Ranged unit change

[Genie]

Hello, I'm sorry if this has been posted. I did a search and didn't catch anything, so here goes.

Basically I think any sort of ranged unit (Bows or Xbow) should not be allowed to carry large additional weapons with them. What I mean is that it is annoying when you are trying to take out a group of Swadian Crossbowmen or Vaegir Archers, and as soon as you get within striking range, they all whip out shields and swords/small pole arms and more or less make goo out of you. (if you survive all the arrows, your shield tends to take a lot of hits, and you get mauled in close quarters.)

Their range is what makes them unique and valuble to an army, and I think that instead of having secondary weapons equal to other regular foot units, range units should get daggers or other small defense weapons.

Just my opinion that they seem a little powerful. Sure it can be countered by having a large army, but if you get attacked by Sea Raiders or Mtn. Bandits early on in the game, it is fairly annoying.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Fidelis]

Archers usually carried full-sized swords and not just daggers or other smaller weapons. I'm not sure if they carried shields or polearms, though. Swords, however, could be easily carried on a belt.

 

[DaLagga]

Yes, but i doubt they were anywhere near as good with that sword as a regular foot soldier would be. I agree, they shouldn't have such powerful melee weapons. They should be at a true dissadvantage in melee, not just become uber footsoldiers. So maybe, a few of them actually have swords, but they have very low skill with them. And the rest have lesser melee weapons, and should never carry shields.

 

[Rando]

My party used to consist of about 8 swad sharpshooters and 6 sergeants. Everytime the enemy would get into range of my shooters, ALL (i repeat ALL) of my sharpshooters would pull out VOULGES. Nothing was able to bring them down, and ppl would just get killed faster if they got into melee range. The only reason they all died was because they just clustered each other and shot each other (not even surgery 8 saves everyone). But I digress. Archers really should only carry small one handed weapons (I even think swords are pushing it). Unless I am mistaken, archers/crossbowman only carried daggers and almost never used shields but, they could shoot something like 20 arrows a minute. So, I guess would prefer archers to have a 1 handed sword to turning me into a reverse porcupine when I say, "pfft, it's just a bunch of skirmi..."

 

[Keemo]

Yes, it's pretty crazy how every archer has an 8ft long voulge in his backpocket I would give them long daggers or maybe a short sword.

 

[Kniggit]

if archers did have shields they were bubklers, and the had more daggers than swords i believe. but i woulod change the ai forst, when i tell em to hold position, well sure, they pull out thier bows, but when they even come close, or if i go ahead and start swinging, they ALL pull out ther voulgest and hsild and whatnot, ITS RETARDED!

Ian

 

[Lost-Lamb]

The question that remains no is what do you want them to be equipped with? Its now biggie (less than 10 min job) to change them but I'd need to know what to change them to

 

[Laurence of Arabia]

it should be left as it is. If your going to complain, then think about this. You can carry 4 voulges in effect can't you? And they have to waste one weapon slot for bolts/arrows.

 

[Lost-Lamb]

It was mostly the realism factor. If I'm not completely wrong they can use any of the items in their inventory, and i was planning on doing the fix myself not complaining to the higher powers

 

[Cleitan]

BTW I want bucklers enabled in the way that I can use it to blcok While my bow is drawn. Even if it is really weak it should still work.

please.

 

[Tarrak]

Most medieval archers could double as infantry.

The famous longbowmen were quite able swordsmen (and axemen as their armaments weren't uniform), they even carried shields sometimes (dropped it to the ground while shooting).

In the east it was very common to have infantry with bows, shields and swords. Then one couldargue that they were really just infantry with bows, but if an infantryman is good with the bow, is he then an archers and should thus drop his equipment?

No... Of course not.

What I'm trying to say is, archers were not the weaklings we see in the various RTS games. The real problem for them was neither weapons nor skills with them, but their lack of armour, as that would in most cases have been both expensive and constricting.
Also, archers liked to have space around them to set up their shots, so if enemy cavalry or ven infantry got among them there was no protection to be found among the other archers, and they would individually be swamped or trampled.

Now, of course voulges and oter big two-handers should go, but even that is not unheard of. Certain Persian infantry liked to fight with bows and spears.

 

[Skeletor9000]

Tarrak, thanks for the historical perspective. Personally, I play as an archer who uses two-handed polearms when things get tough. Considering that cavalry is probably an archer's worst nightmare, what makes more sense than archers armed with long-range melee weapons? What's so nice about this game is that if you feel that's too challenging (I don't mind being knocked unconscious in 50% of my battles -- more realistic that way) you can edit the files and make the archers all use butcher knives or something ridiculous like that. I feel, though, that as an element of a military force, the archers would certainly be equipped with something more suitable for killing opposing soldiers. A butcher knife is fine for river pirates, not Swadian knights. I'm not sure what the highest level archers are wearing for armor, but it seems that would be the most realistic modding opportunity; maybe making sure they're never wearing anything better than chainmail, and that only rarely. I think it would be really cool (wishful thinking here) if the archers could fire in volleys with one serving as sergeant and shouting, "Loose!" before they unleash a hail of arrows.