Page 1 of 2 1 2 Last

Ok so since i couldnt find a thread showing missile units rate of fire i decided to test it myself.
In my test i tested every type of missile unit in the game(except cavalry archers) on the grassy plain. I tested how many volleys the different missile units could fire within a minute.

English longbowmen = 6 volleys
Genose crossbowmen(arbalest) = 3 volleys
Crossbowmen = 3(almost 4) volleys
Archer = 5(almost 6) volleys
Composite archer = 5(almost 6) volleys

This info gave me a pretty clear view of how the game mechanics work.
1)Bows fire about twice as fast as crossbows.
2) Theres almost no difference between different types of crossbow units.
3)Theres almost no difference bewteen different types of archer units.

The problems that i see are
1) The longbowmen could only let loose 6 volleys per minute (when 10 volleys per minute were required and it was possible for veteran longbowmen to fire about 20 volleys per minute)
2) Theres no difference between the genose crossbowmen and say peasent crossbowmen (its likely that the crossbow the genose use in this game is an arbalest and therefor they should have a rate of fire of about 1 or max 2 volleys per minute)

But theres a difference between what is historical and what is good gameplay as realism can ruin the gameplay.
I would say that the rate of fire should be something like this instead

English longbowmen = 8-10 volleys
Genose crossbowmen = 1-2 volleys
Crossbowmen = 3 volleys
Archer = 6 volleys
Composite archer = 7-8 volleys

Reply

Anything you do to alter rate of fire will ruin, or at least alter the gameplay balance. Increasing the archer fire rate by roughly 50%, as you're proposing, is like getting 50% more archer units for free on the battlefield. That's how much extra damage you're going to inflict on the enemy over a given time frame (for example, the time it takes for an advancing enemy to reach you).

Reducing crossbow fire rates by 50% is like removing 50% of your crossbow units from the field, because they'll be causing less damage. In fact, it might scale even lower, vs. advancing soldiers when they don't have time to get off another volley.

Now, this might be balanced by decreasing the damage caused by arrows, and boosting the damage caused by crossbows. But here we get into other issues, like what people expect to see when an arrow volley hits... how many men show injury, or are killed with every volley. Right now the injuries and deaths seem pretty reasonable. If you reduce the kills shown per volley to compensate for a higher archer fire rate, people might start complaining that arrows aren't very effective. Even though you'll still be getting the same number of kills for the battle as a whole, it just won't look right, and the visual impression is important with a game like this.

I think CA has done a good job of balancing all these factors. They're showing us the results we expect to see when an arrow volley hits, without making archers overpowered with a high rate of fire. If you think of these guys as coordinating fire in volleys, and maybe conserving a limited supply of arrows, the fire rate really doesn't look that far off... at least not to me, I know opinions differ on this.

Reply

Archer and crossbow rate of fire is nice and balanced at the moment. Don't mess with it.

In MTW crossbows were made of suck and useless. In this they're useful, and so are archers. There's no need to mess with it.

Reply

Personally i disagree that the missile units are balanced but the realism shouldnt be hampered too much just to balance the game more(its not a blizzard or EA game afterall), also since its a totalwar game which have always been about massive realistic tactical battles.
While i dont want the game to be totally realistic because it would prob alter the gameplay too much, i dont think that altering it slighty will have such a game ruining effect. I know most people prob use the archers and crossbowmen to thin out the enemies numbers before a melee fight but as that is not the only purpose that archers and crossbowmen have i hardly think that this will be a problem.
As odd as this may sound to some, archers and crossbowmen are excellent ranged flankers. So the whole "lowering the crossbowmens rate of fire would be like lowering the number of units" wont be that much of problem if you use them as firstly to thin out the enemy numbers and then when the melee starts as ranged flankers, the crossbow still has a far superior punch then the longbow so they would still be able to dessimate enemy numbers cloes up.
I would like to see the longbow be a better morale devastator then it is now, because of the rather low rate of fire.

I really want the game to be more like MTW, and i dont think the crossbowmen in MTW sucked personally i loved the arbalests punch and range.

But some people, like me, would welcome the change and some people wont.

Reply

I don't understand why people are telling the OP that others will hate him and complain about his changes when clearly he isn't working for CA nor imposing his house rules on anyone else.
Mod your game to your liking I say.

Reply

Your right, and some modder will prob make a total realism mod to M2TW just like they did for RTW.

Reply

A few thoughts about that:

1) If it's a personal mod idea, why even go online to post about it, unless you're soliciting feedback?

2) Apparently CA does monitor this forum (and others, I assume) to track what people think about the game balance. I think it doesn't hurt to express an opposing view, when someone suggests an idea that you think might unbalance the game.

3) People don't always state whether they're suggesting a change that needs to be made to the vanilla game engine, or an idea for a personal mod. With most posts like this, the intention isn't clear... except that we might infer this is aimed at changing the vanilla game since (I think?) it isn't possible to mod the archer fire rate, and that would have to be done by CA. I could be wrong about that. Anyway, no offense meant to the OP. These discussions are interesting.

Reply

If you do attempt to do this, I would likewise caution that you make sure you maintain game balance. Not only will it be difficult to balance missile attack stats to the new fire rates to achieve the same kill rate for each unit, but likewise you must then modify the amount of ammo each unit brings into battle to make sure it has the same killing power from expending its entire supply. I suppose that is to say, having balanced the number of kills the unit can achieve over a given length of time (to be the same as it is in vanilla), you then have to adjust the unit ammo so it lasts the same amount of time, and therefore results in the unit making the same number of kills in the same length of time while in both cases expending all its ammo at that point. In practice I expect this to be fairly difficult and time-consuming work to do with any sort of accuracy. You could of course simply ignore the imbalance that changing the fire rates would cause, but that will result in a mod that many players (including yourself) may find unacceptably out of balance.

Reply

It was meant to both CA and modders, but since it may be difficult for modders to change this then mostly CA. But it was also to show people the rate of fire of the different missile units and that there is very little difference between the different units of that type.
I personally think that the biggest issue is that there isnt really any difference between the genose crossbowmen and regular crossbowmen (other then range and dmg) which is just too weird for me. Its just too unrealistic for me too see an arbalest fire just as fast as a normal crossbow.

I personally want games like the total war games to be more about realism then trying to balance every faction to be just about the same in strength, i want the different factions to be portrayed more realistic. War isnt about being equal, fair or balanced its about being better then your enemy. But every thing has its price. Like the longbowmen who may have been some of the best ranged units back then but they were extremely costly and very time consuming to train. Or the crossbow which had a greater punch and was easier to use then bows but you had to contend with a very slow fire rate.

Reply

I was very unhappy with the battle of Agincourt. There the heavy armoured dismounted knights run 200m for 10 seconds, which is twice better than the world record, and receive only one volley from the long bow man.

Then I realised that to fix it will require massive rework of to readjust and rebalance all the ranged weapons:

Rates of fire
killing % at different distances
armour effects
unit speeds

Now I try to think that it is just a game, but still find annoying how the current ranged weapons work.

Reply

Actually, it isn't difficult to mod. To do so maintaining balance, yes, but then again it's just as difficult for the CA people to do this (though admittedly they have the advantage of knowing exactly how the various numbers are applied in combat, and therefore what to expect from changing any given value more so than we do). More to the point: each unit has a stat_pri line. In the case of archers, this is always stats for their primary missile weapon. The beginning comments in the EDU do a good job explaining what each entry is, but for everyone's ease I'll list the line for Longbowmen and explain it here.

stat_pri 6, 1, arrow, 160, 30, missile, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 25, 1

stat_pri - indicates primary weapon stats.
6 - attack factor. This is the number you see on the unit stat screen.
1 - attack bonus factor if charging. I don't think this applies to missile weapons.
arrow - missile type fired. Presumably this affects graphics, and maybe its effect or effectiveness.
160 - range of missile. meters, I think.
30 - amount of ammunition per man.
missile - weapon type. Unsure what exactly it's used for. Maybe to determine all those unit-based bonuses that commanders can give for commanding a given unit type.
missile_mechanical - tech type. Presumably this plays into how effective it is.
piercing - damage type.
none - sound type when weapon hits.
25 - minimum delay between attacks, in 1/10th seconds... so this is 2.5 seconds.
1 - skeleton compensation factor. No idea what this one does, personally.

So as you can see, we have a great deal of control over lots of things due to all unit stats coming from text files. In particular interest to this thread is of course the "minimum delay between attacks" stat, which you can probably use to adjust the unit's rate of fire. Since 2.5 seconds between attacks would mean the longbows would get off some 24 attacks per minute, this must be time from one fire animation ending to the next beginning, not the time between actual arrows going in the air. Thus the archer firing animation will limit how fast you can in fact make them shoot, though setting zero should mean they fire 2.5s closer together than they currently do. As LC noted they currently do 6 volleys per minute, or ~10 sec per volley, setting delay to 0 would probably mean ~7.5s per volley, for a rate of 8 shots per minute. Coincidentally that 7.5s would then be the total time the archer's firing animation takes to play.

As for what attack values to set as a result, my initial guess would be to apply the time ratio likewise to the attack stat. Since the new attack time is ~3/4 of the old one, I'd suggest 6 * 3/4 = 4.5 as a start. You'll have to decide whether to round up or down.

Similarly, longbows will then be firing 8 times in the time they used to fire 6 times, meaning they require 8/6 = 4/3 times the ammo to remain active the same amount of time on the battlefield. That is, 30 * 4/3 = 40 ammo.

So by my loose estimation, Longbowmen with their stats modified to be 0 delay, 4 or 5 attack, and 40 ammo should roughly have the same battlefield presence of the standard variety longbows, while firing as quickly as their animation will in fact allow (~8 per minute). So as you can see, it's not actually that much work to figure out how to make a given unit fire at a different rate, while maintaining its kill rate and ammo duration.

You'd need to be motivated to go through this for each unit, but it's easily within the realm of possibility, and I for one would love to see the results of such an undertaking. Note that the attack value may need to be played with, as we have no clear idea exactly how it is applied, and applying a ratio to it may in fact not change the unit's kill rate by that ratio.

Reply

This is the part I'm concerned about, although I'm stupid about modding, and not very familiar with how some of these stats work. If arrow damage drops below a certain threshold value, does that mean it could cause no damage at all? If everything scales to any value, this wouldn't be a problem, but I worry about threshold situations like that.

Yeah, I'd like to see the results of this also.

Reply

I suppose it could mean that... but more than likely, the difference between attack and defense values in combat determine the success rate of the attack, and rather than there being a threshold, the system probably just fades off to something like 5% and 95% success corresponding to maybe a difference of 10 or more in favor of defender, and 10 or more in favor of attacker. It's no fun in a game if the difference between units makes it impossible for one to ever touch the other with an attack, and 5% seems pretty usual to account for the lucky strike a totally inferior unit might be able to score, and 95% leaves 5% chance for the far superior unit to flub up and not score a hit. Each value in between might correspond to an additional 5% success for the attacker, meaning an evenly matched attack and defense would mean 50% success for the attacker. In practice this would mean that a direct ratio applied to attack would work out nearly correct, as the attack values would remain sufficiently close to the average unit's defense value not to fall off the end of the difference table. Of course this is purely speculation on my part, but I will say that systems like the one I described are commonly employed because they give each point of attack and defense a clear (and identical) meaning in combat, and are therefore intuitive for developers to balance.

Reply

Isn't attack and defense on a scale of dimishing returns? In that case, a 50% decrease in attack will not necessarily result in 50% less kills. Depending on whether the original attack was 6 or 26, and whether the target had armor 6 or armor 26, you would see different results. Also note that there are certain 'fixed' combat bonuses (like those for flank and rear attacks) that cannot be modded in any way, and will mess up the equation.

Reply

How should I know what scale attack and defense are on? LOL. I would of course agree that a 50% decrease in attack will not necessarily result in 50% less kills, but what I was trying to indicate is that without knowing the scale, applying the ratio to the attack factor and using the number that results as a basis is probably a good place to start. Fixed combat bonuses could be a percent-based bonus (like flanking = +25% attack, to account for the already all-over-the-chart attack and defense values in the game) as opposed to being a bonus equivalent to any given attack value (i.e. flanking = +5 attack), and if that is the case it would scale correctly along with any given stat value you assign to the unit.

It doesn't look like what I outlined earlier in this thread actually works though. While we are free to lower the minimum delay time between attacks, it appears at least in the case of the Longbowmen that I tested that they are already firing as quickly as they can and in fact not waiting (I am theorizing that the wait time we notice is because some of the individual archers get behind, and the rest wait for them to fire before beginning to reload). When I had them set to 0 delay, they fired the exact same number of salvos against advancing pikemen as they had with delay 2.5, and the firing cycle appeared identical to me.

Getting back to what you said though Dopp, if there is evidence or documentation that shows attack and defense are on a diminishing returns scale, I'd be very keen to be pointed at it... and at the very least hope to hear why you think it is the case even if no such information exists. Everyone else can feel free to point me at any info they know about, too

Reply

Someone back during the original MTW was talking about attack and defense calculations being on a scale of dimishing returns. I don't know for certain, so I was asking you, actually.

The fixed bonuses were definitely straight numbers, not percentages, in original MTW. Considering that stuff like mount_effect bonuses are still straight bonuses in RTW and M2TW, I don't think it has changed all that much.

On the subject of fire rates, I might suggest that the crossbows and guns having somewhat more decent firing rates than would otherwise be expected (an early firearm could take as much as 150 seconds to load; it's really the much later muskets that could fire 3-5 times a minute) was made both in the interests of play balance and as an abstraction of the many 'shortcuts' such slow-firing troops would employ to increase their effectiveness. For example, crossbowmen would often have several helpers to load spare crossbows while they fired off their shots, while musketeers fired in ranks. I think CA has better things to do with their time than create crossbow loaders and such just to satisfy historical accuracy. Also, I think people were getting tired of the really slooooow rate of fire in MTW, where arquebusiers were effectively useless and crossbows took so long to shoot off all their bolts that the 'softening up' phase of every battle could take 15 minutes or more. Likewise, people were unhappy with how fast archers, especially longbowmen, were shooting off all their arrows, such that they then had no ammo left to repel a surprise attack by fresh troops.

Reply

Guess thats the problem, what to people want?
Do people want a game thats almost historical correct, where things wont be balanced if it hurts the historical accuracy too much(like longbows firing more slowly, and heavy crossbows firing faster and stuff like that)? Where if it a unit has an historical advantage that makes that unit better then most it wont be balanced just because its seems unfair to other factions.
Or do people want a strategy game where each faction is balanced towards each other? Where historical units are modified to make them more balanced to play. Where fairness is the most important thing.

I want M2TW to be more like MTW.

Reply

MTWs crossbows blew. I'm sorry, but they did. They couldn't fire through a screening unit of infantry, their rate of fire was atrocious... You'd generally get off ONE volley before they were having to skirmish back behind your lines and after that they were useless, because you could never have them fire once they'd skirmished back.

It really didn't matter how powerful their one volley was, because they were useless after that.

Crossbows are much more fun in this game.

Reply

Thats your oppinion, im sry but it is. And its not a fact! I NEVER had problems with crossbowmen or arbalests and i used them to great advantage.
I would try and use the maps to make sure my crossbowmen were elevated so they could fire over my units or i would as a last resort put them out on the flanks with a pair of melee units to cover them. But their low rate of fire never bothered me as it only seemed fair. I never used the skirmish ability and used my better judgement to move them back when needed. And they were NOT useless, atleast not the way i used them.
So maybe its just the way you used them?

Reply

My arbalests were dominating in MTW. Using them with proper high ground, I had plenty of battles with barely a ding from any melee combat.

I think the big difference though would be to allow crossbows and firearms to hit the field loaded. Only archers should have to stop to load their first shot. On approach to equal range, the crossbowmen should always get off the first shot.

Reply

*shrugs*

Even if you managed to keep your crossbows firing throughout the battle, they'd only get off about three volleys by the end. I mean, they took like five minutes to reload...

Reply

You misunderstand. I'm saying that gun and crossbow units historically did maintain quite high rates of fire (although longbows were still much faster individually) because of 'shortcuts' that are not modelled in the game (the firing in ranks is in, but the separate loaders perhaps is not). Since that improves both game performance and play balance, it's a good thing. Longbows remain powerful, but people can at least use muskets and crossbows without screaming at their insanely slow shooting times.

I feel that longbows are nicely balanced atm and see no real reason why CA should change them. Still, maybe if you really, really impressed CA about how unhappy you are at the performance of longbows, they might see fit to bump their attack up by a few points. I don't think they will make them faster, partly because it's harder to speed up the firing animation than to tweak their attack value, and partly because one of the gripes about longbowmen in the original MTW was that they actually fired too quickly. People were screaming to CA to give them something like 200 ammo so they could pwn the entire battlefield, because they were running out after half a minute of shooting and then getting overrun by enraged knights.

Reply

Yeah that was a real problem with the longbowmen in MTW, but then again even though the longbowmen almost had the rate of fire they should historically have (dont remember how fast they fired) they didnt have the amount of ammo that they should historically have which was about 60-70 arrows or so. You cant have one without the other.
I its opinion that they just went from one ekstreme to another (so to speak).

But i think that the biggest problem is that theres no difference in different crossbowmens rate of fire (you up the dmg and range, at no expense!)
I still believe that either CA or perhaps, even better, a modder should do something about this.

Reply

Hy there ....
Maybe I`m off topic here but anyone noticed that the composite bow is not as realistic as it should be ? Now I`m no expert but the mongols did kick the knights in the but whit the bow .. armor piercing !!! and they did it up to 400 m !!! so ok on the game light mail is 50% chance as i saw it .. but heawy mail ... almost no chance .. even from close range !!! any clue ???

thanx

Reply

I would agree, the ammunition quantities for all but artillery units and javelins seem a bit low. As these are entire units of people, the question of how many projectiles a soldier carried on their person is misleading; there would have been larger stores available to each unit as well. Just because an individual soldier might have been handed 30 arrows or bullets at the beginning of battle, doesn't mean that was all they fired that day.

On the other hand, my javelin units seem to have an awful lot of ammo. This unfortunately encourages you to hang back with them, instead of throwing a salvo or two and charging.

Reply

Interesting test, Lord Crapalot - I'm putting it in the FAQ.

BTW, any chance you could be persuaded to change your username? I whince whenever I see it.

Reply

Hehe ill think about:)

Reply

He's not the only wincer, and it might account for some of the short patience some people have with you. I had to nudge myself a few times too with it.

Reply

I'd have to go with Carl.

Was finding it a bit more difficult to take you seriously too.

Reply

Sure, they fired more volleys, but fewer arrows actually killed someone than they do in a single MTW volley.

I mean in real life an archer might fire 40 arrows and kill... MAYBE one guy? Maybe not a single person, out of his entire quiver of arrows?

Reply

Page 1 of 2 1 2 Last