rid your enemy of ammo or numbers gave the knowledgeable player advantages over the other.... which is why it pays to study the game.

Per unit ammo does that even more so because the new player isn't going to realize that a shooting unit isn't being reduced in total killing potential as it looses men. With per man ammo, the number of men left in a unit and how long that unit has been firing are the indicators of potential effectiveness and it's going down which is intuitive. Veterans make use of the counter intuitive nature of the per unit ammo model to gain an advantage over new players. I saw it done many times in STW.

Also, armies in real life had reserve supplies and runners to fetch.... foot missiles and HA could go back to the rear to load up.... so per unit seems a respectable compromise (and who wouldn't jump off his horse to get more ammo, if you were safe to do so)....

Think about the gameplay. Total War battles do not take as much time as real battles. Conservation of ammo was a factor in real battles, and it adds a tactical element to Total War battles if it's present.

[RTKMercurius]

Veterans make use of the counter intuitive nature of the per unit ammo model to gain an advantage over new players.

The devil is in the details, and why not?

[Puzz3D]

The devil is in the details, and why not?

Because the battle may as well be resigned once it's lost, and if you want it lost on the first small mistake or because the opponent doesn't understand the battle mechanics then there is no sense playing it out. There is actually no sense even playing against someone who doesn't understand the battle mechanics, and it's not ethical to continue withholding the information when you realize the opponent doesn't understand a battle engine mechanic.