Archers

[Cheetah]

Archers are atm not competitive enough. They cannot beat pavise xbows head on (which was the case in MTW too though), however it seems that they cannot hurt inf enough to make them worth to buy.

What would you do to make them more appealing? Obviously there are a number of options:
- decrease their price
- increase their range
- increase their ranged attack
- give them more ammo
- increase their armour

If it were upto me I would do only one thing at a time, so atm I would decrease their cost in a 70-120 florins range.

[YellowMelon]

I think we have to realize that this is an era where archers are becoming less important and xbows are becoming prominent. perhaps raise the price of crossbows instead, I mean there are expensive archers that are useless. Bows and Arrows are not costly hence why armies used them to levy armies of bow.

[RtkBedivere]

historically the main difference between xbows and archers was that an xbow takes longer to reload and shoot. I think seeing more of a difference in the fire rate would be the most correct change that would shorten the gap between the units some.

[Goalie]

I agree on the point that archers are a bit too expensive and lowering the price would be nice. Although I think crossbows should be left alone when it comes to price. Any unit of crossbowen, even peasant crossbows can be very effective against armour. However they are still slow to reload and in my opinion it should take even longer to reload.
I myself prefer the longbow. It is deadly to almost any unit, even pavise xbows, I find myself playing with the english quite a bit just for longbowmen. However I think that their rate of fire should be increased. I believe i read somewhere that English Longbows could fire a volley every 4 to 5 seconds on average and sometimes even down to 3 seconds. Well that is my case for longbowmen, but for other archers, I tend to agree that they are almost useless because they are expensive and ineffective due to the crossbow. So in conclusion, I too think that the reload time on xbows should be slowed down and the rate of fire for longbowmen at least, and most likely other normal archers should be increased.

[Monarch]

I agree with Melon ( ) :P

I think putting up the price of the xbows could be good. I mean they beat any other archers and you've even got those Genoese who can hold their ground in melee. They're pretty elite imo. Less pavise (not general xbows, they're fine imo) makes archers all of a sudden alot more useful.

Higher reload speeds would also be interesting. Because the main thing atm is many archers arn't good vs armour so for instance as poland theres not point getting, I think they're dismuonted lithuanian archers, when you can get militia xbows who are cheaper and more effective (due to being good vs armour).

[RTKMercurius]

The real problem with missiles is that they are just too ineffective for the money, compared to melee....comparing xbows to archers is really low on my list of concerns, but, yes, there is no point taking archers if you can take xbows, for the money.

The main problem is that all missiles are too expensive and too inneffective to deter rush strats. For the money, you get very little results... and even those units that are supposed to be dual use have very low melee stats for the cost, and missiles that won't kill much ever...

The range is too short, the rate of fire is too slow, the power is insubstantial, and the price is too high... maybe a longer range and lower cost would create balance...maybe small changes in each...

Pavise xbows get 12-14 missile attack, with AP and they're still not preferable to a light cav unit in overal potency... as melee units they'll get beat by almost anything costing above 300 florins, etc. etc....

[Paolai]

The real problem with missiles is that they are just too ineffective for the money, compared to melee....comparing xbows to archers is really low on my list of concerns, but, yes, there is no point taking archers if you can take xbows, for the money.

The main problem is that all missiles are too expensive and too inneffective to deter rush strats. For the money, you get very little results... and even those units that are supposed to be dual use have very low melee stats for the cost, and missiles that won't kill much ever...

The range is too short, the rate of fire is too slow, the power is insubstantial, and the price is too high... maybe a longer range and lower cost would create balance...maybe small changes in each...

Pavise xbows get 12-14 missile attack, with AP and they're still not preferable to a light cav unit in overal potency... as melee units they'll get beat by almost anything costing above 300 florins, etc. etc....

agreed on all

[RTKBarrett]

Yep agree with everything there too...
What bothers me is ive noticed how ineffective fire arrows have become in the flanks. Ive lost games where ive had my opponent tied down in the centre, released several volleys of fire arrows from behind but in the end my inf still lose :-(
And why buy a xbowmen when u can buy its mounted version lol... talk about encouraging cavalry to be taken :D

[peacedog]

In most of my games missile units kill very little compared to there cost.
I think the problem is (if it is one), is that missile units are so diverse from faction to faction. This usually makes long, drawn out "pav wars" like happened in MTW1 unlikely as one armies missile troops will be dominant, forcing there opponent to enter melee. Thus missile troops have less time to make kills.

[Orda Khan]

In Early or High there should not be a problem with armour and archers should be viable. In Late I would expect to see their ability reduced. Crossbows should take much longer to reload. This sort of problem dictates tactics and needs addressing

........Orda

[RTKMercurius]

This sort of problem dictates tactics and needs addressing

........Orda

Right now, this sort of problem dictates rush spam... and generally of the cav spam variety....

you can eliminate infantry or footmissiles from most builds, or both without risk... if you take both, however, you are outclassed by anyone who takes cav only, or cav plus one.... Therefore, unit selection has too great an influence on outcomes....

Faction to faction balance seems excellent to me, on the whole...

Unit to unit balance seems excellent to me, on the whole....

Unit category to unit category is the major problem: archers and spears are too weak and too expensive, and cav is too strong and too cheap.

[RTKDinadan]

IMO crossbow reload times should not be increased, and their cost is all right as well. Worsening either of these would only lead to even more rush (cavalry) orientation, and there is already enough motivation for that.

Foot archers should get just a bit higher missile attack, and we'd need the option to set weather.

Talking about history, the crossbow was superior to the bow in everything but rate of fire, and needed way less training to use. It's just the same in MTW2

[yiph]

they should maybe slightly increase the missile attack of all missile units, cept horse archers

[Puzz3D]

In STW, archers have a 4 second reload time, and they can inflict 50% losses on the sword units with 10 volleys (1/3 of their ammo). That takes 40 seconds. They can open fire at 100 meters, and it takes a sword unit 30 seconds to run that distance, so a sword unit will take considerable losses rushing against a full strength archer unit. The archers cost 300, and the swords cost 300 and 500. When we balanced Samurai Wars we kept the same combat relationships, but found through multiplayer feedback that the gameplay was better with archers reduced to a cost of 200. This is actually consistent with the way original STW was played because players often sold off honor on archers making them cost 214, and experts could even get away with selling off all the honor making them cost 153, although they were quite fragile then.

I would say you need archers that are capable of killing around 30% of a unit in the time it takes the unit to run the distance under fire, and this has to be against units that cost more than the archer. Archers should be much less effective against heavily armored infantry, but that infantry should move slower and would therefore be disadvantaged in terms of maneuverability and fatigue against faster units.

I don't expect CA to balance the game to this degree anymore, but 6 years ago they did.

[KrooK]

In my opinion real problem are musketer and arqbs - they are simply too strong. Historically until 1620 mustkets were quite bad, especially when firing to running enemy. They real range was about 100 metres - practically even best soldiers shot from 30 metres. Furthermore they were simply very weak units - Polish cav loved front charges on pikes and muskets and generally won that charges (like Kircholm, Kluszyn). In was into beginning of XVII century - into XVI these muskets should be even less effective.

[ElmarkOFear]

I think they should eliminate all missile units. Then my unarmored rush army would rule the field! woohooo!

Though I do miss my patented STW Wet Wedgie All Musketeer Rush Army!

[Puzz3D]

In my opinion real problem are musketer and arqbs - they are simply too strong. Historically until 1620 mustkets were quite bad, especially when firing to running enemy. They real range was about 100 metres - practically even best soldiers shot from 30 metres.

I think range is important when considering playbalance. I remember playing multiplayer battles with archers that were longer range when we were trying to develop a new stat for use with Yamaga's rules in STW/MI. The archer's range was increased from 100 meters to 140 meters, and it made the archer a dominate unit in the battle. Not only could it easliy beat guns by shooting them when they couldn't shoot back, but melee units could not approach close enough to threaten a charge. After a lot of experimentation, it became clear that the original 100 meter range for both archers and guns was a good choice. I think a unit that has longer range than other ranged units should be less effective to maintain playbalance, and if you want different types of ranged unit to be able to skirmish each other, they should have similar range. In Samurai Wars, all the ranged units have the same range for playbalance purposes. It was the same in STW except arquebusiers had a shorter 80 meter range, and as I recall almost nobody used the unit.