Easy solution to fix archers without nerfing them or buffing armor

Currently viewing this thread:

Enable friendly fire.

Right now, only the player is affected by friendly fire. If this applies to every archer, boy, you'd be giving the orders to hold fire as soon as you commit melee. Unless of course your name is Ramsay Bolton.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Enable friendly fire.

Right now, only the player is affected by friendly fire. If this applies to every archer, boy, you'd be giving the orders to hold fire as soon as you commit melee. Unless of course your name is Ramsay Bolton.
You know they stop loosing arrows when there are friendlies in the way, yeah?

Secondly, it would just mean players fully commit to archers, because you can't hit friendlies in the melee if there is no melee.
taps head
 

AnandaShanti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
Enable friendly fire.

Right now, only the player is affected by friendly fire. If this applies to every archer, boy, you'd be giving the orders to hold fire as soon as you commit melee. Unless of course your name is Ramsay Bolton.
If they made archers able (stupid) to shoot into friendly units I would use that against the AI, it'd be hilarious.
Any nerf or buff they give anything I can use to much better effect then the AI.
ask my clan's pile of dead wives why I'm Ramsey ****ing SNOW!
Of course If I have any infantry, they're just a sacrifice anyways, of course I won't mind shooting them! It would be all upside as Atm archer s just don't try.
 

geala

Sergeant at Arms
From my (bad) experience the game is not made for friendly fire. And Apocal's concerns are valid.

I'd like a solution for the archers in BL which would restore the general supremacy of melee over ranged and necessity to use close combat which we see on the real battlefields till the broad scale invention of firearms. Till now I found none although some mods do it better than vanilla.
 

geala

Sergeant at Arms
Where does this idea come from? Why do people think men without ranged weapons have an advantage in open battle with virtually no cover?

The idea comes from the fact that during the time of ranged muscle-powered weapons, after the introduction of the first protection devices during Bronze Age, these weapons were never able to dominate combat. They were important and needed and had different influences and without armies were in a bad spot. But in the end melee, wether on foot or horse, was needed and took the brunt of the fights.

There were very very few battles which were decided by ranged weapons in the first place. The repulse of the Moslem first invasion into Nubia in the 7th c. AD comes to mind. But usually ranged, while important, was not enough or decisive. That's the reason why Xenophon for example spoke from light infantry like slingers in a derogatory way.
 
You know they stop loosing arrows when there are friendlies in the way, yeah?

Secondly, it would just mean players fully commit to archers, because you can't hit friendlies in the melee if there is no melee.
taps head

No they don't. I've sent melee into the fray while the archers on higher ground continue to fire away.

From my experience, shield wall works nicely against archers. It's when melee engages against melee that they drop shield wall and become vulnerable.

With friendly fire on, the AI would not be as vulnerable.
 
If they made archers able (stupid) to shoot into friendly units I would use that against the AI, it'd be hilarious.
Any nerf or buff they give anything I can use to much better effect then the AI.
ask my clan's pile of dead wives why I'm Ramsey ****ing SNOW!
Of course If I have any infantry, they're just a sacrifice anyways, of course I won't mind shooting them! It would be all upside as Atm archer s just don't try.

No of course not. The AI should also hold fire once their melee engages.

Troops hit by friendly fire should get a massive morale penalty.
 

vonbalt

Knight
WBNWVCM&B
I don't see anything particularly wrong with armor.
For shorts the formula is completely bonkers, blunt ignores 100% of armor rating and the best armors in-game will only mitigate around 35-40% damage received with more common armors mitigating less than 30%.

This means that from 100 damage you would receive naked you'll still get some 65-60 damage more or less with the best armor available in game, this is just bad gameplay design.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
No they don't. I've sent melee into the fray while the archers on higher ground continue to fire away.
You know they stop loosing arrows when there are friendlies in the way, yeah?
archers-will-fire-over-their-heads.png

Turning on friendly fire won't stop them from sending arrows over their own side.
 
archers-will-fire-over-their-heads.png

Turning on friendly fire won't stop them from sending arrows over their own side.

LOL

I appreciate the artwork but you know the lines aren't so clearly delineated. What you're suggesting is that the archers are actually snipers armed with laser guided arrows.

I don't think so. It seems more likely that friendly fire is not enabled. FYI, even on even ground, archers will still continue firing into the fray.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
LOL

I appreciate the artwork but you know the lines aren't so clearly delineated. What you're suggesting is that the archers are actually snipers armed with laser guided arrows.

I don't think so. It seems more likely that friendly fire is not enabled. FYI, even on even ground, archers will still continue firing into the fray.
Oh FF is definitely NOT enabled for AI but they stop loosing arrows if there is a friendly in the way. One sec, I'll get a video.
 
For shorts the formula is completely bonkers, blunt ignores 100% of armor rating and the best armors in-game will only mitigate around 35-40% damage received with more common armors mitigating less than 30%.

This means that from 100 damage you would receive naked you'll still get some 65-60 damage more or less with the best armor available in game, this is just bad gameplay design.

Yea it needs tweaking but it's otherwise functional. I don't see a need to adjust it too drastically. If you don't like the damage ratio you can always play on an easier setting?

Anyhow, from my experience, I don't receive too much damage so I don't see the issue. Maybe you should try leading from behind.
 
Oh FF is definitely NOT enabled for AI but they stop loosing arrows if there is a friendly in the way. One sec, I'll get a video.

Well then I'm not sure what we're arguing about. I think turning on FF will make most players start to rely more on melee. Especially if FF carries with it a huge morale penalty.
 
Top Bottom