Archer stats - where?

[Grifman]

Ok, I've seen a number of posts saying good the Trebizond archers are, or the Bulgarian brigands, or longbowmen, or xbows, etc. Great but where are the facts? Where are the stats to back up these various claims? I know that the melee stats for archers are available, but I'm talking missile stats - range, rate of fire, damage, any modifiers, etc. Haven't seen this anywhere. I've seen someone claim that Bulgarian brigands are as good as longbows, just shorter range, I've seen someone claim the Trebizond archers were better than regular archer. But where's the proof?

Grifman

[econ21]

Good question - I think everyone would like to know the answer. Apparently, the missile stats are hard-coded into the game but will be made modd-able in the patch, so the mysteries will be revealed.

I gather longbows are armour piercing in the same way that axes and polearms are - I have not heard that any other missiles are. However, crossbows and arbalests are supposed to be better against armoured opponents than normal bows - not sure if that is an AP property or just a higher "attack" kind of factor.

Rate of fire can probably be observed on the battlefield, not least through speed of ammo depletion - it seems
longbows>other bows>x-bows>arbalests

Range again presumably could be gauged on the battlefield but should be apparent with the patch.

Cavalry archers are inferior to foot - don't know precisely how that is factored in to the stats (I suspect it is reflected in relative firepower and not just the vulnerability of the horse, but I may be wrong).

Until we know the stats, I'd be inclined to believe commonsense and the hints in the strategy guide/unit descriptions. Personally, I'd work on the assumption that the Trebizond's are better at shooting than normal archers but would doubt that the Bulgarians match the longbow in terms of AP capability.

[hiver77]

Speaking of which, consider the scenario for a newbie Turk player (me!):

Hmm, which archer should I use?
- Desert Archer
- Turcoman Foot Soldiers (sounds like pure archer with good defence)
- Futtuwa (archers + highlander combo)
- Ottoman Infantry (archer + really bad melee + bad defence)
- Jannisary Archer (why do I want this if I have Jan. Inf below?)
- Jannisary Infantry
- Crossbow?

Of course, after the Jans are available, the choice is obvious. But prior to that, I'd like to know which are better

[Kraxis]

After the patch we will see the good old projectile file return...

Then we can compare the archers ROF, power, AP and accuracy.

AP for Longbows are 50%, meaning that target armour is only 50% of what it really is.

I think Trebizond Archers are more accurate and have a little more power than normal archers, but they don't have better range, or else it is very small.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

[hrvojej]

hiver77, I use desert archers as front-line skirmishers, and Ottomans as the second line archers. I would stay out of Turcomans (rabble-like formation, bad morale, abysmal attack) for sure. Futtuwas are decent, but slighlty unreliable (impetuous and low on defense, like ghazi with bows). I generally go with Ottomans alone, as they are decent, disciplined, and can even plug holes in the line if the need requires it, unlike most other archers, and therefore can be useful even when they are out of ammo. They have decent defense (for a missile unit), and after the patch their armour-piercing capabilities should be more pronounced.
And you might want to have Janissary archers instead of J. infantry if you're fighting in the desert due to their lower armour, apart from that, I don't see that they can be superior in any other situation.