Missile Weapons

[Rhyfelwyr]

I've been plannig to make a little balancing mod, and was wondering about the effectiveness of missile attacks, so I have some queries:

1. Damage - right now, you can wipe out a passive AI army with only a few units of basic archers. They seem to do too much damage. However, having listened to some experts debating, medieval missile weapons apparently were this effective. However, their weakness may be in the amount of ammo, as currently one man seems to have a lot of arrows, for any type of missile troop. Also, considering AI armies are being patched to be less passive, would it be an idea to slightly raise archer damage, but reduce their ammo significantly, perhaps to around 15-20 arrows per man?

2. Crossbowmen - currently, these have significantly longer range than bowmen. While they might have been able to fire further, did they not lose their armour piercing effect at range? Therefore, I think it might improve balance to make Crossbowmen more specialist, anti-armour troops, with devastating AP attack, but short range, to represent their historical ability to pierce armour. Also, should crossbows not take longer to reload?

3. Longbowmen - I feel these are pretty badly underpowered, as they are completely outclassed by Crossbowmen. Would a significantly longer range, and much better attack, not be realistic? I also think archers reload to slowly, so would it be possible to reduce their reloading times?

[Lord_hazard]

1) Archers should have a harder time killing soldiers with either high grade armor ar shields (a harder time then they have now that is).

2) The crossbowmen should be cheaper to buy and have a lower upkeep, but they should also have a more limited range and they should only be able to fire about 3 times pr minute.

3) I agree that the english longbowmen are underpowered. They should have a greater range then standard crossbowmen and have a much greater rate of fire as an english longbowman could fire 20 "aimed-shots" per minute.

[Zenicetus]

3) I agree that the english longbowmen are underpowered. They should have a greater range then standard crossbowmen and have a much greater rate of fire as an english longbowman could fire 20 "aimed-shots" per minute.

Your archers aren't individually shooting as fast as they can. They're coordinating in volley fire, which is a slower process. I don't see any real problems with the way missile weapons are modeled in the game, other than maybe peasant archers being a little too effective.

[Lord_hazard]

Your archers aren't individually shooting as fast as they can. They're coordinating in volley fire, which is a slower process. I don't see any real problems with the way missile weapons are modeled in the game, other than maybe peasant archers being a little too effective.

Oh you misunderstand, what i meant was that english longbowmen could fire around 20 arrows per minute into an area, which also means that they could do so in volleys as they almost always fired in volleys.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Did Crossbows not lost their AP effectiveness at range though?

[Carl]

Thats actually been proved false by historical quotes from the era. they could do that in practise on a training feild. But in battle it was typicly double that due to terrain, enemy movment, and the need to conserve energy and ammunittion.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Thats actually been proved false by historical quotes from the era. they could do that in practise on a training feild. But in battle it was typicly double that due to terrain, enemy movment, and the need to conserve energy and ammunittion.

Guessing by the timing of the above two posts, that statement was about the Longbowmen I suppose?

[econ21]

1. Damage - right now, you can wipe out a passive AI army with only a few units of basic archers.

Have you patched the game? The AI is no longer passive when attacking in field battles. That passivity was a HUGE problem for missile heavy factions like the English pre-patch. They did just wipe out AI armies with no risk.

But now, post-patch, when the AI barrels right at you when attacking, missiles seem fairly well modelled. You only get off only a few shots before the enemy is on you, but I believe that is accurate. I watched one TV programme on the longbow which had a couple of interesting tests. First, it had a horseman riding across the field of Crecy - the archer got off about three shots, IIRC, before the horseman closed. Even against advancing foot, tests on that programme or a similar one showed only the last three shots were likely to be very accurate and potentially lethal. Unlike RTW, I don't find I can beat off an AI attack with just missiles (I only take 3-5 missile units per stack.)

They seem to do too much damage. However, having listened to some experts debating, medieval missile weapons apparently were this effective.

Who knows? If you take it literally, they may be too effective against a very well armoured or well shielded troop. (Pavise spearmen were an effective counter to the longbow, although not well used.) But for a game, you probably have to think more about in-game balancing. In my battles, I don't find my longbows kill disproportionate or unrealistically large numbers of troops compared to knights or swords.

As I said, they seem fine on the defensive when you only have a few shots and then are into melee. On the offensive, there is the problem of shooting the AI to death. The simple solution may just be to limit your missile troops. Take only three or something. (I use five if English.) They won't be able to kill a whole AI army, although they sure will help.

However, their weakness may be in the amount of ammo, as currently one man seems to have a lot of arrows, for any type of missile troop.

In MTW, longbows have a terrific rate of fire and tore through their 30 or so arrows in a minute or two. I looked around and found English longbowmen were estimated to fire an average of 100 arrows in the big HYW battles. (They were resupplied.) Horse archers also might have 100 arrows. Again, I suspect it is ultimately gameplay rather than literal historical accuracy that should decide things. I am happy with the default ammo limits.

2. Crossbowmen - currently, these have significantly longer range than bowmen. While they might have been able to fire further, did they not lose their armour piercing effect at range? Therefore, I think it might improve balance to make Crossbowmen more specialist, anti-armour troops, with devastating AP attack, but short range, to represent their historical ability to pierce armour. Also, should crossbows not take longer to reload?

I think crossbows are fine. They should be longer range than normal bowmen and they should be AP.

3. Longbowmen - I feel these are pretty badly underpowered, as they are completely outclassed by Crossbowmen.

I have no idea why people keep saying this. Are you just looking at the attack stats? They give that impression. But apparently in game test data shows the longbows winning, which is my impression from causal play.

I don't really have a problem with bows in the SP game - neither overpowered (like cavalry) nor underpowered (like spears). (Balancing bows for MP is a whole other issue, but we have an MP forum for that.) My impression was that compared to other TW games their rate of fire is rather slow. At first I thought that meant they were weaker, but then I noticed that, as if to compensate, each volley is rather lethal.

[Musashi]

I think that basic archers are maybe too strong (Peasant archers do too much damage) but the AP archers are just about right in my opinion, as they should be able to decimate enemy armies.

Crossbowmen do not have longer range than bowmen. Militia Crossbows have the same range as peasant archers. High end crossbows (Which are basically arbalests) have a range equal to the elite archer units.

There is no problem here.