Just another thread about OP Archers.

[hruza]

Literally hundreds of kills in some seconds:

There aren't even "hundreds" of the enemy soldiers in the video to begin with. Your archers are facing 139 enemies. So yes, you're dramatizing.

Archers just suck under AI command because AI does not use them correctly

Cavalry just suck under AI command because AI does not use them correctly.

Infantry just suck under AI command because AI does not use them correctly.

So why are archers OP in your opinion again? ...And thanks for confirming again what I said: Archers are not OP, player intelligence is. Therefore solution is not to make archers suck more, solution is to improve AI.

Archers are simply making battles not fun at all currently.

You said you are "not play 100% archer armies". So which is true?

AI using shieldwall does not change much.

And you can prove that I suppose ...given AI does not use shieldwall at all. Shieldwal works when player is using it. There is no reason why it wouldn't reduce archer efectivity if used by the AI. After all, player units in the shieldwall are AI controlled. So it's not like there are two different shieldwalls in the game, one of which makes arrows pass the shields.

AI armies have plenty of unshielded units (not necessarily recruits) which get literally killed in seconds.

And your solution to that is to make archers suck against unshielded, unprotected units? What logic is that? Unshielded, unprotected infantry in masses ARE SUPPOSED TO BE VULNERABLE TO ARCHERS.

Exactly at what role are archers supposed to be good at? Or they should just suck all around?

Here you have another video where AI uses shields and still gets wrecked. It is a bit better though:

AI doesn't use shieldwall nowhere in that video. It uses it's standard rise/lower the shield while running. Fact that it's "a bit better" just confirms what I am saying again: archers are not OP, player is. Make AI use shieldwall and it will become "much better".

I mean that most of my current battles are decided before melee because archers wreck everything in literally seconds.

False. PLAYER controlled ARCHERS wreck everything AI. I have played long enough to know for certain, that archers doesn't wreck anything, as long as that anything is controlled by me.

BTW, I also disagree with player inteligency is what makes archers OP. I can just start a battle without doing anything and archers would still wreck everything.

And "you doing anything" is demonstrating player intelligence how? Or you sincerely believe that player units have some different superior AI then the actual AI controlled ones? Well they don't. AI of your units is the same as AI of AI units. If you don't tell your units to shieldwall, they won't, would they?

 

[Apocal]

Archers are indeed an "I Win" button for players who choose to exploit them, same goes for smithing and money. What's odd is TW seem very focused on balancing things instead of adding stuff but haven't touched the two things that if you exploit make the game trivial.

It isn't true that they have haven't been balancing things.

They've touched archers at least three times in an effort to balance their effectiveness. On release, no one realized how good smithing was; it was only after woodshops were nerfed (20,000/day!), followed up by post-battle plunder loot (150K denars for taking down a clan head), followed by a caravan nerf back when one caravan pulled 2000-5000/day and was nearly immortal, etc. They've definitely been hitting things that are exploitable, the problem is that players keep finding new broken things to use.

 

[Dabos37]

There aren't even "hundreds" of the enemy soldiers in the video to begin with. Your archers are facing 139 enemies. So yes, you're dramatizing.



Cavalry just suck under AI command because AI does not use them correctly.

Infantry just suck under AI command because AI does not use them correctly.

So why are archers OP in your opinion again? ...And thanks for confirming again what I said: Archers are not OP, player intelligence is. Therefore solution is not to make archers suck more, solution is to improve AI.



You said you are "not play 100% archer armies". So which is true?



And you can prove that I suppose ...given AI does not use shieldwall at all. Shieldwal works when player is using it. There is no reason why it wouldn't reduce archer efectivity if used by the AI. After all, player units in the shieldwall are AI controlled. So it's not like there are two different shieldwalls in the game, one of which makes arrows pass the shields.



And your solution to that is to make archers suck against unshielded, unprotected units? What logic is that? Unshielded, unprotected infantry in masses ARE SUPPOSED TO BE VULNERABLE TO ARCHERS.

Exactly at what role are archers supposed to be good at? Or they should just suck all around?



AI doesn't use shieldwall nowhere in that video. It uses it's standard rise/lower the shield while running. Fact that it's "a bit better" just confirms what I am saying again: archers are not OP, player is. Make AI use shieldwall and it will become "much better".



False. PLAYER controlled ARCHERS wreck everything AI. I have played long enough to know for certain, that archers doesn't wreck anything, as long as that anything is controlled by me.



And "you doing anything" is demonstrating player intelligence how? Or you sincerely believe that player units have some different superior AI then the actual AI controlled ones? Well they don't. AI of your units is the same as AI of AI units. If you don't tell your units to shieldwall, they won't, would they?

I really don't feel like I want continue arguing with you because you are totally biased. I am just going to whare this video with you:



I am really curious about what you are going to say after looking this . I hope you enjoy the player intelligency which has been pretty decisive to win this battle. I think that it is not necessary to record a video about what would happen if I test 50 T5 infantry or cavalry units against this army, but I can do it if you are still not convinced.

(I have enjoyed a lot my meal while recording this xD)

 

[KSHMR]

@Dabos37 Nothing special about that video? Whats your point

 

[Gambles]

It isn't true that they have haven't been balancing things.

They've touched archers at least three times in an effort to balance their effectiveness. On release, no one realized how good smithing was; it was only after woodshops were nerfed (20,000/day!), followed up by post-battle plunder loot (150K denars for taking down a clan head), followed by a caravan nerf back when one caravan pulled 2000-5000/day and was nearly immortal, etc. They've definitely been hitting things that are exploitable, the problem is that players keep finding new broken things to use.

I dunno, I think I've known smithing to be broken since... at least 1.4.1 and I'm sure people were complaining about it long before then. And I may be remembering wrong but I'm pretty sure the adjustments they made to archers weapons and proficiency was done while doing it across the board to a bunch of other stuff wasn't it? not targeted?.

Regardless though if I recruit a bunch of archers and go AFK in battle they will mutilate the enemy army. Also, if I decide to be a smith I will make a ridiculous amount of money while simultaneously flooding the market with ridiculous things.

I'd say they both probably need to be addressed in a similar fashion as the woodshops and caravans as such, as they clearly break the game at least that much. One just auto wins battles and the other makes you rich instantly and then put ridiculous items in the game.

 

[Dionaea]

Archers aren't that op, they require quite a bit of micromanaging to be effective, and even then on easy I never get the feeling I have an OP army during battles, if they were really OP I wouldn't have to rely on turning on cheats all the time to ctrl alt f4 the battles.


As for the exploits, I kind of love the smithing exploit, the game is a bit of a grind (a bit less since 1.4) the smithing exploit at least takes one worry away, especially since horse trading isn't very effective anymore and you really don't have time to do meaningful immersive roleplay trading since you need to try and maintain 75+ morale constantly to level leadership (together with medicine probably the slowest working perks to level). So aside from constantly monitoring your food and morale and finding low risk enemies to fight so you don't lose too many troops in battle, if on top of that you'd also constantly have to worry about money for troop wages, food and gear for yourself and your heroes it would just become a frustrating mess. It's nice that you can level a skill fast and that it allows you to get good armour and weapons relatively fast

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

I think the people working on eco stuff are faster about making changes, but the people in charge of smithing are probably the perks/character dev people..... and to me they seems to take a looooooong time. It's absolutely not important though since anyone can skip it and there 50 thimgs I'd rather have finished first.
Edit: I forgot, the reasone I think so is because early on they greattly lowered the prices for materials you get from smelting weapons, because it was a very easy money maker, however the money from selling certain types of weapons remains un-changed. I think the eco guys could easily adjust the prices for the materials but the actual weapons might be someone else's job.

the smiting exploit at least takes one worry away, especially

It could also be this, since we make new games so often for updates they might be backing off of changes that would slow down early game for some people.
I mean, you don't have to smith for millions but if you wanted to you could smith just to get a going and skip the early stuff we've done 50 times. I don't like smithing because it think it's current form messes up the game and makes it lag somehow. I want to make weapons but I don't want a bloated .sav or items added to all the shops everywhere.

 

[hruza]

I really don't feel like I want continue arguing with you because you are totally biased. I am just going to whare this video with you:

I am really curious about what you are going to say after looking this . I hope you enjoy the player intelligency which has been pretty decisive to win this battle. I think that it is not necessary to record a video about what would happen if I test 50 T5 infantry or cavalry units against this army, but I can do it if you are still not convinced.

(I have enjoyed a lot my meal while recording this xD)

I don't know what exactly do you want to accomplish by posting the same videos again and again. There are not "hundreds" of enemies there either, so if that was to show how "archers decimate hundreds of enemies in seconds", it's a second fail.

Here is one video for you:

 

[Apocal]

I dunno, I think I've known smithing to be broken since... at least 1.4.1 and I'm sure people were complaining about it long before then.

Well, smithing has been broken since Day 1, but no one noticed until much later. I want to say May. Point is, they have been doing balancing, sometimes very quickly -- wood workshops lasted all of two days -- not just sitting back and letting things simmer, for the most part. Smithing is the one exception that has persisted but smithing itself is somewhat of an odd duck in the lot. Everything else integrates directly into the economy, with natural feedback and diminishing returns whereas smithing feels tacked-on.

And I may be remembering wrong but I'm pretty sure the adjustments they made to archers weapons and proficiency was done while doing it across the board to a bunch of other stuff wasn't it? not targeted?.

Regardless though if I recruit a bunch of archers and go AFK in battle they will mutilate the enemy army. Also, if I decide to be a smith I will make a ridiculous amount of money while simultaneously flooding the market with ridiculous things.

I'd say they both probably need to be addressed in a similar fashion as the woodshops and caravans as such, as they clearly break the game at least that much. One just auto wins battles and the other makes you rich instantly and then put ridiculous items in the game.

Archers are better now than they were on release, so its just a question of getting there. Hopefully they'll just get a damage nerf because accuracy doesn't have that much impact on their performance in field battles, against masses of troops, while having an outsized effect if you're in the arena or fighting in a tournament. Ideally, they could just adjust the scaling on the Bow skill's damage output so you can still be Robin Hood if you like as a player character but middling-tier bows in the hands of basic troops (with reduced Bow skill) become far less effective. For tournaments, give them high-tier bows again and you won't have the issue that crops up when just flatly nerfing accuracy.

 

[Dabos37]

@hruza ok, ley me try with words then. It is not the same video over and over, is the same battle but not the same video. In the last video I did not give any order to archers, not even one 1, so there is no any "player intelligency" involved anywhere but still, the broken archers were able to kill hundreds of men in seconds. Anyway, answer your questions:

There aren't even "hundreds" of the enemy soldiers in the video to begin with. Your archers are facing 139 enemies. So yes, you're dramatizing.

hundreds: a number between 100 and 999.

Cavalry just suck under AI command because AI does not use them correctly.

Infantry just suck under AI command because AI does not use them correctly.

So why are archers OP in your opinion again? ...And thanks for confirming again what I said: Archers are not OP, player intelligence is. Therefore solution is not to make archers suck more, solution is to improve AI.

While infantry and cavalry under AI command are not great, they work much better than archers under AI. The thing is that AI uses archers excessively wrong and do not fire at all until is too late.

You said you are "not play 100% archer armies". So which is true?

I do not use 100% archer armies, but just getting 50-60 archers in my +150 party means that I rarely see a melee engagement, even against equally strong parties according to power strenght.

And you can prove that I suppose ...given AI does not use shieldwall at all. Shieldwal works when player is using it. There is no reason why it wouldn't reduce archer efectivity if used by the AI. After all, player units in the shieldwall are AI controlled. So it's not like there are two different shieldwalls in the game, one of which makes arrows pass the shields.

The difference is that the player makes shield walls with 100% shielded units, but AI does not. This is the big difference here.

And your solution to that is to make archers suck against unshielded, unprotected units? What logic is that? Unshielded, unprotected infantry in masses ARE SUPPOSED TO BE VULNERABLE TO ARCHERS.

Exactly at what role are archers supposed to be good at? Or they should just suck all around?

My solution it is not about "making archers suck against unshielded, unprotected units", stop saying nonsenses. Archers should be good against unshielded units, the thing is how much good? Should archers be able to kill undhielded units just looking at them or should archers take a reasonable time to kill them?

AI doesn't use shieldwall nowhere in that video. It uses it's standard rise/lower the shield while running. Fact that it's "a bit better" just confirms what I am saying again: archers are not OP, player is. Make AI use shieldwall and it will become "much better".

My video shows that even when shielded units are able to protect themselves properly, the AI still gets wrecked because AI armies do not use 100% shielded infantry units. This video does not confirm what you say, the video just confirms that shieldwall is not enough for making the archers not OP. Plus units in shieldwall run slower, what do you think that will happen with unshielded units moving forward slowly?

False. PLAYER controlled ARCHERS wreck everything AI. I have played long enough to know for certain, that archers doesn't wreck anything, as long as that anything is controlled by me.

What I am saying is not "false". I have more than just words to argue about this:

And "you doing anything" is demonstrating player intelligence how? Or you sincerely believe that player units have some different superior AI then the actual AI controlled ones? Well they don't. AI of your units is the same as AI of AI units. If you don't tell your units to shieldwall, they won't, would they?

Player units are not superior to AI in terms of stats. The difference is that the archers under AI command do not fire. The AI is controlling archers even worse than player doing nothing, reason because I said that just archers sucks under AI command while infantry/cavalry units don't.

 

[Gambles]

Archers are better now than they were on release, so its just a question of getting there. Hopefully they'll just get a damage nerf because accuracy doesn't have that much impact on their performance in field battles

Yeah I think that's the issue, just the amount of damage they do. Or at least the armor pen they have, I'm not really sure how that works though. I wouldn't mind them being really effective against poorly armored troops but right now it seems like they still excel at killing armored infantry as well.

 

[lukkyb]

you do know Archers were A huge threat IRL and thats they things like Static sheild walls existed

this is an example of what im talking about (the same effcet can be achived with Kite sheilds just the top ones are held sideways instead)

Now this isnt done in game and archers dont really fire in arcs

but what would happen IRL is archers would be brough forward and fire a few volleys which would lead to Image above and anyone who wasnt in that would likely get hit and even in sheild walls you could still be Hit (i know as i do reenactemnet and no thats not my image)

another example is how at Agincourt the longbows while they couldnt penertarte the amour it was a huge demoralising tactic which again isnt done ingame

what im saying is Im fine with how archers perfrom in game as there are ways to counter them (flank with cav or use horse archers which in game are kinda OP) and you can get inf close when they are in sheild wall and if you dont want unsheiled inf to die dont put them on the front lines till they are gonna enage in combat

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

you do know Archers were A huge threat IRL and thats they things like Static sheild walls existed

this is an example of what im talking about (the same effcet can be achived with Kite sheilds just the top ones are held sideways instead)

Now this isnt done in game and archers dont really fire in arcs

but what would happen IRL is archers would be brough forward and fire a few volleys which would lead to Image above and anyone who wasnt in that would likely get hit and even in sheild walls you could still be Hit (i know as i do reenactemnet and no thats not my image)

another example is how at Agincourt the longbows while they couldnt penertarte the amour it was a huge demoralising tactic which again isnt done ingame

what im saying is Im fine with how archers perfrom in game as there are ways to counter them (flank with cav or use horse archers which in game are kinda OP) and you can get inf close when they are in sheild wall and if you dont want unsheiled inf to die dont put them on the front lines till they are gonna enage in combat

Sturgian infantry have a tendency to form that sort of shield wall if you tell them to stand in it. It makes them quite difficult to shoot at for the most part. Too bad AI suck at using their shields.

 

[hruza]

ok, ley me try with words then. It is not the same video over and over, is the same battle but not the same video. In the last video I did not give any order to archers, not even one 1, so there is no any "player intelligency" involved anywhere but still, the broken archers were able to kill hundreds of men in seconds.

OK, I see your point, but it really doesn't change anything. Archers controlled by the AI are not OP against player controlled anything else.

hundreds: a number between 100 and 999.

39 is not hundred. 99 is not hundred either. 100 is hundred. 200 is hundred. 900 is hundred. So no, hundredS is not between 100 and 999. Hundreds is between 1 hundred and infinite hundred.

While infantry and cavalry under AI command are not great, they work much better than archers under AI. The thing is that AI uses archers excessively wrong and do not fire at all until is too late.

AI controlled archers fire always as soon as in range.

I do not use 100% archer armies, but just getting 50-60 archers in my +150 party means that I rarely see a melee engagement, even against equally strong parties according to power strenght.

I use 1/1/1 armies and I see plenty of melee engagements. may be you just pick easy battles?

The difference is that the player makes shield walls with 100% shielded units, but AI does not. This is the big difference here.

The difference is that AI does not use shieldwall at all, so it does not matter how many unshiellded units it have. Even if only half the AI soldiers had shield, it would make a difference if they actually use them to shieldwall. Even better if shieldwall was made to put shielded soldiers in front. And that again is AI issue.

My solution it is not about "making archers suck against unshielded, unprotected units", stop saying nonsenses. Archers should be good against unshielded units, the thing is how much good? Should archers be able to kill undhielded units just looking at them or should archers take a reasonable time to kill them?

And what is reasonable time to kill? Do you realize that debuffing archers will make them suck even more against player then they do right now? You can outright remove foot archers from AI armies if you debuff them.

My video shows that even when shielded units are able to protect themselves properly, the AI still gets wrecked because AI armies do not use 100% shielded infantry units. This video does not confirm what you say, the video just confirms that shieldwall is not enough for making the archers not OP. Plus units in shieldwall run slower, what do you think that will happen with unshielded units moving forward slowly?

Unshiellded units AI uses are in 90% cases recruits. If your argument is that archers should not be able to absolutely wreck masses of peasants with pitchforks, then we have to agree to disagree. Archers definitely should wreck them.

Player units are not superior to AI in terms of stats. The difference is that the archers under AI command do not fire. The AI is controlling archers even worse than player doing nothing, reason because I said that just archers sucks under AI command while infantry/cavalry units don't.

False. AI does not use command do not fire at all. AI controlled archers will always fire when in range.

 

[Dabos37]

39 is not hundred. 99 is not hundred either. 100 is hundred. 200 is hundred. 900 is hundred. So no, hundredS is not between 100 and 999. Hundreds is between 1 hundred and infinite hundred.

What? lets stop arguing about this xD.

The difference is that AI does not use shieldwall at all, so it does not matter how many unshiellded units it have. Even if only half the AI soldiers had shield, it would make a difference if they actually use them to shieldwall. Even better if shieldwall was made to put shielded soldiers in front. And that again is AI issue.

God, belive me, it does not make much difference. I have even tested this same battle using the Realistic Battle Mod which makes AI use shieldwall and also nerf archers (improving armor) and there is not much difference. Unshielded units which are usually > 60% (recruits, archers, shock troops, etc) gets wrecked while shielded units resist but when they engage in melee, most of AI army is gone. AI moves its whole army together and shieldwall make units slower. Slower unshielded units = better targets for broken/OP archers.

AI controlled archers fire always as soon as in range.

And what is reasonable time to kill? Do you realize that debuffing archers will make them suck even more against player then they do right now? You can outright remove foot archers from AI armies if you debuff them.

False. AI does not use command do not fire at all. AI controlled archers will always fire when in range.

Can you please check the videos I have uploaded to see that the AI does not fire most of the times? God... Stop using the "false" word when you are clearly who is saying false sentences. I have even opened a thread in techsupport days ago because archers under AI command DO NOT FIRE when in formation most of the time.

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/beta-1-4-3-ai-does-not-use-shields-and-rarely-use-archers-in-formation.428812/

As you can see in that video (or in your game), archers under AI control rarely fire at the beginning, they first charge ahead while firing just eventually, and then they start firing when AI melee units are close to engage in melee combat (if they are still alive) but it is too late.

Seriously, it is pretty hard to argue with a totally biased guy who says "FALSE" to everything without even try to test it. The only reason because archers under AI command suck against player, is because the AI is broken when it has to use archers. For some reason this does not happens when you face khuzaits but this happens against Vlandia, Sturgia, Empire, Battania (not sure about Aserai). If you do not want to test it, at least have the decency to check the evidence that people are providing to try to improve the game.