Improving Archers

[caravel]

I wanted to solve this somehow and came to the conclusion that a much increased lethality for all missile types combined with a drastic decrease in quantity of missiles per man was the way to go. This way you get about as many kills 'per quiver' (spelled correctly?) but in a lot less time.

One of the biggest advantages of missile units is the "under fire" morale penalty and not the unrealistic blitzing of a unit or units and doing maximum damage in a short time as this also decreases the time the unit is under fire.

Most Heavy Cavalry (Feudal Knights, Kataphraktoi, Mongol Heavy Cavalry etc, etc, etc) would have been well protected against standard shortbows and would only be significantly vulnerable to bolts from arbalests or the bodkin arrows from the longbow.

As with the others I would argue the opposite to your method in that a larger ammo load is the best approach to improving archers. If you want to create different bows to represent compounds or Mongol bows then that is a good idea but a small increase in lethality over the standard shortbow is the best bet to avoid the new bow(s) becoming too overpowered.

[bondovic]

One of the biggest advantages of missile units is the "under fire" morale penalty and not the unrealistic blitzing of a unit or units and doing maximum damage in a short time as this also decreases the time the unit is under fire.

Most Heavy Cavalry (Feudal Knights, Kataphraktoi, Mongol Heavy Cavalry etc, etc, etc) would have been well protected against standard shortbows and would only be significantly vulnerable to bolts from arbalests or the bodkin arrows from the longbow.

As with the others I would argue the opposite to your method in that a larger ammo load is the best approach to improving archers. If you want to create different bows to represent compounds or Mongol bows then that is a good idea but a small increase in lethality over the standard shortbow is the best bet to avoid the new bow(s) becoming too overpowered.

As for the first part I don't see it as inherently bad that a unit is under fire for a shorter time, and, as I understand you, recieve less of a moral penalty. Does it change the gameplay? Apparently so. Does it make the game unplayable? Certainly not. It just means less time spent on skirmishing and fighting a foe with slightly better morale. "Unrealistic blitzing". Hmm. What's so "unrealistic" about non armoured units dying from arrow fire?

800 arrows killed 17 katatanks. Is this also unrealistic? Have you not read my posts that carefully?

I'm hear you, when you say that the "best" way to improve archers is by giving them more ammo. That would be from within your box of thought (no disrespect intended). I'm calling for a change in gameplay - as opposed to a slight change in balance that would be an improvement inside the parameters of the existing role for the archer units.

For me it's more challenging facing these new archers. And I like the faster pace of the battles. I understand now, though, that this is not appealing to most, and I shall proceed to withdraw in order to become one with my shame.


Stay Turkish
rgrds
B

[caravel]

As for the first part I don't see it as inherently bad that a unit is under fire for a shorter time, and, as I understand you, recieve less of a moral penalty. Does it change the gameplay? Apparently so.

It changes gameplay in that it makes the game less tactical. Archers should primarily be morale breakers and should assist in wearing down and enemy not simply units that decimate a chosen enemy unit.

Does it make the game unplayable? Certainly not. It just means less time spent on skirmishing and fighting a foe with slightly better morale. "Unrealistic blitzing". Hmm. What's so "unrealistic" about non armoured units dying from arrow fire?

Non armoured units may still have shields with which to catch incoming missiles, so they won't all drop dead under fantasy movie style arrow storm.

800 arrows killed 17 katatanks. Is this also unrealistic? Have you not read my posts that carefully?

You increased lethality as I understand it? But the armour that keeps the Kataphraktoi alive vs regular missiles is still there. This is perhaps why your arrows had little effect, though Puzz3D would know more about this than I would. It's not just a case of altering one parameter as I understand it, but involves a careful balancing several.

I'm hear you, when you say that the "best" way to improve archers is by giving them more ammo. That would be from within your box of thought (no disrespect intended). I'm calling for a change in gameplay - as opposed to a slight change in balance that would be an improvement inside the parameters of the existing role for the archer units.

Not from within my "box of thought" as you call it, but from within my own experience of the tests that I've run in the past and from reading the info available on this board. At the end of the day though it's up to you, I can only give an opinion which is what you asked for in your first post on this subject:

Thoughts?

For me it's more challenging facing these new archers. And I like the faster pace of the battles. I understand now, though, that this is not appealing to most, and I shall proceed to withdraw in order to become one with my shame.


Stay Turkish
rgrds
B

It may be challenging facing those new archers, as it is challenging facing Viking Huscarles, but as with the latter it's also far too easy when you're the one fielding these types of units. IMHO the kind of archer you're trying to develop reminds me too much of Javelin units, in that it will fire a volley at a particular unit, deal out massive casualties and rout that unit instantly. The slower morale damaging effect of shortbow archers, especially with increased ammo count, is a more effective and balanced model. Historically archery was used in this manner, in that it would keep an enemy unit pinned down and demoralised.

[bondovic]

It changes gameplay in that it makes the game less tactical. Archers should primarily be morale breakers and should assist in wearing down and enemy not simply units that decimate a chosen enemy unit.


Non armoured units may still have shields with which to catch incoming missiles, so they won't all drop dead under fantasy movie style arrow storm.


You increased lethality as I understand it? But the armour that keeps the Kataphraktoi alive vs regular missiles is still there. This is perhaps why your arrows had little effect, though Puzz3D would know more about this than I would. It's not just a case of altering one parameter as I understand it, but involves a careful balancing several.


Not from within my "box of thought" as you call it, but from within my own experience of the tests that I've run in the past and from reading the info available on this board. At the end of the day though it's up to you, I can only give an opinion which is what you asked for in your first post on this subject:




It may be challenging facing those new archers, as it is challenging facing Viking Huscarles, but as with the latter it's also far too easy when you're the one fielding these types of units. IMHO the kind of archer you're trying to develop reminds me too much of Javelin units, in that it will fire a volley at a particular unit, deal out massive casualties and rout that unit instantly. The slower morale damaging effect of shortbow archers, especially with increased ammo count, is a more effective and balanced model. Historically archery was used in this manner, in that it would keep an enemy unit pinned down and demoralised.

You make it sound like I have constructed a super archer that consumes the enemy on sight. About the only thing that is significantly different from before is that HA's are a little bit more effective, since they don't need 15 volleys (or such, I'm probably exaggerating wildly now) to damage defending screening cavalry. As to not cause additional confusion on this, the screening cavalry will probably be mounted sergeants, steppe cav, hobilars etc - not the heavily armoured chargers such as knights and kata (I made the mistake of calling all meele cav "heavy cav" in an earlier post). My main point was that it is too easy to neutralize HA's under vanilla stats by chasing them from the map. I feel there is need for clarification regarding this, since this point seems to get lost quite repeatedly. Now, the HA's are at least a threat, as it is possible to hurt light cavalry screeens with a couple of volleys.

The shields are really out of my control, as long as I don't edit them out of each unit. So, those units probably won't die especially either. As a matter of fact - they don't. So, again, I don't see how you can call this "fantasy movie arrow storm style" and such. It really (really!) isn't that bad!

I gladly accept that people don't like the idea of faster killing with arrows because they like the gameplay fine as it is. I just don't want you guys to get the wrong idea about what I've done, as I feel that you have. I just hoped someone would like the idea, beacuase... well, it's always nice when people like your ideas.

But I hear you, I hear you.

[Ravencroft]

Dude, I get it. Really.

So HAs are now supposed to be able to kill a few light cav now, innit?

So it basically doesn't make them overpowered or anything, just makes them more potent killers (although I agree that archers are meant to break enemy morale) so you can harass them more, right.

That's all my two cents' worth.

[bondovic]

Thats's about it, yes.

[Puzz3D]

I gladly accept that people don't like the idea of faster killing with arrows because they like the gameplay fine as it is. I just don't want you guys to get the wrong idea about what I've done, as I feel that you have. I just hoped someone would like the idea, beacuase... well, it's always nice when people like your ideas.

I don't like your new gameplay because your archers inflict their full damage in 16 seconds. That's not enough time to either return fire effectively (the target unit will loose too many men to the first volley) or to move the target out of range (the units don't move fast enough to get out of range in 16 seconds). Your archer is no longer a skirmisher, but is now a unit used to inflict unacceptable looses upon a charging enemy which is something archers could not do historically.

The trajectory of the arrow tends to carry it over the heads of units moving towards it especially cavalry which move faster than infantry. This is intentionally designed this way so that archers are vulnerable to all types of cavalry to maintain the combined arms gameplay. It also means the defender has to come close to matching the melee power of the attacker minus whatever advantages he can achieve against the attacker using terrain, fatigue and ranged fire. You don't want any one tactical factor to predominated because that will devalue the others. The full potential of the gameplay is realized only when all the tactical aspects of the battle engine are balanced relative to one another.

[bondovic]

Your archer is no longer a skirmisher, but is now a unit used to inflict unacceptable looses upon a charging enemy which is something archers could not do historically.

Actually, archers were able to do exactly this. The Longbow especially, but other non armour piercing arrows were effectively designed to take out infantry and horses if not always the heavily armoured knights. And if the historical archers corresponding/translating to MTW's basic 'Archer' were not particularly effective, the composite bow wielding archers of Eurasia and the middle east were (meaning - Turcomans, Mamluks, Jennies, Steppe folk etc.)!

Anywho. There is not a system for simulating injuries in MTW. We'll just have to accept that a mounted unit that get their horse shot up counts as 'dead' rather than see a foot unit 'pop up' in its stead (although that would be awesome). Same with injuries, but that's easier - severe injuries = dead in game, minor injuries = not dead in game, shot up horse = dead in game. And this is why I feel that my changes are not completely outlandish regarding the simulation of history.

But my guess is that you don't really want to roll with the Historical Accuracy argument all the way, since gameplay goes out the window if everyone uses 75% archer armies. Thing is, maybe the generals of old could have used 5 yrs+ of MTW gaming before going to field. We, ofc, understand that, basically, no matter how powerful an archer we face (as long as it is within a certain range) 75% archers is easy pickings if we sport enough cavs. Which has been my point all along. I just wanted to be able to use HA's in a different (I confess, more historically accurate) way, which had a rippling effect on all missile stats. I dig the Turks, so shoot me!

Just wanted to call you on this.

[Brave]

Nah not for me, a bet a lot of work went into researching the archers' kill rate and CA found that to be the correct value. Leave it as it is.

[Martok]

Nah not for me, a bet a lot of work went into researching the archers' kill rate and CA found that to be the correct value.

That's not necessarily the case. With well over 100 units to balance for MTW, the possibility is all too likely that CA wouldn't have had the time to properly adjust the stats for all them. (Huscarles are another example of this.)

As I stated earlier in this thread, vanilla archers are in fact a bit underpowered in my experience, especially when compared to their training & support costs. If they were just a little bit more effective, they would fully be worth what you pay for them.

[caravel]

Nah not for me, a bet a lot of work went into researching the archers' kill rate and CA found that to be the correct value. Leave it as it is.

Compared to STW, MTW's unit balance is poor. There are many "uber units" that imbalance the game and more emphasis on armour, weapon and valour upgrades is shown. The actual base level unit balance itself is very erratic. There is also a lot of redundancy and many expensive units that are not worth training as they do not fit any useful role. VI added to this problem in that new units were added to the main campaign in a very disjointed manner. For example, in vanilla MTW the Danes had a superb battle winning easy to train and low cost unit in the "Vikings", VI added almost all of the Viking units from the VI campaign in addition to these. This made the original Vikings seem somewhat redundant. The highly overpowered Viking Huscarles in particular are so imbalanced that you find yourself having to use "surgical" tactics to defeat them and often take massive losses. And when you're fielding them in battle yourself you cannot exactly lose.

[Kamakazi]

Compared to STW, MTW's unit balance is poor. There are many "uber units" that imbalance the game and more emphasis on armour, weapon and valour upgrades is shown. The actual base level unit balance itself is very erratic. There is also a lot of redundancy and many expensive units that are not worth training as they do not fit any useful role. VI added to this problem in that new units were added to the main campaign in a very disjointed manner. For example, in vanilla MTW the Danes had a superb battle winning easy to train and low cost unit in the "Vikings", VI added almost all of the Viking units from the VI campaign in addition to these. This made the original Vikings seem somewhat redundant. The highly overpowered Viking Huscarles in particular are so imbalanced that you find yourself having to use "surgical" tactics to defeat them and often take massive losses. And when you're fielding them in battle yourself you cannot exactly lose.

ill second that it is nearly impossible to win a decisive victory against those troops and they are rather good if you use them. The game is unbalanced but over all it is still good as vanilla

[Heidrek]

Yep, a single unit of Huscales rrouted my entire Irish army yesterday. Didn't matter what I threw at them, they just shrugged it off and kept tearing on through.

The wierd thing is though, I recently fought against a unit of super Huscarles - the legendary Joms Vikings and routed them fairly easily (still took 1 for 1 losses) by javelin shower/flanking them, but the Huscarles I faced yesterday were simply unstopable.

[caravel]

That's the big flaw with such overpowered units. When you have to tip toe around them and use massed crossbows, mounted crossbows or javelins just to kill them the game starts to enter the realms of fantasy. The Huscarles should have an edge over other units but they should not require to be shot at in order to be killed off. The Jomsvikings are particularly nasty. You rarely see those fielded by the AI. The reason why they're usually weaker than the Viking Huscarles is because each Viking Huscarle unit is usually headed by a jedi prince.

[Heidrek]

The Huscarles were the Kings unit - but aside from the King himself having a few extra HP, why does the Jedi leader matter? I didn't even get him down to 10 men, let alone the last guy.

I have however fallen in love with Javelins now. Huscarles are MUCH more managable when they have a javelin through their chest. Smashed two units of Huscarles, a half unit of Joms, a Landsmen and 2 units of beserkers primarily using an army of mainly Kerns, plus a unit of Gallowglasses, some horsemen, a bonnachts and a single Armoured Spearmen unit. captured their prince too.

No idea how I'd handle them without nailing them to the ground with Javelins first. They really should take 2-3 years to build like ships or siege engines.

Aside from the Picts, does any other faction have a mounted archer unit in VI?

On topic: I see Javelin units functioning in much the same way as the super archer units discussed here. If you were to increase the range of a javelin unit and decrease their AP ability you'd have a similar effect. Based on my experiences with Javelins at the moment I think this would prove simply devastating, so very careful consideration would need to be given before changing archers stats to anything resembling this.

[caravel]

The Huscarles were the Kings unit - but aside from the King himself having a few extra HP, why does the Jedi leader matter? I didn't even get him down to 10 men, let alone the last guy.

The unit leader's command stars give a boost in valour to the unit. The Viking royalty tend to be quite high.

I have however fallen in love with Javelins now. Huscarles are MUCH more managable when they have a javelin through their chest. Smashed two units of Huscarles, a half unit of Joms, a Landsmen and 2 units of beserkers primarily using an army of mainly Kerns, plus a unit of Gallowglasses, some horsemen, a bonnachts and a single Armoured Spearmen unit. captured their prince too.

I find Pictish crossbows and mounted crossbows to be another way to deal with them, but a good salvo from the bonnachts does sort them out. Avoid dartmen vs huscarles though as their darts are not AP. Dartmen are sort of the Irish's substitute for archers.

No idea how I'd handle them without nailing them to the ground with Javelins first. They really should take 2-3 years to build like ships or siege engines.

They're notoriously overpowered. The expansion packs for the first two TW games are known for adding imbalancing factors.

Aside from the Picts, does any other faction have a mounted archer unit in VI?

Off the top of my head, no.

On topic: I see Javelin units functioning in much the same way as the super archer units discussed here. If you were to increase the range of a javelin unit and decrease their AP ability you'd have a similar effect. Based on my experiences with Javelins at the moment I think this would prove simply devastating, so very careful consideration would need to be given before changing archers stats to anything resembling this.

Javelins are very powerful, the best way to balance them is to give very limited ammo count and ensure that the unit has some kind of secondary function (i.e. not throw javelins and withdraw from battle).

[Heidrek]

I'm glad i tried the Irish in VI as it's given me a real appreciation for what Javelins can do. I'm going to make much better use of them in XL now. Particularly effective is to have a Spear line with a unit of Javelins streched out 2 deep infront and another behind the spear. The one in front volleys then retreats behind the spear line, and while retreating and establishing themselves again, the second unit (on engage at will) volleys. By the time the enemy unit reaches the spears, they will ahve taken significant losses, and will actually lose to the spears over time rather than the other way around. Works best of course when defending a hill.

Even basic javelin units can be an effective counter to strong infantry like CS's and CMAA's when used like this. They can then act as flanking troops, though they will probably not be very good unless they are Kerns or Bonnachts.