Archers need a nerf.

[vota dc]

I don't understand what you're saying, but I'll say more about what I was saying.
With a Noble bow, shooting at much farther then elevated troops will shoot, my arrows hit for 20 something damage. AT about the max distance of a troop they hit for 40 something. At a closer optimal range they do 80 something. Against lords and heavy armored tier units, the optimal distance shots do a little less, like 60 something, but at longer ranges the damage difference is so small it barely matters.

Arrows come from nowhere and shield units act this way: they don't raise the shield for this reason. We have the paradox that aimbot shoot farther than seeing range and other units are blind and have no idea what to do, they don't even realize After being hit. With shieldwall they block but because they are mindlessing raising their shield, they still aren't aware of archers.

It can be ok from arrows shoot from a castle, but makes no sense for straight arrows. It Is like they are using a sniper gun with scope and still not shooting very far.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Arrows come from nowhere and shield units act this way: they don't raise the shield for this reason

Yeah but they do this up and down shield behavior at medium and short range too. It's not arrows or archer's problem.
We have the paradox that aimbot shoot farther than seeing range
No I can see and land hits much further then the AI archers will shoot. It's not because archers shoot or see too far. It's all on the bad infantry or rather shield AI.

With shieldwall they block but because they are mindlessing raising their shield, they still aren't aware of archers.

This is again the bad shield AI, has nothing to do with archer AI.

I fully agree with improving shileds, shield use AI and infantry AI and even armor effect too.
I don't at all agree that archers are OP or that they shoot to far or. They are all very basic and just happen to function while other AI doesn't.

 

[vota dc]

Bandits use their shield short range and their order Is just F1 f3 because they don't use formations.

You can do the same as aimbot: you use ALT button, then shoot in that direction. Hit, no need to see. Ai does the same,only difference Is that line of sight Is irrelevant. Even a smart Ai couldn't do anything.

 

[TheShermanator]

Lots of good points and related back-and-forths. I have thoughts on those angles, but I’ll avoid rehashing others posts. Instead, two other points:

1) A big part of the issue is the way xp gain works. Archers not only get a lot more of xp per battle on average, but also they are less likely to die at lower tiers presuming the player wins. (Low tier infantry, by contrast, is exposed to dying young even in winning situations. ) Thus, in the players party, the average archer may be (caveats notwithstanding) higher tier than the average infantryman. (This is very much not an original insight from me, but relevant here.)

2) Archers light up the kill screen in the early battle by absolutely mowing down the enemy trash units. I think this is pronounced by the AI charging so early: Their recruits, etc get out in front precisely because they have less armor.

Take 1 and 2 together, and you get Fians mowing down recruits on the charge, and the player says ‘gee wiz, archers OP’. Archers are very strong in this balance state, don’t get me wrong. But I think Fians mowing down recruits is less tactically significant than it looks when you see all those beautiful green boxes.

 

[Koshkasa]

This is again the bad shield AI, has nothing to do with archer AI.

Trying to play a foot archer character made me believe the same thing. The AI doesn't use shields to protect themselves from archer fire, they only pull it up when formations demand them to.

If you take aim at a dude with a shield, he will block for about 1 second, and then put the shield down and continue running as if nothing has happened. It is at this time you actually fire the arrow and recieve a free hit on a guy with the shield to his immense suprise.
(Best tested in tournaments since it's easier to create the scenario where a melee dude with a shield is rushing towards you from distance where no other factors are present.)

While infantry has no concept of cover, in the form of a shield or something else, any archer will outperform melee units simply because they make enemy numbers less numbery by the time enemies come into range where they can return the favor. They still miss quite a lot, but since they have enough time to shoot several times each, it matters little.

I don't believe raw theoretical damage to be the root issue here.

 

[Badcritter]

AI eagerness to lower their shield is probably driven by the fact that having the shield up slows their movement, and they are motivated to get where their programming tells them they should be as quickly as possible. Simulating awareness of being shot at and reactively raising shield would be nice, so long as it feels plausible and doesn't end up making shield-holding AI units impervious to arrow fire because they reactionarily raise their shields like a cybernetically enhanced super soldier.

I do feel that archery and shields is a bit too black and white. ie. any unit without a shield is dispatched very quickly by an archer, any unit with a shield is practically impervious to archery. Softening both those extremes slightly (but not by much) would make the battlefield more dynamic.

 

[TheShermanator]

AI eagerness to lower their shield is probably driven by the fact that having the shield up slows their movement, and they are motivated to get where their programming tells them they should be as quickly as possible. Simulating awareness of being shot at and reactively raising shield would be nice, so long as it feels plausible and doesn't end up making shield-holding AI units impervious to arrow fire because they reactionarily raise their shields like a cybernetically enhanced super soldier.

I do feel that archery and shields is a bit too black and white. ie. any unit without a shield is dispatched very quickly by an archer, any unit with a shield is practically impervious to archery. Softening both those extremes slightly (but not by much) would make the battlefield more dynamic.

Generally I agree with the description. However, I feel like the prescription should be a fix of some sort to two handed troop mechanics. If you manage to get two handed in melee, they wreck shop and out perform 1 handed, so I feel like the shields should be worth something. Perhaps a slight tune down to blocking potential would be good (as you articulated), but hopefully nothing paradigm shifting.

I feel like the biggest issue is how hard it is to micromanage two handed on the battlefield w present formations. If you get them into melee w out taking much archer fire, they’re great, but it takes quite a lot of babysitting (and thus probably steals APM from other places). Maybe if there was a formation / command that approximated the baby-sitting? Some kind of ‘stay just behind shielded infantry until shielded infantry is in melee’ or something more thought through than that?

(I think the same general issue of excessive micromanagement needs applies to cavalry btw, but that’s another can of worms.)

 

[Badcritter]

I feel like the biggest issue is how hard it is to micromanage two handed on the battlefield w present formations. If you get them into melee w out taking much archer fire, they’re great, but it takes quite a lot of babysitting (and thus probably steals APM from other places). Maybe if there was a formation / command that approximated the baby-sitting? Some kind of ‘stay just behind shielded infantry until shielded infantry is in melee’ or something more thought through than that?

I have wished for this. As it is I don't use 2 handed melee units because I found the micomanagement too heavy. I'm playing my own current character as a 2 handed infantry shock trooper for something different at the moment, but breaking 2 handed troops manually out into their own group and setting them to follow me is quite unwieldy, and doesn't work as well as playing a heavy cavalry character and setting cavalry to follow me to mitigate some of the limitations of cavalry AI.

 

[kweassa]

What are they?

Well, to be truthful, most of it is inferred through a composite of studies in archery, so there's not a "manual" that tells you exactly what to do per se, but there are accounts through a variety of literature that details at which range the archers started shooting with their eyes "OFF THE TARGET" -- which means they were aiming at a distance which requires the bow to be raised above above the level at where you can track the target with your eyes.

For example, "The English Bowman..." (T. Roberts, 1801) details on the elevation of the bow during shooting, and clearly mentions that while discussing elevation. And, Roberts puts the distance where direct shooting not requiring any elevation at somewhere around 30 yards, and with stronger bows (including war bows) the distance could be somewhat further off.

The English Bowman

books.google.co.kr

(Read from page-99)

So from this it can be inferred that the archers would start shooting at around 150~200 yards, which required elevation of the bow much too high to keep eyes on the target. Logically, this mode of shooting would require coordinated shots to maximize volume of fire to be effective, which means they would be firing in controlled volleys. Some other sources mention on average 8~9 volleys are fired from the very start of archery fire with enemies in range. To be very clear, if you were shooting-at-will individually, any archer can fire a LOT more than 8~9 shots when a mass of men are approaching from around 200 yards out.

Then, around within 30 yards or higher (which brings in to the 30~60 range we can see in-game) the archers were able to start shooting directly, with each of the archers able to set their eyes on tatget. (termed, "point-blank" elevation in the book). At this "point-blank" range, again, you don't need controlled fire anymore. So we can logically presume that would be the point where the archers switched shooting method, in most cases.


And many accounts detail that such a volley fire did happen. For example, "The British Archer..." (T, Hastings, 1831) describes numerous such accounts from the 100 Years War, so we DO know archers were assigned commanders that ordered firing in volleys.

The British Archer, Or, Tracts on Archery

books.google.co.kr

(Search for keyword: "vollies")


Unless we want to presume the English archers practiced some very distinct and specific methods that only apply to themselves, I think it's logical to assume most archer units around the world would probably have practiced similar tactics.

 

[hruza]

Trying to play a foot archer character made me believe the same thing. The AI doesn't use shields to protect themselves from archer fire, they only pull it up when formations demand them to.

I have suspicion that AI was made to lower/raise their shields on purpose. If infantry would hold their shields up constantly, archers would be near to useless. As they are if you use shieldwall on your infantry against them yourself.

 

[Badcritter]

I have suspicion that AI was made to lower/raise their shields on purpose. If infantry would hold their shields up constantly, archers would be near to useless. As they are if you use shieldwall on your infantry against them yourself.

It's funny that infantry with javelins + shield are harder to shoot with arrows than infantry that have no ranged weapon and a shield, because the javeliners shield provides protection for most of their aiming animation. They end up better protected while lobbing javelins at you than the braindead pure melee who fail to keep their shield up while being shot at.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

The Armor Does Something mod doesn't just nerf archers, but horse archers too. It makes such a difference, its unbelievable. If you use it, I recommend unticking the ADS projectiles, that way quiver size matters a whole lot more.

That said, I've been doing more modding than playing, so I dunno if ADS is particularly great anymore. It was still a blast to use though, and archery didn't feel ****. Just toned down.

 

[kweassa]

It's funny that infantry with javelins + shield are harder to shoot with arrows than infantry that have no ranged weapon and a shield, because the javeliners shield provides protection for most of their aiming animation. They end up better protected while lobbing javelins at you than the braindead pure melee who fail to keep their shield up while being shot at.

The shield provide protection during all phases of melee animation as well.

As a matter of fact, shields act as protection against projectiles in whatever state -- lowered, raised, worn on back, while swinging 1h weapon, etc. It's true the "swinging motion" does expose a wider area, but it's to be expected, since a person in throwing motion takes a stance like a pitcher on the baseball field -- to the side. So naturally, the shield covers most of the body in that angle.

 

[Koshkasa]

The shield provide protection during all phases of melee animation as well.

As a matter of fact, shields act as protection against projectiles in whatever state -- lowered, raised, worn on back, while swinging 1h weapon, etc. It's true the "swinging motion" does expose a wider area, but it's to be expected, since a person in throwing motion takes a stance like a pitcher on the baseball field -- to the side. So naturally, the shield covers most of the body in that angle.

In melee animations the character uses the shield as a counterweight rather than as a protection piece. It's swinged to the side even before the weapon is. So it literally does provide cover in some stages of the animation, but ends up in places you're rather unlikely to want to shoot.

I guess 1v1 melee fighting using the shield the way a shield is used (holding it between you and the enemy even when attacking with the other arm) would be a bit too tedious, so we're left with what we've got.

 

[kweassa]

In melee animations the character uses the shield as a counterweight rather than as a protection piece. It's swinged to the side even before the weapon is. So it literally does provide cover in some stages of the animation, but ends up in places you're rather unlikely to want to shoot.

Still large enough to cover most of the body -- but, admittedly, only when you are personally in control to angle the shield slightly more toward your right side.

I guess 1v1 melee fighting using the shield the way a shield is used (holding it between you and the enemy even when attacking with the other arm) would be a bit too tedious, so we're left with what we've got.

It's still a good point actually.

Perhaps, the devs can work toward differentiating the combat behavior between "part of formation" and "open combat." Like, for example, so long as the unit is in formation, it uses a "in-formation" combat stance (more defensive, less aggressive, smaller, more compact attack motion.. etc.), but when the formation is broken like F3-Charge command, it reverts to the usual 1h/shield animations.

 

[Apocal]

The Armor Does Something mod doesn't just nerf archers, but horse archers too. It makes such a difference, its unbelievable. If you use it, I recommend unticking the ADS projectiles, that way quiver size matters a whole lot more.

That said, I've been doing more modding than playing, so I dunno if ADS is particularly great anymore. It was still a blast to use though, and archery didn't feel ****. Just toned down.

This was essentially my experience with the mod as well, except to say that high-tier horse archers still over perform because they usually double as perfectly competent melee cav and have armor suited for the task.

 

[kweassa]

This was essentially my experience with the mod as well, except to say that high-tier horse archers still over perform because they usually double as perfectly competent melee cav and have armor suited for the task.

Which is just another way of saying "ranged = useless," unfortunately.

No disrespect to the modmaker, but many of these "balance mods" aren't actually better balanced.

It just fits popular misconceptions better.

 

[Koshkasa]

Perhaps, the devs can work toward differentiating the combat behavior between "part of formation" and "open combat." Like, for example, so long as the unit is in formation, it uses a "in-formation" combat stance (more defensive, less aggressive, smaller, more compact attack motion.. etc.), but when the formation is broken like F3-Charge command, it reverts to the usual 1h/shield animations.

That sounds like a possible solution to troop attack collision in formations, by the way. Just don't let them swing like they're alone in an open field and implement a more reserved combat stance for formations only.

Not sure if it's been suggested, but if it hasn't, I'd put that into a thread if I was you xD

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

This was essentially my experience with the mod as well, except to say that high-tier horse archers still over perform because they usually double as perfectly competent melee cav and have armor suited for the task.

Of course, but at least that gives melee units the chance to at least get some kills. It was the difference between a one sided victory and some casualties. I'd say that's a fair improvement.

Which is just another way of saying "ranged = useless," unfortunately.

No disrespect to the modmaker, but many of these "balance mods" aren't actually better balanced.

It just fits popular misconceptions better.

I wouldn't say that either. With the mod, ranged units made a mess of unarmoured or unshielded units, and were still able to score some kills on the more resilient ones. Its just that it stops you from utterly dominating battles if you had the ranged advantage over the opponent.

 

[Apocal]

Which is just another way of saying "ranged = useless," unfortunately.

I'm not following you on this: high-tier horse archers doing better than low and mid-tier archers makes ranged useless?

No disrespect to the modmaker, but many of these "balance mods" aren't actually

It just fits popular misconceptions better.

I wouldn't say archery being defeated by armor is a popular misconception.