Archers; Too heavily armed

[AlienKnight]

Just to add referring to what was said before - I have found in the accounts of the Battle of Crecy that the English longbowmen delivered a volley every 5 seconds, while the Genoese crossbowmen were able to shoot 1-2 times per minute. And leave the Rhodok crossbowmen alone with their big shields, the crossbowmen used to be equipped with a very large shields (pavises) that they deployed in the ground to hide behind while reloading.

 

[Ludial]

so the sharpshooters and marksmen, who are supposed to be veterans of numerous campaigns, shouldn`t be able to afford appropriate equipment that would help them live through a battle? what kind of sick mentality is that? And what`s this whole thing with dividing and overspecializing troops? I for once love hybrid troops. This way I can have the greatest number possible of ranged weapons shooting at the enemy while they`re approaching, and then finishing off anybody left. I love sharpshooters and think that marksmen are not good enough in close combat(I`d give them battle axes if I could), I don`t use melee-only infantry at all, it`s a waste of time, money and soldiers.

 

[AlienKnight]

so the sharpshooters and marksmen, who are supposed to be veterans of numerous campaigns, shouldn`t be able to afford appropriate equipment that would help them live through a battle?

Spoiler

what kind of sick mentality is that? And what`s this whole thing with dividing and overspecializing troops? I for once love hybrid troops. This way I can have the greatest number possible of ranged weapons shooting at the enemy while they`re approaching, and then finishing off anybody left.

I love sharpshooters and think that marksmen are not good enough in close combat(I`d give them battle axes if I could), I don`t use melee-only infantry at all, it`s a waste of time, money and soldiers.

I do understand your point. I think however the topic is more about if that the ranged units were so strongly armed and so effective in direct combat in reality.
I love sharpshooters too . But I disagree on the infantry. There is nothing better to stand at the siege tower approaching walls than a Rhodok sergeant. Same while defending the wall.

 

[Ludial]

in reality, the only constraints were economic ones. with the would-be archers being considered not really soldiers by most of the nobility and thus being recruited from the lower classes of the population, they couldn`t possibly equip themselves properly, which in turn resulted in preferring to skirmish than to fight in pitched combat. And this is specifically for the majority of militia-type archers raised in Medieval Western and Central Europe. A Bulgar warrior, for example, beside his horse and bow, would typically have anything from sword/sabre through flails, warhammers, spears and even axes, plus thick leather or even metal armor(usually mail, sometimes lamellar), with the Mongol invaders later also having a similar loadout. The Slavic tribes that would ally and mix with the Bulgars when the latter came to the Balcans(late 7th century AD) had a similar range of equipment, with the main difference being their lighter armor(often none, just a linen shirt), which was dictated by their style of early guerilla-type warfare waged predominantly in forests and swamplands.

There`s a reason the symbolic weapons of the Vaegir faction are the compound bow and the great axe. Besides, the axes Vaegir archers typically use are the weakest in the game, barely stronger than a well-made sword, and the voulges can be seen only with the marksmen, and very rarely with Swadian crossbowmen and sharpshooters. Basically one of the weaker two-handed axes is reserved to only high-tier missile troops of two of the five factions.

Considering that crossbowmen were trained professionals in the Middle ages who could afford a crossbow in the first place, it`s no wonder they could have also good weapons and armor. So I don`t think there should be a problem with the equipment used by Swadian and Rhodok sharpshooters. Especially when we take into account the stuff they have: haubergeons, if I`m not mistaken, and padded leather and helmets with caps for the Swadians and byrnies, rarely padded leather and kettle hats for the Rhodoks. Those pieces are possibly the weakest kinds of heavy armor in the game, with the helmet with cap not even being in the heavy category, same going for the padded leather(the typical piece of the infamously brittle Nord archers). Vaegir marksmen have studded leather coats, which are more into the group of medium armor, and very rarely come with leather vests, which are practically clothing and don`t deserve the name armor.

The only ones to have actual heavy armor are some Khergit veteran horse archers with their lamellar vests(vests, not entire suits of armor!), which as mentioned wasn`t uncommon with eastern steppe warriors(as in actual soldiers and not some tribesmen that were called to war). And for melee they don`t ever have anything heavier than a sabre, winged mace, or spear.

The Nord archers are weak in close combat- they have only swords and some sort of short and useless axes, and are poorly armored. Everyone agrees that they`re so bad at melee they should never be allowed there.

Has anyone checked the skills of missile troops in the game? They rarely have any levels at all in Power Strike and their melee weapons proficiencies are in the 80`s. I can say that for sure for at least the Vaegir Marksmen(with their ``UBER-KILLY`` voulges), who are the unit I play the most with, and for the Nord and Swadian missile troops, who are for their most part miserable in melee.

And with all of this in plain sight, some people still want the close combat ability of missile troops nerfed. I`d personally call that sick. I hate the Grinder, the Clash, the Charge and anything similar, and I`ll always use missile troops. So I want them to be capable of at least defending themselves when someone comes near them.

P.S. Oh, and strangely enough, mercenary crossbowmen in the game are pretty poorly equipped and with poor skills. Just for the record.

 

[Ludial]

I  agree that the archers and crossbowmen being to heavily armed.

cardiff personal fitness trainer
dyslexia centers florida

Oh, yeah! On what premises? Why don`t you take the effort to read what I posted, eh?

 

[NordMann 2]

You seem to prove a good point very often Ludial 

 

[Seismica]

Spoiler

Note the swords the archers are carrying, this is a depiction of longbowmen at the battle of crecy.

As for Eastern archer types, not only were they lightly armed and armoured, but they were also mounted. As far as i can see, nowhere in Medieval Europe, did Archers equip themselves with heavy armour and weaponry; at least not as a mainstream fighting style (obviously there will have been the odd mercenary brigade of highly armoured archers, but as M&B really depicts the fighting styles of certain nations/cultures around Europe, then you cannot have the archer as an armoured heavy armed force, unless of course they were mercenaries.

By all means the very top tier units should have medium studded leather/scale/light mail, but as for carrying Voulges? No, that is not right, it just didn't happen. Voulges were heavy weapons, they are heavier than they appear, and carrying one of those on your back restricts your ability to fight. Not only this, but if an archer was mounted, he could not really carry it whilst firing a bow. If he was not mounted, like most western European archer companies were, they would prefer to travel light, simply because they came from poorer backgrounds, could not afford horses, and therefore had to march with the army (ok maybe it didn't have that much effect whilst marching etc.)

But any Medieval commander knows that archers need protecting with infantry. Thats why archers were not that well equipped, because they were protected by infantry, which meant they didn't need to carry heavy weapons. Yes a sword and a small shield is sufficient. But if the infantry line is breached, and the archers are imminent for melee combat, any archer will have regretted bringing a voulge or similar heavy weapon. They needed to travel as light as possible to skirmish, and also if needs be, run from the enemy.

As for the crossbowmen of western/central Europe, yes they were well trained in melee combat. The crossbow was often a secondary weapon, not a primary. But the crossbow's versatility and no need for extensive training and practice meant it was the weapon of choice for a large proportion of Medieval armies.

So to sum up, yes, archers are overpowered in melee combat. and no, crossbowmen are not overpowered in melee combat. But regardless, the crossbow's inadequacy compensates for the melee strength.

So by this logic, in order to balance the archer units, bows and arrows need to be strengthened, proficiencies need to be extremely high (i'm talking 200+ as archers in Britain and in Eastern Europe practiced with bows from a very young age). This has to be done first before their melee ability is reduced. Archers are very weak on this game. In real life it should take no more than 2 arrows to kill a poorly armoured man, and a little more to kill those that were armoured (although they should be ineffective against plate). Also, do bodkin arrows have some sort of bonus against mail? if not, why not? All these factors need to be taken into account. As for weaponry, they should carry a one handed weapon, with some having small shields (not all though). The Nord archers should vary a little, they should carry from short swords to hatchets and small hammers/mallets, but nothing too heavy, and certainly nothing two handed.

 

[smarzotais]

in some mods they have those bucklers (which are soo cool i end up using them as my melee shield and getting pwned when i rely on them... but i cant help it D: they so C 3 >< Y!!!!) which work great with archers, especially since they only partially block one blow from a large horse mounted weapon on the swing, which in my opinion is correct... but some archers in this game - like the rhodok and swadian sharpshooters have about correct armor, most of the crossbowmen were crusty peasants, but the shrpshooters are supposed to represent elite and experienced troops who over time have gotten enough money or loot for some armor... the voulge weapon is a bit outrageous tho... perhaps a shortsword or dagger, or a weaker axe of some kind... and only about 5/8ths the melee capability as their melee counterpart...

 

[Seismica]

The basic point is, Infantry are redundant as far as the Swadians and Vaegirs are concerned. The Nord's infantry is not redundant, mainly because of the weakness of their archers (if their archers had beefed up stats, and a two handed axe like the Vaegir archers do, then Nord Huscarls wouldn't be as useful for the Nords). The Rhodok sergeants are excellent, and their crossbowmen are about right in melee, because they represent Pavise crossbowmen from Italian states (namely the Genoese crossbowmen).

Vaegir archers need to be seriously weakended in melee. Sharpshooters of both the Rhodoks and the Swadians need to lose the 2 handed Voulges etc. (as do the Vaegir Marksmen). Swadian Sergeants need strengthening, their power strike skill should be higher than Swadian Knights (who relied on their lances for dealing damage, and mobility for effectiveness). Vaegir Guards are about right i think, but you rarely see them in battle anyways as the AI only seems to make Archers/Marksmen or Knights/Horsemen, and the player has no need to train them as marksmen are currently better in melee...

The Nords are good as they are, the archers are weak in melee for a reason, because their infantry is there to do the melee fighting. The only problem there is that Huscarls are too uncommon to make a real difference, although their veterans are still stronger than Swadian/Vaegir top tier melee troops. Rhodoks are generally overpowered as a faction, but i would say they were about right too. Their infantry is weaker than Nords, and their lack of cavalry makes the Swadians and Vaegirs have a slight edge, unless fighting against them, where their spearmen come into play. Their sharpshooters are the best ranged troops, and rightly so.

Khergits don't even come into it, they are underpowered in melee full stop. But thats how it should be, they're a force trained and equipped for skirmish tactics, they're not supposed to enter melee unless chasing fleeing enemies.

 

[Lord_killzor]

Archers aren't too strong. I usually see them with Bow / Crossbow + Sword or little axe.

 

[Swadian General]

I agree, out of all the (medieval) games i have played 80% of the time Archers/Missile units have been lightly armored and only carry little if none weaponry.Also any medieval set documentary you will watch you will see the same thing lightly armored Archers/Missile units.I think that someone should make a mod or Taleworlds should nip it in the bud, and introduce it in there next version.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

Au Contraire, most crossbowmen were armored as much as the infantry will melee skill and equipment to boot.

 

[Jon Snow]

Au Contraire, most crossbowmen were armored as much as the infantry will melee skill and equipment to boot.

Exactly.

I agree, out of all the (medieval) games i have played 80% of the time Archers/Missile units have been lightly armored and only carry little if none weaponry.Also any medieval set documentary you will watch you will see the same thing lightly armored Archers/Missile units.I think that someone should make a mod or Taleworlds should nip it in the bud, and introduce it in there next version.

How many of the medieval games that you've played (and documentaries that you've seen) do you think are even vaguely well researched. History channels are usually a bit ****. And games are invariably awful.

Loads of the missile troops in the game have still got two-handed weapons, though, that's pretty ridiculous.

 

[Ludial]

Spoiler

Note the swords the archers are carrying, this is a depiction of longbowmen at the battle of crecy.

As for Eastern archer types, not only were they lightly armed and armoured, but they were also mounted. As far as i can see, nowhere in Medieval Europe, did Archers equip themselves with heavy armour and weaponry; at least not as a mainstream fighting style (obviously there will have been the odd mercenary brigade of highly armoured archers, but as M&B really depicts the fighting styles of certain nations/cultures around Europe, then you cannot have the archer as an armoured heavy armed force, unless of course they were mercenaries.

By all means the very top tier units should have medium studded leather/scale/light mail, but as for carrying Voulges? No, that is not right, it just didn't happen. Voulges were heavy weapons, they are heavier than they appear, and carrying one of those on your back restricts your ability to fight. Not only this, but if an archer was mounted, he could not really carry it whilst firing a bow. If he was not mounted, like most western European archer companies were, they would prefer to travel light, simply because they came from poorer backgrounds, could not afford horses, and therefore had to march with the army (ok maybe it didn't have that much effect whilst marching etc.)

But any Medieval commander knows that archers need protecting with infantry. Thats why archers were not that well equipped, because they were protected by infantry, which meant they didn't need to carry heavy weapons. Yes a sword and a small shield is sufficient. But if the infantry line is breached, and the archers are imminent for melee combat, any archer will have regretted bringing a voulge or similar heavy weapon. They needed to travel as light as possible to skirmish, and also if needs be, run from the enemy.

As for the crossbowmen of western/central Europe, yes they were well trained in melee combat. The crossbow was often a secondary weapon, not a primary. But the crossbow's versatility and no need for extensive training and practice meant it was the weapon of choice for a large proportion of Medieval armies.

So to sum up, yes, archers are overpowered in melee combat. and no, crossbowmen are not overpowered in melee combat. But regardless, the crossbow's inadequacy compensates for the melee strength.

So by this logic, in order to balance the archer units, bows and arrows need to be strengthened, proficiencies need to be extremely high (i'm talking 200+ as archers in Britain and in Eastern Europe practiced with bows from a very young age). This has to be done first before their melee ability is reduced. Archers are very weak on this game. In real life it should take no more than 2 arrows to kill a poorly armoured man, and a little more to kill those that were armoured (although they should be ineffective against plate). Also, do bodkin arrows have some sort of bonus against mail? if not, why not? All these factors need to be taken into account. As for weaponry, they should carry a one handed weapon, with some having small shields (not all though). The Nord archers should vary a little, they should carry from short swords to hatchets and small hammers/mallets, but nothing too heavy, and certainly nothing two handed.

isn't that brigandines I see on most of the missile troops? and isn't that heavy armor?

I personally don't think the melee ability of missile troops should be reduced. First of all, the voulges are extremely rare. About 10% or less of Swadian crossbowmen/sharpshooters have them, and about the same part of marksmen. In my company of 100 marksmen, about 60-70 have sabers, the rest usually equal number of voulges and Axes(the latter being a weapon used by Vaegir missile troops from the bottom to the top of the troop tree, and being the weakest 2h axe in the game). The voulges maybe should be removed(I agree that they look weird on archers) but I don't really think that a Slavic archer fighting with a woodcutting axe he picked up from his dad's farm when he joined the army is that ridiculous. If at all heavy weapons are removed from the arsenal of missile troops, their melee ability should be bolstered slightly(of the Vaegir missile troops, only marksmen have points in Power Strike, and they're only 2, which is simply miserable for a top tier unit); the sabers are still a good weapon.

And I completely agree for improving the ranged ability of missile troops. 62 Archery for a unit that bears the name 'skirmisher' is unrealistic(especially when the footman, which is one rank lower, has 94  ), as is also 140 for a 'marksman' armed with a strong bow. Khergit vet. horse archers are in the 200s, but they have no points in PS whatsoever, and in general are useless in melee.

And again, I think that overspecialization blows balls. If anything, it should be allowed for a player's soldiers to be customized just like the player and the companions - would be much more realistic, would allow for far more unique units in Native(no, I don't want marksmen, I want rangers, but there's no way to have them without getting rid of the marksmen through editing ) and would eliminate this whole argument we're having here.

 

[Swadian General]

Well i forgot to state the fact that alot of books state the fact that Archers/Missile units are not heavily armored. Also it is common sense Archers usually stay back while Cavalry and infantry take care of the bulk of the force, and you don't really want your archers/missile units stocked up on weapons and not being very mobile and free to move about and shoot.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

Missile levy troops from rural areas sure, they can't afford much armor themselves. You have to keep in mind that most armies back then weren't as professional as they are now, there was very little uniformity below the full time soldiers themselves. Anyone bought and used whatever they could that they saw as useful. Mercenary archers and crossbowmen were armed and armoured well because they could afford it, they don't usually come in great numbers as much as the levy from the rural areas, but they were armored and expected to hold their own when charged.

 

[Swadian General]

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?

 

[The Bowman]

I agree. But for example I have 1 Rhodok Sharpshooter, I see that this soldier (and other ranged soldiers) don't shoot very good. This is a great problem, ranged units must use their bow/crossbow better.

 

[siprus]

i think one faction should have "melee archers" but they would be weaker in ranged combat.

but currenly i agree archers are too heavily armed. luckly there aren't so many toptier troops in ranks of computer.

 

[Swadian General]

Yes i mean seriously the best of the best archers Example:Rhodock Sharpshooter, Vageir Archer and the Swadian Sharpshooter, all suck nuts when it is shooting (unless they are bulked up in groups of 5-10).And i think with that, Archer/Missile units should be less equipped, but have better Power Draw/Strength to get better shot etch, and also good proficiency with the weapons.