Archers; Too heavily armed
- Thread starter thesneakster
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Blackthorn
Squire
I get so annoyed that this thread has so much on it, given that a long, long time ago, when I was still young and enthusiastic, I took time out of my degree to explain why armoured archers (especially in this game's context) made perfect sense, and why the generalisation of it all was utter trash.
Amman d Stazia
Master Knight
sorry - my point was that the accelerated up-skilling makes a problem out of top tier units because after no length of time, your little warband is composed of 75% top tier units plus 25% in the progress of becoming top tier.
Thus you quite soon have a force which is disproportionately heavily armed. It stands out more with ranged troops because they sacrifice nothing for their top arms and armour.
Thus you quite soon have a force which is disproportionately heavily armed. It stands out more with ranged troops because they sacrifice nothing for their top arms and armour.
Blackthorn
Squire
True in some ways- but not so much in others. I personally would like to see more units 'peak' at mid-level.
In truth, it takes barely more than three pitched battles survived for you to really know your way around the battlefield- especially if the player character is a 'trainer' (and therefore when you camp can assumedly be drilling people). On the question of kit- well, I would've preferred it made a bit more emphatic that your men knick kit. In fact, it'd be nice if they looted kit specifically from the kind of troops you've been killing... but at the end of the day, there's a lot of used maille, swords, shields, helmets and weapons lying around post-battle, so there's no reason they couldn't be piling on the best of their kit. Given a few weeks, even a peasant with basic trainings becomes a good militia-man, and veterancy beckons after two weeks of constant fighting. So- yeah, I'll give you that it's a -bit- speedy, but not quite as speedy as you might think.
In truth, it takes barely more than three pitched battles survived for you to really know your way around the battlefield- especially if the player character is a 'trainer' (and therefore when you camp can assumedly be drilling people). On the question of kit- well, I would've preferred it made a bit more emphatic that your men knick kit. In fact, it'd be nice if they looted kit specifically from the kind of troops you've been killing... but at the end of the day, there's a lot of used maille, swords, shields, helmets and weapons lying around post-battle, so there's no reason they couldn't be piling on the best of their kit. Given a few weeks, even a peasant with basic trainings becomes a good militia-man, and veterancy beckons after two weeks of constant fighting. So- yeah, I'll give you that it's a -bit- speedy, but not quite as speedy as you might think.
Amman d Stazia
Master Knight
well, given all that.... How pitched does a battle need to be?
I guess after three shield-walls you'd be good enough not to make a real mess of things, but would you be a 'veteran' after 3 fights of about 20-30 combatants each? Over a space of 2 days?
I'm inclined to think that in the situation we're talking about here, you would move from 'raw recruit' to 'regular' or 'reliable' status, but that to get from there to 'veteran' or 'elite' would require a season of campaigning, exposing you to all the hardships of marching on a twisted ankle and empty stomach, sentry duty in the rain, fighting retreats, endless waiting and pitched battles.
But, having not been there, I can only draw from my own experiences as an emergency services volunteer. Basically, a couple of turnouts doesn't make an experienced operator: Maybe 10 or 15 do, but the variety of the situations we have to deal with means that a large amount of experience is spread relatively thinly over a large range of skills.
It depends a lot on individual temperament, but those who are suited to it still need a fair number of jobs to really settle into the role.
The amount of experience from any one job depends partly on the scale and intensity of the job, but also greatly on the actual hands-on involvement of the individual.
In a massive rescue operation, someone who stands back to watch and learn will probably observe and learn a huge number of techniques. However, the confidence to get down and dirty and apply those techniques may be missing: Someone who gets stuck in - even if all they do is the one thing all night - will have an unshakeable confidence in their abilities thereafter, which will allow them to succeed with lower-level techniques where someone with theoretically better training but low confidence will fail...
I guess after three shield-walls you'd be good enough not to make a real mess of things, but would you be a 'veteran' after 3 fights of about 20-30 combatants each? Over a space of 2 days?
I'm inclined to think that in the situation we're talking about here, you would move from 'raw recruit' to 'regular' or 'reliable' status, but that to get from there to 'veteran' or 'elite' would require a season of campaigning, exposing you to all the hardships of marching on a twisted ankle and empty stomach, sentry duty in the rain, fighting retreats, endless waiting and pitched battles.
But, having not been there, I can only draw from my own experiences as an emergency services volunteer. Basically, a couple of turnouts doesn't make an experienced operator: Maybe 10 or 15 do, but the variety of the situations we have to deal with means that a large amount of experience is spread relatively thinly over a large range of skills.
It depends a lot on individual temperament, but those who are suited to it still need a fair number of jobs to really settle into the role.
The amount of experience from any one job depends partly on the scale and intensity of the job, but also greatly on the actual hands-on involvement of the individual.
In a massive rescue operation, someone who stands back to watch and learn will probably observe and learn a huge number of techniques. However, the confidence to get down and dirty and apply those techniques may be missing: Someone who gets stuck in - even if all they do is the one thing all night - will have an unshakeable confidence in their abilities thereafter, which will allow them to succeed with lower-level techniques where someone with theoretically better training but low confidence will fail...
Blackthorn
Squire
Just to remind you- I did say- "Given a few weeks, even a peasant with basic trainings becomes a good militia-man, and veterancy beckons after two weeks of constant fighting. So- yeah, I'll give you that it's a -bit- speedy, but not quite as speedy as you might think."
However- it really does all stem from the natural ability of the person. Some people take to combat like a fish to water- and previously I've trained men up in one season who've been able to best three-year veterans. But in fairness, that's generally less common than not.
As for people's experience over three shield-walls- in the space of two days- that's a fantastic example for me to draw on, because that's what most members expect to face at a show. And yes- their improvement is a very, very steep curve during that time. I think part of what's important is the relative level of experience on the field. All the terms you're using 'veteran', 'experienced', 'elite', are all relative terms. People do naturally peak off at a level- and therefore it is possible for a new person to 'catch them up' quite dramatically if they throw themselves into it. The last levels of veterancy are what take the real time- learning how to stand with the shield -just so- so that not a single spear will breech to your left or right- how to pull a sidearm quickly whilst dropping the spear so you can execute a sudden and unexpected charge- even precisely -when- to charge. But getting the basics 100% nailed will make you an efficient and effective fighter.
The other consideration is the men in the unit. If you throw a nooblich in with a dozen grizzled veterans, you'll see them become good damn fast- they're surrounded by experience that's rapidly passed on, and not really much confusion about anything.
On the other hand, raise a dozen complete newbs and put them under the charge of one grizzled veteran, and expect shakiness, at best.
So- overall- yes, it's still too quick on M+B, but still a bit faster than you think. Most fighting actions in the period would be about 20-30 men aside (small skirmishes or forage-raids), so after three of them a man would seriously begin to hone himself into a regular.
However- it really does all stem from the natural ability of the person. Some people take to combat like a fish to water- and previously I've trained men up in one season who've been able to best three-year veterans. But in fairness, that's generally less common than not.
As for people's experience over three shield-walls- in the space of two days- that's a fantastic example for me to draw on, because that's what most members expect to face at a show. And yes- their improvement is a very, very steep curve during that time. I think part of what's important is the relative level of experience on the field. All the terms you're using 'veteran', 'experienced', 'elite', are all relative terms. People do naturally peak off at a level- and therefore it is possible for a new person to 'catch them up' quite dramatically if they throw themselves into it. The last levels of veterancy are what take the real time- learning how to stand with the shield -just so- so that not a single spear will breech to your left or right- how to pull a sidearm quickly whilst dropping the spear so you can execute a sudden and unexpected charge- even precisely -when- to charge. But getting the basics 100% nailed will make you an efficient and effective fighter.
The other consideration is the men in the unit. If you throw a nooblich in with a dozen grizzled veterans, you'll see them become good damn fast- they're surrounded by experience that's rapidly passed on, and not really much confusion about anything.
On the other hand, raise a dozen complete newbs and put them under the charge of one grizzled veteran, and expect shakiness, at best.
So- overall- yes, it's still too quick on M+B, but still a bit faster than you think. Most fighting actions in the period would be about 20-30 men aside (small skirmishes or forage-raids), so after three of them a man would seriously begin to hone himself into a regular.
Amman d Stazia
Master Knight
a) It should not be possible to 'train' peasants into knights. What are currently called Knights should be veteran Men-at-arms. Knights are made by being knighted. At the time in which native M&B is set, the rule of thumb was that any Knight could knight a free man in recognition of outstanding conduct (usually bravery). The expectation was that a high-ranking noble or even head of state would award most knighthoods, but this was not a law, just a common usage.
Consider Knighthood to be the 13th century equivalent of a Medal of Honour or Victoria Cross citation....
So no, it should not be possible to 'train' a knight.
b) English longbowmen? Historically, those battles in which the war bow (as it was known until recently) proved decisive involved large numbers of archers concentrating missile fire on poorly armoured targets:
here's two examples just to start...
1) Falkirk, in Scotland: Scottish infantry were pinned down in 'hedgehog' formation by the threat of English cavalry. Scottish infantry were largely armoured in leather rather than mail, and with few shields. A prolonged bombardment decimated them. However, a prolonged barrage of thrown stones would have had the same effect: The Scots' own archers had been routed by the English cavalry early in the day, and with the threat of said cavalry, all they could do was stand and die.
2) Crecy, in northern France: French cavalry were charging through soft ground (slowed considerably) also uphill and into a defensive palisade of stakes. Horses were not armoured very well (leather, mail) and most damage was done by killing or maiming horses, not riders: A horse collapsing will kill or cripple its rider as often as not! Archers were also untroubled by any counter fire due to the French crossbowmen (OK, Genoese mercenaries...) having wet strings and being ridden down by the French cavalry.
3) Neville's Cross, northern England: Scottish infantry were caught in a steep-sided depression (a quarry or sandpit) and needed to use both hands to climb up and attack the English = unable to protect themselves with shields. Later in the battle they were caught in a crossfire from their flanks, and also rear: Again, unable to protect themselves with shields. As at Falkirk, most of the Scottish infantry were armoured relatively lightly in mail and leather rather than plate.
So the war bow, whilst undoubtedly a potent and decisive weapon under the right conditions, was far from the tactical nuke of the Middle Ages that some people would have you believe...
Consider Knighthood to be the 13th century equivalent of a Medal of Honour or Victoria Cross citation....
So no, it should not be possible to 'train' a knight.
b) English longbowmen? Historically, those battles in which the war bow (as it was known until recently) proved decisive involved large numbers of archers concentrating missile fire on poorly armoured targets:
here's two examples just to start...
1) Falkirk, in Scotland: Scottish infantry were pinned down in 'hedgehog' formation by the threat of English cavalry. Scottish infantry were largely armoured in leather rather than mail, and with few shields. A prolonged bombardment decimated them. However, a prolonged barrage of thrown stones would have had the same effect: The Scots' own archers had been routed by the English cavalry early in the day, and with the threat of said cavalry, all they could do was stand and die.
2) Crecy, in northern France: French cavalry were charging through soft ground (slowed considerably) also uphill and into a defensive palisade of stakes. Horses were not armoured very well (leather, mail) and most damage was done by killing or maiming horses, not riders: A horse collapsing will kill or cripple its rider as often as not! Archers were also untroubled by any counter fire due to the French crossbowmen (OK, Genoese mercenaries...) having wet strings and being ridden down by the French cavalry.
3) Neville's Cross, northern England: Scottish infantry were caught in a steep-sided depression (a quarry or sandpit) and needed to use both hands to climb up and attack the English = unable to protect themselves with shields. Later in the battle they were caught in a crossfire from their flanks, and also rear: Again, unable to protect themselves with shields. As at Falkirk, most of the Scottish infantry were armoured relatively lightly in mail and leather rather than plate.
So the war bow, whilst undoubtedly a potent and decisive weapon under the right conditions, was far from the tactical nuke of the Middle Ages that some people would have you believe...
de Worth
Regular
The only type of "Archer" I've ever had trouble with is mass Rhodok Sharpshooters defending a castle/city. Fifty or more Sharpshooters are rediculous, and rip my army to shreds. I believe Huscarls are the only viable counter for this. I tried to "force" an attack against these numbers, and was decimated. It doesn't matter if I outnumbered these guys 2-1, 3-1, or even 4-1, and it didn't even matter if I had Archers of my own... without any prominent Huscarls, my army was literally eaten alive by these guys. As I had my hands full trying to keep my army afloat, and also at war with the Khergits, I did not have time to return to the castle with Huscarls, and had to abandon the siege after taking heavy losses.
Even though I had been able to take Jelkala against similar odds, I still recieved major casualties in the sack of that city- over half of my army killed (as well as heavy losses taken by my lord allies as well). The word overpowered comes to mind, but I guess it's not the unit type specifically... just the combination of bad attacking AI in a siege, and the fact that apparently Sharpshooters can take down my Knights even after they have switched to Melee. Which in my honest opinion, is BS.
Even though I had been able to take Jelkala against similar odds, I still recieved major casualties in the sack of that city- over half of my army killed (as well as heavy losses taken by my lord allies as well). The word overpowered comes to mind, but I guess it's not the unit type specifically... just the combination of bad attacking AI in a siege, and the fact that apparently Sharpshooters can take down my Knights even after they have switched to Melee. Which in my honest opinion, is BS.
PrinceGhaldir
I think this thread is about archers with too heavy melee weapons, at Agincourt they used their bows, not their melee weapons to kill the french.
PerfectDeath
Recruit
Historically archers and everyone else equipped what they could. The whole RPG thing that archers "cannot equip" heavy equipment is a game balancing thing. Mount&Blade is more of a simulator.
Look at games like Medieval Total War 2, they have many archer armies that can be equipped with plate mail and full plate. Archers can even have a buckler equipped on their arm along with a bow.
Look at games like Medieval Total War 2, they have many archer armies that can be equipped with plate mail and full plate. Archers can even have a buckler equipped on their arm along with a bow.
PrinceGhaldir
But a game should still be balanced, shouldn't it?
Amman d Stazia
Master Knight
in M&B archers are forced to invest hard-earned levelling points into power draw and archery in order to be good.
that's the balancing thing.
Of course, AI troops skill sets are defined by script, not by evolution like the player's....
that's the balancing thing.
Of course, AI troops skill sets are defined by script, not by evolution like the player's....
PrinceGhaldir
Why wouldnt they have a little sword, maybe an axe hanging on their belt?
FrisianDude
Archduke
jobby said:
What. Real life is not every other strategy game where archers had no mêlée capability. Any archer would have had a knife, or a dagger, maybe a short sword, an axe, a club, a mace, a hammer, there's plenty of things they could have taken from home and could use as weapon.
sneakey pete said:
I agree that mediocre archers should not be more effective in melee than their infantry counterparts, and that they should not have weapons like voulges. I do not at all agree with the idea that they should always be lightly armoured or easy to kill, nor was that the case historically. Many armies had very heavily armoured archers, in response to the need for this kind of unit. Your idea is not based off history or realism, but theindustry cliches generated by a number of very mediocre games, we shouldn't allow those conventions to ruin something truly original.
Hawkwood
Actually they didPrinceGhaldir said: