Horse Archer and Knight Rebalance

[Gabe123]

I already posted this in another topic of mine but I think it was the wrong forum and had gotten off of the original topic in that thread so I though I would move it here.

Maybe if horse archers were given much more accuracy at high (or at least higher) range and faster horses so they could effectively skirmish from realistic distances, then maybe they would skirmish for longer and across a wider range of space. To make up for this, you could make them a lot more useless in hand to hand combat. Too often have I seen heavy knights get wasted in hand to hand combat with a horse archer. I think the abilities of the different classes should be more towards one extreme or another. This would mean more ranged kills from the horse archers and much less melee kills. Also, I don't like how the mounted speed difference between the heavy knights and the light horse archers is virtually nonexistent. I think that all that knightly armor should weigh the horse down a lot more and make him slower, so that horse archers can be more effective skirmishers, deploying succesful hit and run tactics on heavy troops, mounted or dismounted (As it is, the heavy knights can usually run them down). Also, I think that the Horse archer horses should have a much more extreme manouvre ability so that they can literally turn on a dime, fire, and then run (ala parthian shot).

So...to sum it all up for Horse Archers, they should:

have faster, more manouverable horses
much greater accuracy at high range
be much more useless in melee (even worse armor, and melee weapons that are largely inneffective against knightly armor)

And the knights should:

have even slower horses (because of their heavy armor)
have much greater ability in melee, especially against lightly armed troops
be more vulnerable to missile fire

I think this would mean that when Horse Archers and Knights come face to face, instead of a few shots fired and then a huge melee, the horse archers would fire many more and more deadly arrows so that the knights numbers will have been truly depleted before the ensuing melee engagement, in which the knights would have a huge qualitative advantage but a numerical disadvantage (because the archer volleys would thin out their numbers first).

And, of course, I realize that as it is horse archers are less effective than knights in melee and do get some ranged kills, but I think that the differences between the two should be much more effectively outlined. 

 

[Shik]

I agree that horse archers don't seem to shoot well - but that's solely an AI issue.

As for the horses - horse archers typically do have faster horses than knights.

I do not agree that horse archer melee abilities should be lowered - they are low enough already.

 

[Æon]

I frankly think all archers need to have better aim. My vaegir marksmen are awful at shooting and so are rhodok sharpshooters.

 

[Gabe123]

I think that if you were to give horse archers faster horses with greater manouverabilty, higher ranger and more powerful power draw then that would more than make up for a lesser ability in melee (and make them more of a real "horse archer" unit, as opposed to as it is where they are basically light-medium melee cavalry who shoot a stray arrow here and there).

 

[Shik]

No, the whole reason why horse archers don't do so well is entirely based on AI.

Weakening their armor/melee capability would make them die like crazy.


Horse archers already have way weaker melee capabilities than knights.

(knights have better armor, better horse armor, 5 power strike opposed to 0, etc...)

 

[The Mercenary]

I agree that horse archers don't seem to shoot well - but that's solely an AI issue.

As for the horses - horse archers typically do have faster horses than knights.

I do not agree that horse archer melee abilities should be lowered - they are low enough already.

They have faster horses because they have less heavy equipment or heavy lances.

have even slower horses (because of their heavy armor)
have much greater ability in melee, especially against lightly armed troops
be more vulnerable to missile fire

Knights were very difficult to kill with arrows. It took a lot of force to punch through plate mail armor. However, if you're talking crossbows at close range, maybe.
Knights are already very strong in melee. I dismounted a knight with a yew longbow once. He slid into a pile of my Hired Blades, stood up, and proceeded to kill seven of them. Seven.

 

[Gabe123]

Is it really just an AI issue? I'm not doubting you here, but it seems like if you really wanted to you could make computer controlled archer units have 100% perfect aim right? Shouldn't the computer be able to calculate the exact right shot every time, doesn't it instantly know how high and how far and in what direction the shot should go and how much lead is needed for it to be on target? I'm not saying that the horse archers should have one hundred percent accuracy, but it seems like you could make archers of all types have a much more accurate shot. And, if that shot was more accurate, then they would get a lot of kills before engaging in melee which would hopefully balance out the odds a bit when fighting heavily armored foes.


P.S. I don't know anything about modding or making games so maybe you can't give them 100% accuracy, it's just a speculation of mine, so flame me if need be.

P.S.S. I sort of talked about this in the pioneers guild section in a topic called "Skirmish Command"

 

[Cloud Breaker]

Horse archers should have a very high power strike rating. At least as much as power draw.

Drawing a bow takes a lot of strength. A lifetime of doing so will virtually give you a near-superhuman strength.

No joke. Such men can lift objects twice their weight. Otherwise they cannot draw their war bows.

 

[Crom The Conqueror]

Horse archers should have a very high power strike rating. At least as much as power draw.

Drawing a bow takes a lot of strength. A lifetime of doing so will virtually give you a near-superhuman strength.

No joke. Such men can lift objects twice their weight. Otherwise they cannot draw their war bows.

See Oddyseus.

Anyhow I remeber when the single greatest threat to my rule was a headshot from a Rhodok Sharpshooter. Recently they can't seem to hit jack squat and even when they do I can take as many as four or five hits instead of two. The Rhodok army is a joke. If they're AI was decreased please put it back up again. Er, I went a ittle off topic there didn't I? Beyond improved AI I pretty much disagree with nearly everything the OP said.

 

[Gabe123]

Basically where I am going with this is that I think all the classes should be way better at what they are supposed to be good at and much worse at nearly everything else.

Make knights bigger, stronger, more heavily armored and much slower.

Make horse archers a lot faster, more manouverable with more powerful more accurate shots, while at the same time give them much lower health, melee attack, and even worse armor.

Make light cavalry its own kind of class which can chase down horse archers (so that faster horse archers can be caught) and give them shields, high power strike and good melee weapons but with very little armor, so that they can effectively chase down archers and horse archers (better than knights could) but would get womped by heavy infantry and the knights themselves (as it is, light cav are just the precursor to knights instead of their own class with its own niche).

Also, maybe make light infantry its own class (instead of just a precursor to heavy infantry), and make them fast and with good power strike and maybe even javelins so they can skirmish and use hit and run tactics against heavier foes or compete with archers, but get run down by knights and light cav alike.

Archers could get even more powerful bows, longer range, greater accuracy and better power draw but still suck at melee as they move up the tiers, instead of as it is where they seem to just get heavier armor as they upgrade.

The main reason I say all of these things is because, as it is, it seems like units just "get heavier" as they get better, instead of getting much better at their specialization.

I think that these kinds of changes would make a more dynamic battlefield experience where different kinds of armor, speed, shields and weapons would have different advantages and disadvantages instead of just the heavier you are the better.

Also, to cloud breaker, its not that horse archers were weak or incapable but that their melee weapons were usually too light to pierce heavy plate armor (still deadly against un-armored skin though).

 

[The Mercenary]

Make knights bigger, stronger, more heavily armored and much slower.

Knights were actually quite fast. What do you mean by making them bigger?
Again, knights are quite strong already. I once dismounted a Swadian lancer with a yew longbow. He slid into a pile of hired blades and proceeded to kill seven of them. Seven.

Make horse archers a lot faster, more manouverable with more powerful more accurate shots, while at the same time give them much lower health, melee attack, and even worse armor.

Okay. I could see that. They should have stronger melee attacks though, and their health is fine.

Make light cavalry its own kind of class which can chase down horse archers (so that faster horse archers can be caught) and give them shields, high power strike and good melee weapons but with very little armor, so that they can effectively chase down archers and horse archers (better than knights could) but would get womped by heavy infantry and the knights themselves (as it is, light cav are just the precursor to knights instead of their own class with its own niche).

Hm. Personally, my counter to horse archers is me on foot with a longbow, two large quiver of bodkin arrows, and a spear.

Also, maybe make light infantry its own class (instead of just a precursor to heavy infantry), and make them fast and with good power strike and maybe even javelins so they can skirmish and use hit and run tactics against heavier foes or compete with archers, but get run down by knights and light cav alike.

Light infantry, historically, died a lot.

Archers could get even more powerful bows, longer range, greater accuracy and better power draw but still suck at melee as they move up the tiers, instead of as it is where they seem to just get heavier armor as they upgrade.

Archers shouldn't get longer range and more accuracy. Generally, the further away your target, the lower the accuracy.


You know, you can make all these changes yourself. It doesn't take long and it's quite easy. Only annoying part is giving them the equipment you want. But even that's easy.

 

[Cloud Breaker]

Quote failure, Mercenary.

Also, to Cloud Breaker, its not that horse archers were weak or incapable but that their melee weapons were usually too light to pierce heavy plate armor (still deadly against un-armored skin though).

Where is the basis for this?

 

[Gabe123]

To cloud breaker, warriors in heavy plate mail were very difficult to take down with your standard light cavalry weapons like swords, and were usually only susceptible to either very powerful bows/crossbows with steel tips and/or heavy weapons like axes and maces. And yes, the sword is a light weapon, they usually only weighed 3-4 pounds. And I don't want the horse archers to be weak in melee, just weaker than knights, just like I don't want knights to be slow, just slower than horse archers. Also, I was reading up on mongolian horse archers (which is what khergits are, right?) and I've learned that oftentimes they would carry multible bows with them, one of them being lighter and easier to use and aim at closer range, and the other one being larger and heavier with longer range and more deadly penetrating power, so maybe this could be implemented somehow (just an idea, I know it seems like a waste of a slot to have two bows)

To the other guy, When I say make the knights slower, I mean slower than light cavalry and horse archers, still fast though. Sorry about the bigger, its just kind of a saying, you know "bigger and stronger," the animation doesn't literally have to be bigger.

Oftentimes, especially during sieges when everyone is on foot (so it's easier to tell), my dismounted knights are the melee equivalent of equal tier horse archers, and I just thought that there should be more of a difference there.

You personally can take down horse archers with your bow or other weapons, the player usually can, but I thought it would be cool if other AI could catch them as well.

Actually, historically, light infantry didn't just serve as cannon fodder (that was what peasants were for ), they were professional warriors that had their own role in the military. They were faster and more manouverable than heavy infantry and had the potential to defeat them if proper tactics were used (screening, harassing, skirmishing, flanking, ambushing, scouting). I'm not saying that heavy infantry aren't useful by any means, or that they don't beat light infantry in straight combat, but I just think that there should be a seperate niche for light infantry.

I know that accuracy goes down at range, but, as it is, archers aren't all that accurate, long ranged or damaging in this particular version of M&B and I thought that if you improved every facet of their ranged combat (at least at the higher tiers, so you would have to earn it) and decreased their ability in melee, then they would be able to really prove their worth on the battlefield and be more historically accurate.

And I would LOVE to know how to make these changes myself, so if you could point me in the right direction for that I would just shut up, stop bothering everyone, and do it myself. Will the thread with the modding videos show me how? I haven't had the time to sit down and watch those yet.

 

[Cloud Breaker]

To Cloud Breaker, warriors in heavy plate mail were very difficult to take down with your standard light cavalry weapons like swords, and were usually only susceptible to either very powerful bows/crossbows with steel tips and/or heavy weapons like axes and maces.

Horse archers can be equally equpped as mail-clad knights. (What's a heavy plate mail?) Stop thinking that plate armors are what you can just buy from a common armorer's shop. No. It does not happen. Very few percentage of knights were able to afford to buy a warhorse, a longsword and a lance, and plate armor at the same time.

And I would LOVE to know how to make these changes myself, so if you could point me in the right direction for that I would just shut up, stop bothering everyone, and do it myself. Will the thread with the modding videos show me how? I haven't had the time to sit down and watch those yet.

What is this for?

 

[MeestYk]

Agreed, the horses with armor should charge like a moving wall at the enemy 

 

[Gabe123]

That thing about me wanting to do it myself is in response to the last thread by The Mercenary.

And yes, plate mail was expensive (I think that a full knightly panoply would cost the same as a peasants lifetime wages, or something crazy like that) and not very many knights could afford it as well as lances, shields swords etc...but the thing is, the knights in this game CAN afford it because they take it onto the battlefield with them, and if they have it with them it should be realistically used. And maybe the player can turn himself into a mail clad horse archer because it's a game, but in real life it would have been extremely difficult to fire an arrow from horse back with heavy armor on.(Note: not all mail would have been considered "heavy" armor, there were dozens of different kinds of mail at this time period such as scale mail, ring mail, chain mail, etc...and many of them were considered to be light armor and were occasionally worn by horse archers, but even then they would still effect your ability with a weapon like a bow and would not be a match for heavy plate mail.) And by heavy plate mail I mean armor which is heavy and made of a combination of plates on most sections and mail at the joints

And when you say "Horse archers can be equally equipped as mail-clad knights" do you mean in the game or historically? Because historically, like I said, SOME horse archers occasionally wore SOME form of LIGHT mail for added protection, but it still would not have allowed them to compete in a melee with much more heavily armored knights.

 

[Cloud Breaker]

the knights in this game CAN afford it because they take it onto the battlefield with them, and if they have it with them it should be realistically used.

Knights don't use plate armor in Native M&B.

And when you say "Horse archers can be equally equipped as mail-clad knights" do you mean in the game or historically? Because historically, like I said, SOME horse archers occasionally wore SOME form of LIGHT mail for added protection, but it still would not have allowed them to compete in a melee with much more heavily armored knights.

Historically. Mongolian horse archer equivalent of a European knight utilized scale armor, which is just as effective as mail in stopping slash attacks. Their weapons weren't any inferior either.

Please abandon the notion of fully plate armored knights in the 13th century. They were very rare. Rare enough to say that they virtually did not exist.

 

[Gabe123]

They use "coat of plates" i think, which is not as good as full plate armor, you're right there, but still superior in its overall protection to lamellar/scale armor. Also, very few horse archers wore armor even as heavy as scale or lamellar not because they didn't have it or couldn't afford it necessarily, but because it really does become much more difficult to be an effective horse archer as your armor gets heavier. So yes, (back to the original topic of this thread) European style knights would definitely be able to defeat Mongolian horse archers in a melee in most cases, whereas the mongols would be much more effective at range and manoeuvre but less able in melee (not because they were weak or poor melee fighters, they were most certainly some of the most ferocious combatants the world had ever seen, but scimitars and lamellar armor, though effective in many respects, were not comparable to a coat of plates, steel helms, thick shields, longswords, lances, battle axes and maces once the gap had been closed and the melee had begun).  Also, I did not realize that M&B was restricted to the 13th century, it seemed to me that the native version is kind of all over the place, period wise, in some respects (Which isn't bad, it doesn't claim to be a game devoted solely to historical accuracy).

P.S. I've been doing some reading up on mongol armor and apparently they used to wear silk shirts for armor because it would allow arrows to be removed in a much less damaging way. The silk was so elastic and tough that even if the arrow pierced the skin, it would still be on the outside of the silk, making it easy to remove without damaging the warrior again on its way out. Neat huh? Maybe silk undershirts could be implemented into M&B in such a way so that a warrior wearing one would be less likely to be killed by an arrow and more likely to be "knocked unconscious," but that's kind of another topic altogether.

 

[MeestYk]

They use "coat of plates" i think, which is not as good as full plate armor, you're right there, but still superior in its overall protection to lamellar/scale armor. Also, very few horse archers wore armor even as heavy as scale or lamellar not because they didn't have it or couldn't afford it necessarily, but because it really does become much more difficult to be an effective horse archer as your armor gets heavier. So yes, (back to the original topic of this thread) European style knights would definitely be able to defeat Mongolian horse archers in a melee in most cases, whereas the mongols would be much more effective at range and manoeuvre but less able in melee (not because they were weak or poor melee fighters, they were most certainly some of the most ferocious combatants the world had ever seen, but scimitars and lamellar armor, though effective in many respects, were not comparable to a coat of plates, steel helms, thick shields, longswords, lances, battle axes and maces once the gap had been closed and the melee had begun).  Also, I did not realize that M&B was restricted to the 13th century, it seemed to me that the native version is kind of all over the place, period wise, in some respects (Which isn't bad, it doesn't claim to be a game devoted solely to historical accuracy).

P.S. I've been doing some reading up on mongol armor and apparently they used to wear silk shirts for armor because it would allow arrows to be removed in a much less damaging way. The silk was so elastic and tough that even if the arrow pierced the skin, it would still be on the outside of the silk, making it easy to remove without damaging the warrior again on its way out. Neat huh? Maybe silk undershirts could be implemented into M&B in such a way so that a warrior wearing one would be less likely to be killed by an arrow and more likely to be "knocked unconscious," but that's kind of another topic altogether.

You have my support in these ideas because Mab has balancing issues.

 

[The Mercenary]

Okie-dokie, go to the unofficial editing tools. Select troop editor. Load Native after copying troops.txt and pasting it into the folder troops.txt is in. Now then, select some troop you want to change, say, Swadian Knights. Change stats - ironflesh, powerstrike, etc. That's self-explanatory. Change weapon skills - also self-explanatory. Everything else is self-explanatory. Now, when you're done changing the knights, hit "Update" or you will be very frustrated. Make sure to hit update every time you finish changing a unit. Select save. Ta-da! You've successfully changed the Native soldiers.

I hate quote fails.