Missile units rate of fire

[Lord_hazard]

I'd have to go with Carl.

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

Ah but dose a rose not smell sweet no matter what name we call it?
In other words just because i have a nick like that dosnt mean i dont know what im talkin about:)

[Stlaind]

True, but first impressions do mean something :P

But yes, the new one is better

[Carl]

The new ones fine, a good laugh actually.

[Lord_hazard]

The only reason i still have lord in it, is so i can remember my nick:)

[JCoyote]

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?

I doubt the question is how many would he kill, it's how many would he wound? How many would suffer reduced fighting ability due to his arrows? I have an impression that arrows often were an early incarnation of wounding theory. An archer might not have killed a single person, but if he has impaired the ability of a few enemies to fight, he's done a good job.

However, for that to be addressed in game terms, we would actually need a mechanic where injured soldiers continued on fighting, instead of 100% full capability or 100% dead. It could be as simple as adding a "wound bit" to the soldiers, that if they have it they suffer reduced stats and probably a stamina cap.

This would also be nice, because it could make archers very useful and powerful, but not something you can win the day with alone. Armor and nonfatal injury go hand in hand, and this game is armor-centric right now.

[FrauGloer]

True, but first impressions do mean something :P

But yes, the new one is better

I liked the old one better. I think it was one of the best nicks on the board! Gave me such a laugh when I first read it. So innovative!
I don't understand why that bit of fun was such a bad thing, actually... oh well, your new nick isn't bad either.

To return to topic, I agree that the current system is "fairly" well-balanced between archers and crossbowmen. Not perfect, though. I'm a supporter of slightly increasing longbowmen's rate of fire, while leaving all the others as they are. 7-8 volleys instead of 6 should do the trick. It's not much more, but noticably more. I would not increase their ammo, however. This way, the player has to keep an eye on his archers or they'll waste their arrows. This rather minor change shouln't be game-breaking, don't you think?

[Ulstan]

I doubt the question is how many would he kill, it's how many would he wound? How many would suffer reduced fighting ability due to his arrows? I have an impression that arrows often were an early incarnation of wounding theory. An archer might not have killed a single person, but if he has impaired the ability of a few enemies to fight, he's done a good job.

However, for that to be addressed in game terms, we would actually need a mechanic where injured soldiers continued on fighting, instead of 100% full capability or 100% dead. It could be as simple as adding a "wound bit" to the soldiers, that if they have it they suffer reduced stats and probably a stamina cap.

This would also be nice, because it could make archers very useful and powerful, but not something you can win the day with alone. Armor and nonfatal injury go hand in hand, and this game is armor-centric right now.

True, but look at Agincourt: there were about 6,000 English archers, and about 6,000 Frenchmen died total. This includes Frenchmen killed outright by arrows, Frenchmen killed in melee by English men at arms, Frenchmen wounded on the battlefield who were stranded and later killed by the english, etc.

Taken all together, it's clear that a very large number of archers wouldn't have even killed one man with bow fire during the entire battle.

Now, he no doubt wounded a couple and killed a couple horses and helped confuse the charge and so on.

[Lord_hazard]

Oh i think the english longbowmen at Agincourt killed atleast one frenchman:)

[Foz]

You may recall that earlier I was talking about the possibility of modding units to fire faster while maintaining their statistical power in the game. While I found out you couldn't make longbows fire any faster, I missed an important accompanying point to be made: you also cannot make them fire any slower. In other words, it appears that the "min delay between attacks" number in each unit's attack line in fact does nothing at all at the current moment. I just went back and tried setting it to 200 (for 20 second delay between attacks) as I had a hunch, and sure enough my longbows fired at the exact same speed they had when it was 25 and when it was 0. I'd guess the units do have some sort of wait time between attacks as the bowmen do not appear to be going right from firing into reloading, but seem to wait a bit. Probably it is no longer read in from the file but simply applied in the engine's hardcode, likely as a shortcut since IIRC every single unit had 25 for that number anyway.

[dopp]

Oh i think the english longbowmen at Agincourt killed atleast one frenchman:)

He means one each, of course, plus most of the killing seems to have been done in melee when the French infantry column was enveloped and slaughtered by the longbowmen with mallets. Statistically he is correct, the longbow could not have been as deadly as popular legend suggests given the number of losses suffered by the French, otherwise the entire French army would have been annihilated in the opening minute alone.

[Lord_hazard]

He means one each, of course, plus most of the killing seems to have been done in melee when the French infantry column was enveloped and slaughtered by the longbowmen with mallets. Statistically he is correct, the longbow could not have been as deadly as popular legend suggests given the number of losses suffered by the French, otherwise the entire French army would have been annihilated in the opening minute alone.

Oh ok my bad:) He is then right ofc:)

[Lord_hazard]

You may recall that earlier I was talking about the possibility of modding units to fire faster while maintaining their statistical power in the game. While I found out you couldn't make longbows fire any faster, I missed an important accompanying point to be made: you also cannot make them fire any slower. In other words, it appears that the "min delay between attacks" number in each unit's attack line in fact does nothing at all at the current moment. I just went back and tried setting it to 200 (for 20 second delay between attacks) as I had a hunch, and sure enough my longbows fired at the exact same speed they had when it was 25 and when it was 0. I'd guess the units do have some sort of wait time between attacks as the bowmen do not appear to be going right from firing into reloading, but seem to wait a bit. Probably it is no longer read in from the file but simply applied in the engine's hardcode, likely as a shortcut since IIRC every single unit had 25 for that number anyway.

Sad news for anyone who wants to make a total realism mod :(
But for doing the research on it.

[Kruniac]

You may recall that earlier I was talking about the possibility of modding units to fire faster while maintaining their statistical power in the game. While I found out you couldn't make longbows fire any faster, I missed an important accompanying point to be made: you also cannot make them fire any slower. In other words, it appears that the "min delay between attacks" number in each unit's attack line in fact does nothing at all at the current moment. I just went back and tried setting it to 200 (for 20 second delay between attacks) as I had a hunch, and sure enough my longbows fired at the exact same speed they had when it was 25 and when it was 0. I'd guess the units do have some sort of wait time between attacks as the bowmen do not appear to be going right from firing into reloading, but seem to wait a bit. Probably it is no longer read in from the file but simply applied in the engine's hardcode, likely as a shortcut since IIRC every single unit had 25 for that number anyway.

Just another reason this game should have been put back in the oven until it was done. Thats the saddest thing ever. They let us mod damage, defense, and even use cheatz0rz to get more money, but if we want to actually IMPROVE the game, its "OMFG NO HOUR HARDCOD LOLZ!"

[stev666]

He means one each, of course, plus most of the killing seems to have been done in melee when the French infantry column was enveloped and slaughtered by the longbowmen with mallets. Statistically he is correct, the longbow could not have been as deadly as popular legend suggests given the number of losses suffered by the French, otherwise the entire French army would have been annihilated in the opening minute alone.

Thats very true, in fact a large percentage of the french casualites were due to the execution of prisoners by the english. However the archers were very effective against mounted knights as the wounded horses would often throw their riders, so would have appeared to be a superweapon as kinghts were percieved to be the king of the battlefield at the time. And the majority of frenchmen supposedly fought on foot that day so the overall impact of the archers was not as devastating as some accounts make out. The victory at asingcourt was as much to do with terrain and weather and the impetuousness of the french nobility as any other factor.

[JCoyote]

But my wound idea holds. You could redo Agincourt in TW if you had wounded soldiers fighting. This way, archers don't have to be lethal to be useful. The archers might kill a few, but all the wounded knights left over might have their stats so diminished they'd be fighting like tired Town Militia and be easy pickings.