I'm reading this as a 1 for 1 quip of this exchange and nothing more, I think you guys have escalated it by dog piling
@nyarlathotep1975 a bit.
I'm still waiting for someone to actually make the point that archers "need" to be nerfed. It's all f*cking opinion.
Yeah it more like a list of annoyances then a need.
I guess I prefer to start with the desired result, what should the gameplay be like?
Want infantry to perform better against archers? Make them hold their shields while they run and not bob and fidget so much. Add the group targeting system so they don't turn around an expose themselves while moving to attack.
Want Cavalry to perform better against archers (and anything)? Make them land their hits constantly so they kill the target. Add the group targeting. Currently they miss and then dwadle around getting shot. It's somehow better to but them in SW and just move them through enemies then to order an attack.
For both: adjusting or limiting the speed boost to arrows and bolts would help, because as is, non-ranged are always taking boosted damage when moving towards ranged. The speed boost damage also makes it hard to accurately control how much damage tiers of troops can do and is often while we see "X defeated by recruit". I think this happens too much.
Want the AI to be more challenging? It needs to not attack and defend in such a rigid and linear way. As long as you can easily flank and surround the AI, it has no chance. Even if archers needed 70 shots to kill a unit, with the current AI you could just walk 50 ranged on each side and sit thier and kill 100 units anyways.
Are enemy archers too good/annoying? Yes sometimes they are. I feel like low tier archers shoot too fast and too accurately. I actually think tier 4-6 are FINE but it the t2-3 that need to be a little weaker. And it is a feeling: I don't like the experience of 2t/3 militia archers being able to shoot me in the face as quickly and easily (or more) then I can them at a 200+ bow skill with the best bow in the game. It just doesn't feel right that what to me is a tiny spec that takes trial and error to hit, is just automatically achieved by low tier units.
Want every troop to be needed in the party? They need additional utilities and uses besides "do damage, number go down". As is, there's just no reason not to save infantry for the garrisons because everything they do can be provided by "more archers", even cavalry makes better infantry by being able to move across the map faster (and map speed). Give me another reason to need 20% infantry. Also T6 infantry because the medicine scales with tier.
Is armor too weak: I like to describe it as "everything does too much damage" as as I've said I blame speed boosted damage as the top problem. Sure, more armor could be added but it's just a band aid for not controlling the damage sources.
I don't like nerfing archers in general because I think SOME troops need to feel good to play with and be effective and don't think infantry and cavalry is.
Both need ranged support to be effective at all so just nerfing ranged makes them suck more too and then the whole thing just takes longer, wastes more troops and requires more menu actions in between. I would much prefer improving AI (and adding group targeting) and Inf nad Cav.
Sure AI can be improved as well, but even if AI was perfect, ranged would still outperform melee because they both do the same damage but one does it at a distance. Armour changes are absolutely necessary.
If they could use their shields and not expose themselves (better AI) and move around and not let themselves be effortlessly flanked and surrounded (or kited) they could out last arrows and if they could actually fight better depending on skill/tier/loadout (AI) they should be mopping the floor with archers. Now, is that going to happen...... hmmmm......
To me AI improvments (and skill effects too) means a more enjoyable gameplay and also will make using Infantry and cavalry more enjoyable.
Adding armor just makes the battle take a little longer and doesn't change anything about the gameplay or the enjoyment of using different troops. They will still be too cumbersome and awkward to position and un reliable on attack.
Sure, I might like to ram 100 heavy axe men into everything sometimes and it would improve this.
I guess Armor changes probably are a good idea, but I think there's many more important parts to the same problem of "too much damage" "troop diversity not needed" "Infantry and cavalry do dum things all the time" and on and on. I don't want TW to just do more bandaids.
So I guess it's more I won't care if they add/change armor because it won't effect anything I care about in battles. It's not "oh no the cavalry can only take 6 arrows not 8" it's "the cavalry didn't hit the guy with his lance", it not "oh the archers will do too much damage to my infantry" it's "it takes too long to move their butts across the map I'll just move cavalry and make them dismount on the archers YOLO".
