Kingdoms balance discussion

[Lupu]

What are archers for then?
IF I rush I dont take archers.

[TosaInu]

What are archers for then?
IF I rush I dont take archers.

High arc fire out of cover and high rate fire to quickly take out light armoured units. So, archers can be useful when rushing or being rushed (the opponent needs to have easy targets though).

[Puzz3D]

Pavise crossbowmen look perfect to me as they are now.

What makes pavise crossbowmen beating more expensive archers perfect? If Samurai Wars had that kind of playbalance, players would say it was unbalanced.

[Lupu]

The pavs dont win in mellee only, but if the archers have to attack and they can shoot smoe volleys they do, the test was with genoese xbows against byz guard archers and ottoman inf, the AI didnt even countercharge.

[Puzz3D]

The pavs dont win in mellee only, but if the archers have to attack and they can shoot smoe volleys they do

That's what I was trying to say. I changed my post to reflect that.

Here is the playbalance chosen in Samurai Wars which is also about the same as in original STW:

Archer unit costs 400. The best gun unit costs 300. These are 60 man units. The archer doesn't have enough morale to charge the gun without first skirmishing. The archer unit skirmishes against the gun unit at long range, with both in loose formation, killing more than they loose because they shoot faster. At the point the archer unit is out of arrows (2.5 minutes) it has killed about 40 men in the gun unit and lost about 10 men. Once they are out of arrows the archer can charge and beat the gun unit. If the archer doesn't charge, the gun will keep shooting them since it has more ammo (7 minutes) and eventually the archer will no longer have enough men to successfully charge.

[CeltiberoMordred]

What makes pavise crossbowmen beating more expensive archers perfect?

That statement is false. Archers aren't more expensive than crossbows.

And as I told before, I will gladly explain you how Kingdoms or Retrofit works. Or even better, get Kingdoms and try to understand how it works before relying on opinions of others before posting Kingdoms balance is bad.

Kingdoms is not Shogun and it doesn't use the MTW/VI engine either, so it's pointless comparing eggs with socks. And you are perfectly aware of that.

I understand this kind of thread is perfect to advertise your mod telling how good and balanced is Samurai Wars, but please I beg you to stop going off-topic everytime.

[Lupu]

Just overlook the SAMURI WARS every where, just like you overlook, "then you poor "TineMilk(R)" into the bottle and shake" in sponsored cookbooks.
Not all archers but many are more expensive, for example those i tested.

[Puzz3D]

That statement is false. Archers aren't more expensive than crossbows.

Ottoman Infantry are not more expensive than pavise crossbows?

And as I told before, I will gladly explain you how Kingdoms or Retrofit works. Or even better, get Kingdoms and try to understand how it works before relying on opinions of others before posting Kingdoms balance is bad.

If a more expensive unit cannot beat a cheaper unit then it's unbalanced. The only exception to this would be anti-cav infantry which beat more expensive cav. One player posted corroborating Lupu's test result, and no one posted a contrary result for the same test.

Kingdoms is not Shogun and it doesn't use the MTW/VI engine either, so it's pointless comparing eggs with socks. And you are perfectly aware of that.

You're the one who brought up the comparison to MTW/VI in this thread, and I pointed out that since the earlier game had discounts on upgrades of ranged units the comparison was not valid.

I understand this kind of thread is perfect to advertise your mod telling how good and balanced is Samurai Wars, but please I beg you to stop going off-topic everytime.

I'm not advertising the mod except in my signature. All my posts in this thread discuss unit to unit playbalance. All of the Total war games up to now are supposed to have rock, paper, scissors gameplay, so that should be a common element running through all of the games.

[Denali]

The pavs dont win in mellee only, but if the archers have to attack and they can shoot smoe volleys they do, the test was with genoese xbows against byz guard archers and ottoman inf, the AI didnt even countercharge.

Never make tests with the AI! I made the same mistake back in rome, I wanted to make a list of whether unit A beats Unit B with weapon 1 or 2 etc.

The units react weird and unrealistic (why do archers mingle around after they shot all their ammo, if they could help flanking the enemy?)

If you wanna test those things, I suggest you ask a clanmate. When I was in SA I sometimes spent more time doing tests than actually play the game.

[Wolf_Kyolic]

As far as I understand when making Retrofit, they balanced it in a way that would lead the players to pick armies of varied units instead of the cliche heavy cav, swords and missle army. Have they succseed that? IMO yes.

Me and Mordred did some tests last night. I insisted that he could not beat my cliche western army with a light cav, spear and missle army. He has! :)

He had 4 pavs, 4 strong archers and I had 4 cheap pavs and 2 peasant archers. I routed him quick on the first hand because he did not have enough cavs to block me flanking but while I was routing him, his archers were shooting me like mad and they did manage to thin my army like a piece of paper. When he recovered and engaged back I lost.

I do not agree that archers are functionless. You do not get them to fight vs pavs. They have a deeper tactical function. Ever heard of "Pao Push"?

[Lupu]

@denali: yes, becaus the AI normally looses with superior units even in unit vs unit tests, but it actually won there, with cheaper units.

@Cyolic, "cheap pavs" ? cheap xbows? Moorsih peasant xbows? They are uber vs pavs in price/value, but I talk about normal archers with non ap.
Moors can win missile vs pavs, but what about factions that have no AP missiles.
I dont know what "pao push" is but is it shooting at inf or something?
Its just to withdraw or chage...

[Wolf_Kyolic]

Moors can win missile vs pavs, but what about factions that have no AP missiles.

Zupu you do not get it??????????? They do NOT have to win missle battle vs pavs. That's what everyone is telling to you. Understand it already.

Archers do N O T have to win missle battle vs pavs.

Ok?

[Lupu]

[playing stupid]so theyre for loosing missile battle vs pavs?[/playing stupid]
So you claim that all factions without AP missile have to rush vs pavs :/?
I dont say you cant beat pav factions with factions like turks or mongols, I only think the missile battle is unbalanced.

[Wolf_Kyolic]

I am claiming this:

...

[Fenix7]

So you claim that all factions without AP missile have to rush vs pavs :/?

It depends what gamestyle you like.

I dont say you cant beat pav factions with factions like turks or mongols, I only think the missile battle is unbalanced.

Why archers should be able to win against pavis units? What's the point to have pavise units in first place if bows would be able to beat them? Why to have different missile unit types in this case? It's ok as it is. IMO

Archers never had a role (not even logbows - history is full of errors) to win a ''missile duel''. There was no missile battles in history with which I'm familiar with. Archers had similar role as artillery has this days (supporting element and that's it). To soften opponent units before the melee and to to make confusion during the melee and to do colleteral damage at the end of the battle if you had enough troops in reserve and you could afford that.

[Lupu]

Wenn did crossbows have that role?
The point of having pavs is using them as missile units, no more, but it is not to beat more expensive units with, ofcource they should beat cheaper archer units, what you say is like saying: whats the point of having infantry if they cant beat tanks(very overdriven example)
if playing historical, archers would be fine, but in retrofit theres actually a missile duel, its no point in having units being superior at a thing you cant use them for.

[Cheetah]

I dont say you cant beat pav factions with factions like turks or mongols, I only think the missile battle is unbalanced.

Lupu, the missile battle might be indeed unbalanced but (i) it would be boring if all faction would have the same strenght in missile duels; (ii) you do not have to play out the missile duel vs pavs if you do not have them.
However, and this is the source of the confusion, you do not have to do an all out rush if you do not want to play out a missile duel. It is not a black or white situation: missile duel with pavs or an all out rush. The idea is to keep the enemy pavs and cavs busy while you can use your archers to shot expensive enemy troops (which is their main function anway). Of course a good player will not allow you to get away with it and you will be rushed, but then you have options and hopefully you have already weakened some of the enemy troops.

[Wolf_Kyolic]

Lupu, the missile battle might be indeed unbalanced but (i) it would be boring if all faction would have the same strenght in missile duels; (ii) you do not have to play out the missile duel vs pavs if you do not have them.
However, and this is the source of the confusion, you do not have to do an all out rush if you do not want to play out a missile duel. It is not a black or white situation: missile duel with pavs or an all out rush. The idea is to keep the enemy pavs and cavs busy while you can use your archers to shot expensive enemy troops (which is their main function anway). Of course a good player will not allow you to get away with it and you will be rushed, but then you have options and hopefully you have already weakened some of the enemy troops.

Exactly.

He cannot see it from this perspective and he keeps repeating the same thing over and over.

Lupu read Cheetah's post a couple of times and try to understand what is meant there please. So that we can end this discussion and move on. There are some real issues to discuss about the balance and we are wasting time here for the last 30 posts.


-(I bet, again he is gonna post; "but how about archers being inferior to pavs" or something)-

[Lupu]

Ansver to i: No, because missile units have different prices, and not all factions missiles cost the same.

Ansver to ii: If you shoot at the enemy main army where archers kill more than xbows, its so easy to go back and than everything you get is a volley from the pavs at close range which is very powerful. To advance forward every time to get 1 volley the pavs allready killed much more of your archers, that can be good in mellee too, if not as good as enemy elites.

This stratgy is something I attampted a week ago.
Try 1: I advance shoot one volley and am not able to protect them from enemy cav due to distance to own cav.
Try 2: the enemy goes backwards, each time I advance, an the only thing that happens is that the pavs kill my archers.
Try 3: The same as try 2 but now I try to charge the enemy with my cav, the enemy reacts... and again only my archers die, or the enemy rushes and my army cant protect the archers.

[LadyAnn]

What are archers for then?
IF I rush I dont take archers.

You may want to take archers and put them behind your rushing infantry. That's something the xbows, pav.xbows and gunners cannot do: archers can fire into the enemy's mass over their own. When you rush, your cav is busy counter other cav, or it is too tight for cav to opperate. Then your archers could rush the pav guys or chase off routing infantry, while you keep your cav and infantry together to continue the fight.

In the case of more expensive archers, the hybrids, they are even more valuable.

Annie

[LadyAnn]

What makes pavise crossbowmen beating more expensive archers perfect? If Samurai Wars had that kind of playbalance, players would say it was unbalanced.

I could use the exact same quote to complain about Samwars' guns. If it were balanced, I could have brought an army without guns and still had a viable army. Although am not a good player, I wouldn't be able to use my own experience to validate the claim, but I did try to bring an army without guns and got shot like a seive. To date, I have not seen any army without a sizeable number of guns. New players to the mod quickly realized it. The analogy is similar to what Lupu claims for M2:TW: that a faction without pav. arb. is forced (by chosing that faction) to be of disadvantage.

Saying that, I didn't say Samwars were less balanced than other games, nor did i say I didn't enjoy the Sunday games. I actually look forward to play those games.

Annie

[Lupu]

Xbows can that too, but I think they have a high damage penalty.
They also shoot nearly upwards than(possible?) but they do less damage than archers in that time, are weaker in mellee, in that place archers are superior, but other uses...

[TosaInu]

Xbows can that too, but I think they have a high damage penalty.

Do what Lupu?

They also shoot nearly upwards than(possible?)

Yes, I noticed and wondered about that as well. I don't think it is impossible, but it looks pretty odd to me to see crossbows being used in an elevation of more than a few (tens of) degrees. The crossbow is for armour penetration in a flat trajectory at shorter to medium distances. The bow should be better at longer and even very long ranges: higher firerate, probably more accurate at longer range and also more powerful at longer range. This is just guessing though (and highly depends which (x)bows and ammo you compare).

Shooting near straight up in the air to hit a target several hundred yards away (or nearer by but say out of sight because of trees) using a longbow is not all that easy. The archer will get some visual feedback from his arrow during parts of its trajectory and can quickly release a second if necessary. That's even less true for a crossbow (shorter arrows/bolts, longer reload).

but they do less damage than archers in that time

You mean per volley?

but other uses...

Can crossbows in M2TW/Kingdoms fire a target in woods or fire out of the woods?

[TosaInu]

I could use the exact same quote to complain about Samwars' guns. If it were balanced, I could have brought an army without guns and still had a viable army. Although am not a good player, I wouldn't be able to use my own experience to validate the claim, but I did try to bring an army without guns and got shot like a seive. To date, I have not seen any army without a sizeable number of guns. New players to the mod quickly realized it. The analogy is similar to what Lupu claims for M2:TW: that a faction without pav. arb. is forced (by chosing that faction) to be of disadvantage.

Saying that, I didn't say Samwars were less balanced than other games, nor did i say I didn't enjoy the Sunday games. I actually look forward to play those games.

Annie

Hello LadyAnn,

Correct. There are different kinds of balance. You could say this shooter is 10% better while shooting, so it should also be 10% more expensive than the other shooter. But abilities and chances (lottery tickets aren't free) have a price too.

A Kingdoms example: 200 florin peasant archers will cut a 800 florin greekfire thrower unit down to 50% in a range duel. Simply because the archer can shoot long before the thrower gets within their own range. Even if the full archer is blasted away then (something the thrower could still do), the archer has killed twice what it costs. If you look just at missile performance in that duel: totally unbalanced.

The thrower however has the ability to kill many of even the heaviest of units at once (difficult to do, but possible). An archer unit can never hope to do such a thing.

Disclaimer: not stating one is still over/under priced or not.

When it rains, guns either stop firing or get a lot of misfire. Wet bowstrings will have a negative effect too, but much less. Guns can not fire into woods or out of it (stray bullets, thin woods and edges of wood aside), archers can. Archers can take aim beyond obstacles such as forests and small hills, guns can not.

[Puzz3D]

I could use the exact same quote to complain about Samwars' guns. If it were balanced, I could have brought an army without guns and still had a viable army.

The archer (cost 400) beats the gun (cost 300) in Sam Wars. To do this you have to be able to charge into melee once the archers weaken the guns, but you can't do it alone in team games since you'll get double teamed. Is the archer cost effective? Yes if you can inflict some casualties on more expensive melee units, but perhaps no if you only use it to beat the cheaper gun.

Although am not a good player, I wouldn't be able to use my own experience to validate the claim, but I did try to bring an army without guns and got shot like a seive.

Of course this will happen if your team waits too long to attack. You can't skirmish with archers for as long as you can with guns.

To date, I have not seen any army without a sizeable number of guns. New players to the mod quickly realized it.

It's easier to play with guns because you can hold your ground and you don't have to mount an attack, but beware if you loose those guns to cav. I take guns because the team play is not up to the highest level yet. Just the same I often take archers, and next Sunday I won't use any guns just to prove that you can play without them.

[Lupu]

@ Tosa inu:
I dont know about xbows firing in woods, but maps with tight wodds are normally not used for MP because they restrict what you can see and make battles very chaotic.
Less damage per volley, no ofcource xbows kill more per volley, I mean in the same time.

post 2 :
Yes peasant archers are price/value superior to greekfire, but isnt that meant to be the greekfires big weakness, missile fire?
Thats the challenge with it, but at most situations its nigh impossible to get you archers to fire at the enemy main army and theyll be in a missile duel vs pavs...

[TosaInu]

@ Tosa inu:
I dont know about xbows firing in woods, but maps with tight wodds are normally not used for MP because they restrict what you can see and make battles very chaotic.

Yes, that's true. But some practice can sort that, the routing difference between MTW and STW made battles in MTW more chaotic for me. Adjusting playstyle a bit fixed that.

I wouldn't claim just trying it a few times will do it for you, but different terrain favours different armies.

Maps with patches of trees and small hills are nice for archers.

Less damage per volley, no ofcource xbows kill more per volley, I mean in the same time.

We're talking about the shooting into the air right?

post 2 :
Yes peasant archers are price/value superior to greekfire, but isnt that meant to be the greekfires big weakness, missile fire?

Seems to me that anything hurts the greek fire throwers. They do have the power to change the tide though, it's hard to get that afaik. A gamble unit.

Thats the challenge with it, but at most situations its nigh impossible to get you archers to fire at the enemy main army and theyll be in a missile duel vs pavs...

I recognise the situation. Try to avoid the range duel with pavs? The right map can help.

[Lupu]

With the less damage per volley I meant direct fire, about arcing I dont know.
But when I stand on hills people complain for hill camping and if I go into woods, the battle ends as a huge mess, what isnt fun.

[TosaInu]

With the less damage per volley I meant direct fire, about arcing I dont know.

Oh, I thought you were talking about arcfire and killing less per volley than archers then (They also shoot nearly upwards than(possible?) but they do less damage than archers in that time). Sorry for misunderstanding.

[Hunter KIng George]

next Sunday I won't use any guns just to prove that you can play without them.

Ill be looking forward to this next Sunday.

But since I am not a very good player, I doubt my loosing ways will change.