Wait, base game units derive no benefit from weapon stat changes?
As of three weeks ago, no. They might have fixed it or enabled or whatever needs to happen to make it work since then, but if they did it wasn't in the patch notes.
Wait, base game units derive no benefit from weapon stat changes?
Wait, base game units derive no benefit from weapon stat changes?
This is shocking and yet at the same time not surprising at all. With everything else that doesn't work, why wouldn't weapon skills be broken too?Unless they enabled/fixed thing in the last three weeks (ish?) since I tested, BasicCharacterObjects -- your unnamed masses of troops -- derive no benefit from weapon skills. None. Athletics works though, so you can watch looters move like Usain Bolt or similar but the weapon skills have no discernible impact.
I didn't believe it at first (but I was suspicious when fixing the Khuzait Heavy Lancer's stats had no real change on their performance) so I tested it myself and yup, didn't matter.
Palatine guard are extremely easy to recruit on mass thanks to t2 availability.
They are also the most heavily armoured archer in the game, allowing them to trade better at range and more than take care of themselves in melee. You can't ignore these advantages.
Battles also don't last long enough for quiver sizes to really matter either, so a lack of quiver doesn't mean as much as I'd like it to.
And having done some experiments, I can assuredly tell you that no. Sturgian Archers have more arrows, but their arrows suck. I've done some tests and so far, they fail to impress.
This is shocking and yet at the same time not surprising at all. With everything else that doesn't work, why wouldn't weapon skills be broken too?
Nerf archers holy snap. cavalry chargers against an unprotected flank and charging into arches is suicide now.
cavalry units also get demolished by the, regular archers.
Admit it you tried to solo a whole bunch of looters didn't you?Looters being able to 360 noscope and deal 10 damage is insane when I have one of the best armor in the game
What is a viable strategy? I don't see any strategy in your post thus farIn warband and really any medieval strat game like total war this is a viable strategy but arches are just able to destroy anything in there path.
Stop expecting to solo everything from atop your horseAlso normal cavalry needs better reach or something they have a hard time hitting stuff.
Skill stats on soldiers do work just not as your chars but they define how npcs will perforf in battle,for example a rider with low rider skill will fall on trees,wont be able to avoid melees attack etc like if you have fight against steppe bandit you'll understand the big diff stats do.Dmgwise depends on weapons themselves alone.This is shocking and yet at the same time not surprising at all. With everything else that doesn't work, why wouldn't weapon skills be broken too?
I beg to differ. T2 availability lets you get them en massIt's as available as any other t5 unit. If you mean that Imperial t2 upgrade gets bow while Sturgian t2 gets javelins, that's makes very little practical difference. Imperial t2 might be easier and safer to level, but not by much. It certainly makes no difference once you level them.
Sturgian Vet Bowman armour is still significantly behind Palatine guard armour. Everyone is still behind them. Their lack of shoulder armour does them no favours.Not anymore. Since 1.4.0 or 1.4.1 their armor was nerfed while Sturgian t5 armor was buffed. Besides, if you use your archers to trade arrows, then you are not using them very well. Ideally your archers should newer come under fire.
I've seen archers pick arrows up to use them, so its not as if there's no way for them to cope. Its a weakness, but it doesn't ruin them.They actually do and it's very easy to deplete single stack. Which is why most, if not all foot archers in the game have two. With exception of Imperials.
Fair.Damage difference on Palatine Guard arrows is marginal. It's just +1 damage if I recall correctly.
Depends on where you recruit. In the empire they are t2 so its easy to get more. Because they are archers they die less and level faster. Outside of war farm Forest bandits who are a clear winners pick even upgrading to the best archers tier fians with castle upgrades or disciplinarian perk. Even without the perk or a castle Forest bandits are amazing.They seem to be a pain to recruit in large numbers in single player especially during a war.
This is shocking and yet at the same time not surprising at all. With everything else that doesn't work, why wouldn't weapon skills be broken too?
...
2. Lords army is 50% recruit ****, and they have no shields, and it makes them very vulnurable for archers
Skill stats on soldiers do work just not as your chars but they define how npcs will perforf in battle,for example a rider with low rider skill will fall on trees,wont be able to avoid melees attack etc like if you have fight against steppe bandit you'll understand the big diff stats do.
I'm not sure what you see as broken, or wether the mechanic is broken or working as intended. For me it would be RPG-nonsense, if a unit with higher stats would get more damage out of a given bow/crossbow.
2. Lords army is 50% recruit ****, and they have no shields, and it makes them very vulnurable for archers
Yeah, I think this desperately needs fixing. The most basic troops in history would get spear and shield (and helmet) before anything else, the recruits should really drop their swords instead.
Right now that would be a horrible idea. Spearman under perform everywhere. Sure, a mob of spears could take out a cavalry man, but a two handed pole infantryman can do it by themselves. TW needs to do something about spears and the AI using them first.Also, I would like to see most infantry lose their spears, and I think that would make dedicated spearmen units be more useful as a hard counter to cavalry, as well as indirectly buffing cavalry vs general purpose infantry.
The way I see it the t1 unit is not a levy, but literally just a peasant that's suppose to be taken to the training camp to become a part of the levy. Its only at t2 that they become levy imo.Yeah, I think this desperately needs fixing. The most basic troops in history would get spear and shield (and helmet) before anything else, the recruits should really drop their swords instead. Even peasant levies afforded some basic kit because they knew how lethal it was not to have it and they did not want to die.
With towns you were fined or lose citizenship which implied you being part of the militia if you did not afford a specific set of arms and armor and did not have it maintained.
Do no, but I don't have problem with archers, certainly not charging them with cavalry. Archers have pretty hard time hitting fast moving cavalry, unless it moves in a strait line towards the archer. Moreover AI archers start repositioning when charged by cavalry and they become even less effective.
I have seen no difference in behavior between units with 220 riding and those with 70 riding.
Do a simple test take 20 tribal warriors and fight a large band of looters and then do the same with heavy
horse archers,some of the 1st will fall on looters and get killed while the 2nd will manuever to the right way earlier and keep the proper distance all the time.
You honestly don't see what's broken?I'm not sure what you see as broken, or wether the mechanic is broken or working as intended. For me it would be RPG-nonsense, if a unit with higher stats would get more damage out of a given bow/crossbow. They should be more accurate, should be able to use stronger bows (so with more damage in the end, although it should be better more penetration only, if we had a bit realism …) and should be able to shoot/load faster. Maybe the system cannot work in this way however.
You honestly don't see what's broken?
The skills are all supposed to have specific effects which are listed in their descriptions, but for some reason those effects don't apply to troops? Then why isn't that stated in the skill descriptions? Why even give numerical skill values to troops at all if it means something different for them vs for heroes? If it was intentional that the skills are this misleading then its not the feature thats broken, its the game design itself.
And for what its worth, there's nothing rpg-nonsensey about doing more damage at higher skill levels. For bows, it represents the ability to pull the bowstring to it maximum drawlength, squeezing every bit of potential power out of each shot. That's what the old Power Draw skill represented. Crossbows don't get a damage bonus, so high skill only increases reload speed and accuracy.
Well yeah, spearmen would have to be buffed to compensate.Right now that would be a horrible idea. Spearman under perform everywhere. Sure, a mob of spears could take out a cavalry man, but a two handed pole infantryman can do it by themselves. TW needs to do something about spears and the AI using them first.