Author Topic: Archers; Too heavily armed  (Read 67262 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Swadius 2.0

  • Master Knight
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
Re: Archers; Too heavily armed
« Reply #435 on: September 11, 2009, 10:08:39 AM »
Archers don't have shields, so unless you have a two hander with the blocking set to manual, while being very poor with it, the archer is going to be very easy to take down.
Besides other than the crossbowmen, the archers in M&B are the weakest in melee in terms of power strike and strength.

map640

  • Recruit
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
Re: Archers; Too heavily armed
« Reply #436 on: September 11, 2009, 10:16:37 AM »
i dont now about you dude but i have great sword of war and on my horse i rarely kill them in one hit if not fast and usually i tend to end up in the middle of m enemies
life is simple and is one thing

the strong mind conquering the weak mind

and of course

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOLCAAAAATS

Swadius 2.0

  • Master Knight
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
Re: Archers; Too heavily armed
« Reply #437 on: September 11, 2009, 10:19:59 AM »
There are much more heavily armored troops on the battlefield. Are you talking about Rhodok sharpshooters? Because the Vaegir, Nord and Swadian missile troops aren't very heavily armored at all.
It might also be the result of you using cutting damage instead of piercing and blunt damage which is less affected by heavy armor ratings.

FrisianDude

  • Coitus non Awesome
  • Grandmaster Knight
  • *
  • Zis is Tshörman tärritorie!
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: Liudulf Ward/Léodwulf
  • M&BWB
Re: Archers; Too heavily armed
« Reply #438 on: September 15, 2009, 09:34:37 PM »
Just to get somethings straight The Nords who are based of the Danish and Norse used mostly axes, sometimes swords, maybe bows, but not spears. It was very rare for them to have spears. If you think that your thinking of the Scottish, who had to defend themselves against the British cavalry.

Every culture on the earth has used the almighty pointy stick. The Saxons, Danes, and Anglo-Saxons were no different. There are quite a few medieval era spear heads around if you google them. They did use axes, but not to the extent, I believe, that modern media makes it out to be. Spears would be one of the main weapons of the levied classes.
Throwing spears were also quite popular; even Odin had one.
Indeed;
from the Frisian Wikipedia; "Midsieuske ôfbylding fan Wytsingdrakaars" or "Medieval image of Viking dragonships" (=longboats)
Nords ruled by King Ragnar, Khergits ruled by Sanjar Khan, Rhodoks ruled by King Graveth, Swadians ruled by King Harlaus, Vaegirs ruled by King Yaroglek. All those peoples live, fight, and die in the continent of Calradia. The Nords and Rhodoks field solely infantry and archers, the Swadians and Vaegirs have infantry, archers and cavalry and the Khergit field almost exclusively cavalry. No such things as "infarty" or "calvary" exist. Play Vikingr!

reklem

  • Sergeant at Arms
  • *
  • Rawr!
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: reklem
Re: Archers; Too heavily armed
« Reply #439 on: September 16, 2009, 09:11:51 PM »
I definetly think rhodok sharpshooters are overpowered. Of course, the should keep their Über-crossbows, but they are dressed in the same mail armor as sea raiders, and cause enormous damage with their sword-swings aswell!

Ludial

  • Knight at Arms
  • *
  • The damn bastard pacing in front of the shieldwall
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Rhodok
  • MP nick: Wild_Man
Re: Archers; Too heavily armed
« Reply #440 on: September 17, 2009, 01:53:58 PM »
I definetly think rhodok sharpshooters are overpowered. Of course, the should keep their Über-crossbows, but they are dressed in the same mail armor as sea raiders, and cause enormous damage with their sword-swings aswell!
I suppose that is meant to make up for the fact that Rhodoks have no cavalry and to illustrate the fact that Rhodoks make tough soldiers, no matter of specialization. Not that sharpies make much of a problem for me and my Hired Blades though :twisted:
A bastard that knows no other law than that of the sword and no other love than that for gold. Isn't this the ideal of those who come to seek their fortunes in Calradia? http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,154052.0.html

reklem

  • Sergeant at Arms
  • *
  • Rawr!
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: reklem
Re: Archers; Too heavily armed
« Reply #441 on: September 17, 2009, 03:23:23 PM »
I suppose that is meant to make up for the fact that Rhodoks have no cavalry and to illustrate the fact that Rhodoks make tough soldiers, no matter of specialization.

That's a really good point... Can i quote it in my signature?

Ludial

  • Knight at Arms
  • *
  • The damn bastard pacing in front of the shieldwall
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Rhodok
  • MP nick: Wild_Man
Re: Archers; Too heavily armed
« Reply #442 on: September 17, 2009, 03:39:08 PM »
s'ok.
A bastard that knows no other law than that of the sword and no other love than that for gold. Isn't this the ideal of those who come to seek their fortunes in Calradia? http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,154052.0.html

FailedEagle

  • Recruit
  • *
  • I'd hit Lady Anna like this. Don't tell Klargus...
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Swadian
Re: Archers; Too heavily armed
« Reply #443 on: September 23, 2009, 07:35:06 AM »
uhh.... sure, i agree that they are to heavily armed in melee fights, but the thing here to remember is that generally, against something like a nord warrior or swadian infantry, a mid-line foot solider, they aren't really that effective. The armour is excellent at deflecting arrows, and their sheilds can easily take up 2 10 shots. mayb they should cut their melee weaponry, while enhacing their ranged ability. thoughts?
What makes you think that would make the tactic any less effective? This is Taleworlds, and it is indeed like a room full of soaped up homosexuals.
Welcome to TaleWorlds.
Do drop the soap.

Ludial

  • Knight at Arms
  • *
  • The damn bastard pacing in front of the shieldwall
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Rhodok
  • MP nick: Wild_Man
Re: Archers; Too heavily armed
« Reply #444 on: September 23, 2009, 02:10:50 PM »
uhh.... sure, i agree that they are to heavily armed in melee fights, but the thing here to remember is that generally, against something like a nord warrior or swadian infantry, a mid-line foot solider, they aren't really that effective. The armour is excellent at deflecting arrows, and their sheilds can easily take up 2 10 shots. mayb they should cut their melee weaponry, while enhacing their ranged ability. thoughts?
if you want that, just play with Khergits. Their horse archers are the very embodiment of what you suggest.

I think it's rather cultural - Vaegirs love their sabers and axes, and never leave home without them. So it can be expected of them to be good with those weapons. Rhodoks all make good, stout soldiers, and have no cavalry, so I suppose that every one of them is expected to be able to hold his own in a fight. Khergits are all about archery, and suck at melee, and are thus the best archers and the worst fighters. Nord are brutal warriors, and think nothing of archers, so their archers are an offense to the arts of archery and warfare. For the snob Swadians, only the knights are worthy, and their other units are all weak, simply because they're not knightly cavalry. And that's it.
A bastard that knows no other law than that of the sword and no other love than that for gold. Isn't this the ideal of those who come to seek their fortunes in Calradia? http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,154052.0.html

RyanR

  • Recruit
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Nord
Re: Archers; Too heavily armed
« Reply #445 on: September 26, 2009, 04:16:06 AM »
Eh, to my point of view the archers are exactly right. The aiming is quite hard to master (if possible to master) But you have your point nad i have mine.

BloodyGlaives

  • Regular
  • *
  • Death is lighter than a feather
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Nord
  • MP nick: Thing_1
Re: Archers; Too heavily armed
« Reply #446 on: October 25, 2009, 04:47:46 PM »
Well not exactly, English longbowmen usually carried falchions, arming swords, axes and such, and could wear chainmail or padded gambesons, Ive never seen any range units other than heroes with armor above chainmail types.

Cahtush

  • Recruit
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
Re: Archers; Too heavily armed
« Reply #447 on: November 01, 2009, 02:44:19 PM »
Highend ranged troops should b pretty well armoured, such as Sharpshooters, Marksmen, Crossbowmen and Archers. But those below should carry Falchions or similar weapons and perhaps some padded armour and a hood or some of the other light armours.
None should carry twohanded weapons of course, but swords, even good swords should be open to them. And often archers did carry small target or buckler sheilds, so smaller round shields should be open to them too.

I suggest people look into the equipment regular crossbowmen had in the 1300s+ which is the approximate time we are dealing with here. It could get pretty heavy, some even had reinforced mail AND padded armour as well a bascinets.

But right now it really seems the problem lies in the weaponskills of the units, and that they carry big Voulges or Bardiches.
The Weaponskills are just about even for all styles for the ranged units. Clearly they should have no skills in polearms or thrown for instance, while their main skills should be pretty high and a fair skill in singlehanded (though not as good as now). A change of those two areas would have a significantly larger impact than going about and stripping them of armour, which they DID carry. Let them retain the armour, but change the skills (we all remember how 'fast' we were at 60-80 points).
i think the higher tier the better equipment. like tier 1 have peasant armor/light leather, hunting/shortbow with 1 arrows and dagger/falchion and alike and 2arrows/1Arrows&shield. T2 leather, shortB, short sword T3 leather/studded leather/light mail, longbow, sword and 2arrows/1arrows&shield. I also think that spearthrowers (Vae. skirmisher) should be better att hand-to-hand than archers. take inspiratin from "Medieval Total War".

Turona

  • Squire
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
Re: Archers; Too heavily armed
« Reply #448 on: November 01, 2009, 02:52:26 PM »
I also think that spearthrowers (Vae. skirmisher) should be better att hand-to-hand than archers. take inspiratin from "Medieval Total War".

This isn't just inspiration from M(2)TW, this is how javelin-men were used historically, for the most part. Throw javelins to disrupt the formation and follow by a charge.
In my opinion javelins and such should either have a low quantity of missiles, or a change of AI when used. Because right now they treat it like a bow, and don't even use a shield if they wear one.

SwordChest

  • Veteran
  • *
  • I ain't no rookie!
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Swadian
Re: Archers; Too heavily armed
« Reply #449 on: November 07, 2009, 03:18:33 PM »
okay, so an archer once beat one my knights with his fists. Weren't the Rhodok Sergeants designed to protect the crappy crossbow men, yet they can handle themselves just fine in melee combat.

Run away from Reverend L. Lamb!