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.

[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.

[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?

[Carl]

Yes, sorry.

[dopp]

Would you happen to know which quotes in particular? My source gives 10 volleys per minute, which is still much faster than any other missile weapon until the introduction of the bolt-action rifle (12-15 aimed shots per minute). Except maybe the repeating crossbow (10-15 unaimed shots per minute), a weapon much inferior in both range and power to the longbow.

[Lord_hazard]

A Welsh or English military archer during the 14th and 15th Century was expected to shoot at least ten 'aimed shots' per minute. An experienced military longbowman was expected to shoot twenty aimed shots per minute. A typical military longbow archer would be provided with between 60 and 72 arrows at the time of battle, which would last the archer from three to six minutes, at full rate of fire.

[dopp]

Erm, actual sources please. One aimed volley every 3 seconds defies belief, I'm afraid. The poor fellow who shouts the order to draw and loose strings; I can only imagine the agony he must go through. Especially since it is claimed that the individual archers also aimed at their targets. At 300 yards, no less. Moving targets on horseback too. You can't achieve those results with modern weapons, but you can with the English yeoman and his longbow, who is obviously the supreme example of the fighting soldier. Ever. And they were REAL MEN back then, not the weedy excuses for soldiers we get today.

I fail to see the difference between a military 'archer' and a military 'longbowman'. 24 arrows seems to have been the normal arrow supply, especially considering that they stuck them in the ground at their feet. Imagine sticking 72 arrows in the ground... the first hour of the battle must be spent arranging them nicely in a spiral pattern, I guess. Carrying them around must have been an even greater burden. Reloads from wagons in the rear would make sense, but only during infrequent pauses in the action.

I'm sorry, but those statistics really defy probability unless some further evidence can be produced. If the longbowmen were really that good, then I also want my Norman knights to breach huge stone walls on the charge, because that's what Anna said they could do, and she would know, having seen them in action.

[Lord_hazard]

The english longbowmen did not fire aimed shots an individual targets 300 meters away, they fired aimed shots into an area. And there wasnt a head archer who said ready, aim, fire all of the time, these men have been training their butts of since childhood and they were able to fire in unison without someone barking orders. They DID have 60-70 arrows, but not all at the same time, there were some boys who would run around a give them more when needed. The longbow was the machinegun of its time, BUT it simply wasnt cost effective enough compared to the crossbow and gunpowder, which is prob why only the english used them in any large scale as the other countries didnt want to invest in the massive training these men needed to be able to fire the longbow as they did.
There is one thing that bothers me in the game, only sherwood archers have longbows made out of yew...almost every single english longbow was of yew.
All the english longbowmen should have bows made out of yew, but they should have as high a missile dmg as the sherwood archer has, which is just way too powerfull.

[Neoncat]

Archers should be more effective against units that don't have any armor and less effective against units that have armor. Especially those firearrows. They seem to kill everything they hit. Afaik flaming arrows weren't back then that effective especially against armored units.

Crossbows should be a bit more accurate and much slower to reload. I think archer should be able to fire 5 times when crossbows shoot only once.

Trees should shield a bit more your units. For now they don't shield enought to use them.

And last one but not moddable one is that units with enough large shields are like invicible against arrows when they are heading shooters. For now they drop like flies after few hits.

[crpcarrot]

The english longbowmen did not fire aimed shots an individual targets 300 meters away, they fired aimed shots into an area. And there wasnt a head archer who said ready, aim, fire all of the time, these men have been training their butts of since childhood and they were able to fire in unison without someone barking orders. They DID have 60-70 arrows, but not all at the same time, there were some boys who would run around a give them more when needed. The longbow was the machinegun of its time, BUT it simply wasnt cost effective enough compared to the crossbow and gunpowder, which is prob why only the english used them in any large scale as the other countries didnt want to invest in the massive training these men needed to be able to fire the longbow as they did.
There is one thing that bothers me in the game, only sherwood archers have longbows made out of yew...almost every single english longbow was of yew.
All the english longbowmen should have bows made out of yew, but they should have as high a missile dmg as the sherwood archer has, which is just way too powerfull.

i'm with dop 20 arrows a min just defies beleif. any sources for the comment you have made?

3 seconds to pick arrow off ground, notch, aim and release just doesnt add up

[Poulp']

I'm interferring in the discussion although I just read half of the thread
(I'll happily follow the discussion once I'll have time at home though)

IIRC, there had been a debate in the Mid Ages over whether the Xbow should be banned or not. It was considered by nobles as a non honorable weapon.
The point was that with that weapon a one month trained peasant could kill a knight that trained from birth.

There's a mention about a debate over it in a council (forgot which one; historians will correct me)

As a comparison, it seems the bow was not considered an "evilly-effective" weapon.
Don''t get me wrong, bow is effective, but it takes years to know how to use it.

To conclude, I'd like to know what kind of crossbow do you refer to ?
I don't play MTW2 and I'd like to know if there is different version of those missile weapon ? (short or long bows, regular and siege Xbows ?)

*thread bookmarked*

[CBR]

20+ shots/minute is possible but thats done with no real aiming and with low draw weight bows. But the few contemporary sources(that I know of) that talks of differences in ROF between bows and heavy crossbows or arquebusiers suggests heavy warbows did more like 6-8 shots/minute.

That also makes sense with the 24 arrows that archers were expected to have with them (Burgundian archers had 30 IIRC) Starting from max range of say 350-400 yards using flight arrows, and then switching over to heavy broadheaded or bodkin arrows at around 250 yards, would give the archers something like 3 to 5 minutes before pulling back to safety against an enemy infantry attack.

Extra arrows would be back in wagon train but it would take a helluva lot of "boys" to run back and forth with enough arrows if archers really did shoot so fast as claimed.

The French and Burgundians certainly managed to have thousands of archers too.


Caledonian Rhyfelwyr: The Total War engine does not take range into account for armour piercing missile weapons. In real life any missile weapon would lose energy the further it goes and the angle of hit would also mean lesser penetration. Unfortunately the RTW/M2TW has missile AP as the same value for all weapons whereas the older STW/MTW engine had different AP values depending on weapon.

So we just have to live with the limitations of the engine. In theory you could remove AP from all missile weapons and just let attack rating and range be the main difference except for gunpowder weapons of course.


CBR

[dismal]

I'm gonna say that missile units seem about right to me.

They are great behind walls, and good on defensive field battles, and they can give a tactical lift if the enemy fails to match your ranged capabilities.

But they are not so powerful you can expect an army of foot archers to hold its own, which I think is what archer-lovers weem to want.

I honestly wouldn't care if longbows were a little bit overpowered in the AIs hands. I like the feeling of seeing a unit in an enemy stack and thinking "uh oh, I better come up with a good plan to deal with these guys".

[Rhyfelwyr]

Caledonian Rhyfelwyr: The Total War engine does not take range into account for armour piercing missile weapons. In real life any missile weapon would lose energy the further it goes and the angle of hit would also mean lesser penetration. Unfortunately the RTW/M2TW has missile AP as the same value for all weapons whereas the older STW/MTW engine had different AP values depending on weapon.

So we just have to live with the limitations of the engine. In theory you could remove AP from all missile weapons and just let attack rating and range be the main difference except for gunpowder weapons of course.CBR

Thats why I'm thinking of modding crossbows to make them short range anti-armour specialists, as giving them an AP value over a longer distance then archers is unbalanced and unrealistic.

[antisocialmunky]

i'm with dop 20 arrows a min just defies beleif. any sources for the comment you have made?

3 seconds to pick arrow off ground, notch, aim and release just doesnt add up

Who says they're shooting one arrow at a time?

[Carl]

They couldn't all be Robin Hood and his Merry Men , (where Maid Marian anyway in those Sherwood Archers)

[Lord Fluffy]

i'm with dop 20 arrows a min just defies beleif. any sources for the comment you have made?

3 seconds to pick arrow off ground, notch, aim and release just doesnt add up

Don't know about an army doing it at 3 seconds per arrow with 100+ lbs bows. But I have seen a person fire 9 arrows in 30 seconds, with a 40ish pound longbow and back quiver.

Besides, aiming with a longbow doesn't take all that long anyway. A trained archer takes just a fraction of a second to aim.

[antisocialmunky]

They couldn't all be Robin Hood and his Merry Men , (where Maid Marian anyway in those Sherwood Archers)

You have to wait for the Marian Reforms. :-P

Buuuudunk! *Sorry, it had to be done*


Why are there so many threads turning into history buff contests these days? Its getting ridiculous.

[Musashi]

Thats why I'm thinking of modding crossbows to make them short range anti-armour specialists, as giving them an AP value over a longer distance then archers is unbalanced and unrealistic.

Where are you getting the idea that they have a longer range than archers?

[Carl]

You have to wait for the Marian Reforms. :-P

LOL