Archers; Too heavily armed

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Swadian General said:
Well with what you just said, it does come alot under the "wealth" of the person. But still it is common sense to have archewrs very lightly armored, example: not brandishing a 5 foot long axe and a shield, i am not stating that archers shouldn't have sheilds but only if they had smaller arms, maybe if there was some sort of small dagger, that would prove useful and could even block?
Click to expand...

Why is it common sense that they should be lesser armed? Is it because every half-assed historical game and TV show depict them as lightly armored and equipped? There were trained and professional missile troops that do have good equipment compared with the infantry, they did engage in melee combat from time to time when it was needed of them, like the genoese crossbowmen in their service and the English longbowmen fighting hand to hand at Agincourt and other such battles in the Hundred Years war. If the soldiers in these campaigns were veterans and have seen more than one battle, who's to say they never looted bodies for armor and weapons to use themselves, wouldn't you?
Granted shooting a crossbow or a bow is very tiring, although I don't think this would force the majority of the missile troops to smaller less effective weapons if the better option was feasible.
 
I agree that some kinds of archer are too heavily armed for balance versus melee units, but in my opinion this has less to do with historical realism as it has to do with game limitations; your army size is limited by an arbitrary mancount, which means you will be fielding exclusively elite troops if you can afford it (which is easy to do), the battles are also too small, and your men too unwieldy for most historical tactics to be efficient.

Historically, you would find foot archers decked in anything for ordinary workmans clothes to mail armor, and it was not unheard of for melee troops to carry bows (vikings, for instace, were quite fond of this). Besides, if archers were the soft targets some of you want them to be, they would be easily overrun by the lowliest of cavalry, as the formation system is currently way too clumsy to effectively protect them. Since the engine cannot give an accurate description of full scale battles at the present, it makes sense to make the archers halfway competent in melee, and since there are currently very few incentives for keeping lower tier units if you can upgrade them, any player would get the the best ones around, which rightly should be tough nuts to crack (but perhaps weaker in output).

And don't get me started on crossbowmen...
 
You can pretend that it's only a small part of a real battle :razz:
It's easier to maneouver a smaller force. That's why you don't have one guy to run everything that has got to with military tactics.
 
John.Kjeken said:
I agree that some kinds of archer are too heavily armed for balance versus melee units, but in my opinion this has less to do with historical realism as it has to do with game limitations; your army size is limited by an arbitrary mancount, which means you will be fielding exclusively elite troops if you can afford it (which is easy to do), the battles are also too small, and your men too unwieldy for most historical tactics to be efficient.

Historically, you would find foot archers decked in anything for ordinary workmans clothes to mail armor, and it was not unheard of for melee troops to carry bows (vikings, for instace, were quite fond of this). Besides, if archers were the soft targets some of you want them to be, they would be easily overrun by the lowliest of cavalry, as the formation system is currently way too clumsy to effectively protect them. Since the engine cannot give an accurate description of full scale battles at the present, it makes sense to make the archers halfway competent in melee, and since there are currently very few incentives for keeping lower tier units if you can upgrade them, any player would get the the best ones around, which rightly should be tough nuts to crack (but perhaps weaker in output).

And don't get me started on crossbowmen...
Click to expand...

I think you are right. Even if archers are too heavily armed right now (and I don´t think so), they are not very difficult to defeat. In fact, everything else is much harder to defeat in an open battle. As you said, the formation system is too clumsy and elite troops very easy to obtain.
 
Ok i dont mean altogether unarm them or nothing, i mean like seriously not many archers/missile units have giant axes maybe if they had better bow skills, better bows.Because when i play i see the highest bow they have is longbows, War bows they could have, seriously. But my main problem is you dont give an archer a big suit of plate armor or something you would give an archer small light armor Leather, light chain mail. So the archer/missile unit is more mobile and can get around to kill.
 
You mean the armor? I think you mean the lamellar vest the Khergits use.

Swadian General said:
Ok i dont mean altogether unarm them or nothing, i mean like seriously not many archers/missile units have giant axes maybe if they had better bow skills, better bows.
Click to expand...

They do have better bows, the higher one goes on the archer tree the better they are equipped with bows, armor, and melee weapons. Though they do get adequate melee weaponry, they still are no match for the infantry. They cannot compare with the proficiency and melee skill distribution that a footman has.

Because when i play i see the highest bow they have is longbows, War bows they could have, seriously. But my main problem is you dont give an archer a big suit of plate armor or something you would give an archer small light armor Leather, light chain mail.
Click to expand...

They don't have plate in M&B, nor has anyone here specifically said they had or should have  plate armor. The stuff on the most powerful archer in M&B is either the lamellar or a hauberk on the Rhodok crossbowmen or the Nord troops if you count throwing weapons.

So the archer/missile unit is more mobile and can get around to kill.
Click to expand...

Their traditional role on the battlefield has been to stand and shoot :???:, are you expecting them to run cross country in full battle dress?
 
No i mean as to run around, example:Infantry/Cavalry storm the position of archers, they run, if they have less encumbering armour they can run away, find a new position and shoot again.
 
A horse can gallop pretty damn fast. Taking off your armor to run is only applicable when your side has already lost and the only option is to put as much distance between you and them as possible. Wearing armor does slow you down a bit, but not so much that a person can't catch another person.
 
Ah you see that is one thing Taleworlds has not yet perfected.... Armour of that capacity would slow you down considerably, and as to the fact of cavalry they would be in groups charging together... therefore they would not be picked of as easily, if Armour was at it's right encumbrance for running speed etch, then the archer/missile units would be able to out run the infantry if they were armed with lighter Armour.And could force charge together so that cavalry could not pick them of as easily. As to them running that is something that would need to be perfected in AI side of the game. 
 
Swadian General said:
Ah you see that is one thing Taleworlds has not yet perfected.... Armour of that capacity would slow you down considerably, and as to the fact of cavalry they would be in groups charging together... therefore they would not be picked of as easily, if Armour was at it's right encumbrance for running speed etch, then the archer/missile units would be able to out run the infantry if they were armed with lighter Armour.And could force charge together so that cavalry could not pick them of as easily. As to them running that is something that would need to be perfected in AI side of the game.
Click to expand...

Cavalry does not and historically did not always charge as a group. They'd pursue fleeing people and cut them down. If you start running from cavalry, you're basically dead, unless you can run at 50km/h for a few miles.

And as for running speed, a trained man in armour is still going to move preety fast. Sure, you'll move faster without armour and will tire later, but it'll take a while, and the run and then shoot away isn't really going to be a winning approach (it's more likely they'll just run from battle).  Remember it takes a lot of force to draw a bow (more then use a melee weapon of any sort) - to the extent that longbowmen skeletons were deformed from using them. Running for a prolonged period of time and then accurately firing with a, eg. longbow, seems quite far-fetched to me.

On top of that, w/out armour, any hostile archers will kill you with the first shot, as will practically any blow. There are little advantages in running without armour (except in very hostile environments which we don't have in game) except, of course, price - peasantry and such could not afford it. Historically, the extra protection was always favoured over a bit of mobility. It made sense during the time period, and particularly made sense from the individual's point of view (smaller chance of death is a preety strong incentive).

If you want archers which can shoot and outrun infantry, then you're looking at horse archers.



 
i vote to add tactical nukes, will completely settle the OP archers issue...........my 2c....


as for bdodigs post.....


Im pretty sure the armor Im wearing weighed less if not the same as what they wore back then, your high if you are going to tell me people of the body type / build of that period could run "preeety fast" with armor on.....

Im a recon scout and in better shape than 90% of soldiers and I can tell you theres very few people who can run fast in kit for more than 100m and then not be spent. So i dont buy that little dudes of that time period were ninja sprinting around in kit with all the crap they used to carry and wear....

of course i agree with you on the whole un-likely tactic of trying to "kite" infantry units around historically....i didnt read every page of the thread but I hopse someone wasnt suggesting that is why Archers didnt use heavier armor.....im sure it was more of an issue of

1. Cost - Scale+ qual. armor had to cost a pretty penny to make in large quantity..
2. Use - If you were going to field that kind of armor to your unit, would you rather give it to your infantry that is going to be in direct contact for certain, or your Archers which if the battle goes proper, will at most only see Counter-Fire......

my 2c.....again
 
bdodig said:
Cavalry does not and historically did not always charge as a group. They'd pursue fleeing people and cut them down. If you start running from cavalry, you're basically dead, unless you can run at 50km/h for a few miles.
Sorry i phrased that wrong i meant the archers would group charge. And as to the person who said just get infantry the thing is your infantry/cavalry are off fighting the bulk of the force, that is in the pretense that this is a large battle.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
archers are the weakest group of them all, how heavily armed they are,
you can easily smash them to death,

look at Rhodok, im Vaegir, got 150 units(me and a lord)
fighting against around 350 rhodoks, who are as always mostly sharpshooters and all,
i did not lose any unit, while they lost all

more tactics should be added though, you can let them back and all,
thats all you can do

also making tacticts during a fight is taking a bit much time
 
Vrkas said:
Im pretty sure the armor Im wearing weighed less if not the same as what they wore back then, your high if you are going to tell me people of the body type / build of that period could run "preeety fast" with armor on.....

Im a recon scout and in better shape than 90% of soldiers and I can tell you theres very few people who can run fast in kit for more than 100m and then not be spent. So i dont buy that little dudes of that time period were ninja sprinting around in kit with all the crap they used to carry and wear....
Click to expand...

A suit of mail would not weigh more than about 10kg, early plate (combat plate, not tournament plate) was heavier, but not extremely so.  The armourers of the day were not idiots: They knew that they were making equipment that had to be worn all day, in heat or cold, during some intense physical activity.
Soldiers (that is, regular fighters such as men-at-arms and knights, not levied peasantry) did nothing other than fight and train to fight, and they did it wearing their armour.  They walked or rode horses everywhere, and their diet was the best available, because they were able to plunder food from their enemies, or in peacetime they normally had 'rights' to food that normal citizens did not.  So they were probably a good deal fitter and stronger than modern soldiers, who use mechanised transport, smoke, and eat junk food.

You are right, nobody was 'ninja-sprinting' in their armour, but, just as you can hike all day with your normal load-out, so could they be on the move all day.  If they needed to, they could run in it, wade rivers in it, climb ladders (or trees!) in it....
 
bianconeri said:
archers are the weakest group of them all, how heavily armed they are,
you can easily smash them to death,

look at Rhodok, im Vaegir, got 150 units(me and a lord)
fighting against around 350 rhodoks, who are as always mostly sharpshooters and all,
i did not lose any unit, while they lost all

more tactics should be added though, you can let them back and all,
thats all you can do

also making tacticts during a fight is taking a bit much time
Click to expand...
let's see:
Rhodok sharpshooter:
PS 4(as much as a Vaegir knight), good armor, big shield, one-hander, powerful crossbow(I always think of them as heavy infantry with ranged weapons, and not archers);
Rhodok sergeant:
PS 5, very good armor, very often has a very deadly long polearm;

Vaegir marksman:
PS 2(only Vaegir missile tier to actually have points in Power Strike), medium armor, one-hander or sometimes a weak 2h axe

so what difficulty are you playing again? Considering that a NPC Rhodok force never contains 'mostly' sharpshooters, and that even a mixed-tier Rhodok force at 160% difficulty is the only thing to give real hell to my company of Vaegir marksmen, for whom Nords and Swadians have become just as common and boring a meal as boiled turnip and dried meat(because I definitely 'make' good tactics in a battle), I wouldn't say that they're the weakest of all(Vaegir missile troops and forest bandits beat Rhodoks in siege defense).

Now, Nord archers suck overall(supposedly to make up for their strong infantry, but that's historically inaccurate, just like the fact Nords barely use spears), Khergit archers suck in melee(because of great mobility, though it doesn't seem very accurate historically either), Rhodok Sharpshooters have the stats and equipment to match any heavy infantry in the game(but Rhodoks have no cavalry, plus these guys actually look like professional soldiers, so they're supposed to be better at anything), Vaegir archers have weak stats for melee, but sometimes have axes(which is very Slavic), but their infantry sucks, similar thing goes for Swadians(who at least have shields and better armor most of the time). So, if anything, archers and some infantry should be improved(I mean, seriously, a Vaegir Guard has PS 2 :shock:)
 
Archers are fine as they are, they aren't very good at melee, and there armour isn't that good so they die going up against anyone with a shield
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Siege battles are weirdly bad for the defender
Replies
18
Views
487
Vaan2020
Multiplayer Suggestions
Replies
2
Views
120
k86
Troops “Follow Me” Too Closely
Replies
0
Views
37
k86
Back
Top Bottom