Ranged weapons. Worth investing?

[VikingHaag]

Honestly, do you think it's worth investing skills point in power throw or power draw? I played various times till very late, and never saw a reason honestly. What do you think?

 

[Stepsongrapes]

Honestly, do you think it's worth investing skills point in power throw or power draw? I played various times till very late, and never saw a reason honestly. What do you think?

Uh yes, if you want use those ranged attacks?  Are you asking whether they have a significant impact on using ranged weapons or are you asking if ranged weapons work?

Unlike melee weapons, PD/PT are required for most of the high-end weapons of their type.  Heck, you can get away with skimping on powerstrike and rely on proficiency alone, no such luck with PD/PT.

Going the horse archer route, while point-intensive, can give you a rather deadly killing machine once you hit higher levels.

 

[Baron Conrad]

Archery is extremely good in sieges, from horse back or against opponents without shields.

Throwing isn't very useful because you run out so quick and the range is too limited for sieges.

 

[Ludial]

rule #1 when I conduct warfare - ALWAYS bring a ranged weapon. Everything else follows from there. Now, the kind of ranged weapon you pick depends on your needs.

If you're a commander more than anything else, pick a crossbow. Those skill points can be put into more useful things, like keeping your men alive.
If you fight on foot, with a shield and in messy melees, take a thrown weapon. Not only you can still use your shield when throwing, some thrown weapons are actually good hand weapons, so you don't need to bring a sword if you already have axes.
If you're a mobile and aggressive killing machine, take a bow by all means. Shoots faster and has more ammo than both of the others while being comparable in damage. But when using it you gotta remember to keep moving and be aggressive. The famed 'full-plate horse archer berserker on a charger' isn't favored by so many for nothing - it's one of the most deadly combos in the game (with a big choppy twohander and a war bow).

For crossbow characters I would suggest using polearms - as a commander you mostly sit in the back, direct your troops and aid them from a distance.
For a shieldman it's clear enough and throwing axes are conveniently one-handed.

 

[VikingHaag]

rule #1 when I conduct warfare - ALWAYS bring a ranged weapon. Everything else follows from there. Now, the kind of ranged weapon you pick depends on your needs.

If you're a commander more than anything else, pick a crossbow. Those skill points can be put into more useful things, like keeping your men alive.
If you fight on foot, with a shield and in messy melees, take a thrown weapon. Not only you can still use your shield when throwing, some thrown weapons are actually good hand weapons, so you don't need to bring a sword if you already have axes.
If you're a mobile and aggressive killing machine, take a bow by all means. Shoots faster and has more ammo than both of the others while being comparable in damage. But when using it you gotta remember to keep moving and be aggressive. The famed 'full-plate horse archer berserker on a charger' isn't favored by so many for nothing - it's one of the most deadly combos in the game (with a big choppy twohander and a war bow).

For crossbow characters I would suggest using polearms - as a commander you mostly sit in the back, direct your troops and aid them from a distance.
For a shieldman it's clear enough and throwing axes are conveniently one-handed.

I play as commander, but i don't see why i should need\use ranged weapons, tried out a few times, damage is really low early on, takes time and skill points that i'd rather invest in party skill. Most of battles i sit back till they start routing then charge in with my bodyguards, and for sieges i just grab 2 shields, an axe and a mean two hander.

 

[Danielson183]

ok, example, all your troops died, the enemy has 3 horse men, one an archer, 5 swordsmen, and one 6villigers. tell me, are you going to be able to kill all of those without a bow or cross bow, no.Enemy horses will be too fast and spin around. Enemy horse archers will go by fast and never stop. You need a ranged weapon!

 

[Stepsongrapes]

rule #1 when I conduct warfare - ALWAYS bring a ranged weapon. Everything else follows from there. Now, the kind of ranged weapon you pick depends on your needs.

If you're a commander more than anything else, pick a crossbow. Those skill points can be put into more useful things, like keeping your men alive.
If you fight on foot, with a shield and in messy melees, take a thrown weapon. Not only you can still use your shield when throwing, some thrown weapons are actually good hand weapons, so you don't need to bring a sword if you already have axes.
If you're a mobile and aggressive killing machine, take a bow by all means. Shoots faster and has more ammo than both of the others while being comparable in damage. But when using it you gotta remember to keep moving and be aggressive. The famed 'full-plate horse archer berserker on a charger' isn't favored by so many for nothing - it's one of the most deadly combos in the game (with a big choppy twohander and a war bow).

For crossbow characters I would suggest using polearms - as a commander you mostly sit in the back, direct your troops and aid them from a distance.
For a shieldman it's clear enough and throwing axes are conveniently one-handed.

I play as commander, but i don't see why i should need\use ranged weapons, tried out a few times, damage is really low early on, takes time and skill points that i'd rather invest in party skill. Most of battles i sit back till they start routing then charge in with my bodyguards, and for sieges i just grab 2 shields, an axe and a mean two hander.

It may not be worth it for your playstyle.  However, that was information you unfortunately neglected in your OP.

Finally, there's very little "need" in this game for an experienced player.  Do what it is fun, you can beat the game with a friggin' dagger if you choose to.

 

[VikingHaag]

ok, example, all your troops died, the enemy has 3 horse men, one an archer, 5 swordsmen, and one 6villigers. tell me, are you going to be able to kill all of those without a bow or cross bow, no.Enemy horses will be too fast and spin around. Enemy horse archers will go by fast and never stop. You need a ranged weapon!

I play a mod where all pikes and lances do at least 100 dmg per hit on horses, i just dehorse them methodically and take them out one at time. Shield + Awlpike + Axe + Great Bardiche. I got out of tighter spots than that, figure 6 nord huscarls trying to gang rape me in a siege inside one of these tiny tower rooms, got out with 4 health but i won.

 

[VikingHaag]

rule #1 when I conduct warfare - ALWAYS bring a ranged weapon. Everything else follows from there. Now, the kind of ranged weapon you pick depends on your needs.

If you're a commander more than anything else, pick a crossbow. Those skill points can be put into more useful things, like keeping your men alive.
If you fight on foot, with a shield and in messy melees, take a thrown weapon. Not only you can still use your shield when throwing, some thrown weapons are actually good hand weapons, so you don't need to bring a sword if you already have axes.
If you're a mobile and aggressive killing machine, take a bow by all means. Shoots faster and has more ammo than both of the others while being comparable in damage. But when using it you gotta remember to keep moving and be aggressive. The famed 'full-plate horse archer berserker on a charger' isn't favored by so many for nothing - it's one of the most deadly combos in the game (with a big choppy twohander and a war bow).

For crossbow characters I would suggest using polearms - as a commander you mostly sit in the back, direct your troops and aid them from a distance.
For a shieldman it's clear enough and throwing axes are conveniently one-handed.

I play as commander, but i don't see why i should need\use ranged weapons, tried out a few times, damage is really low early on, takes time and skill points that i'd rather invest in party skill. Most of battles i sit back till they start routing then charge in with my bodyguards, and for sieges i just grab 2 shields, an axe and a mean two hander.

It may not be worth it for your playstyle.  However, that was information you unfortunately neglected in your OP.

Finally, there's very little "need" in this game for an experienced player.  Do what it is fun, you can beat the game with a friggin' dagger if you choose to.

I'm by no means experienced, i play a lot of games, but always doing the same stuff...
Call me Harlaus, but i'm lazy as -uck when it comes to trying out new playstyles

 

[manekemaan]

try the two handed archer playstyle its kick-ass

 

[VikingHaag]

try the two handed archer playstyle its kick-ass

Survivability anyone? I don't wanna fight against rhodoks without my shield.

 

[Stepsongrapes]

try the two handed archer playstyle its kick-ass

Survivability anyone? I don't wanna fight against rhodoks without my shield.

It's a long-road build. 

Horse archers can be frustrating at lower levels.  The character is most easily done with an army of archers of your own.  Let them get into a missile duel with the Rhodok line and stand behind them contributing shots of your own.  Once your character is more skilled and can shoot moderately well from a moving horse, you can rely more on your speed to avoid damage.

However, once your character is at a high level, the HA has one of the fastest kill rates, perhaps even the absolute fastest, of any build.

I wouldn't suggest archery for dabbling in though- you have to dedicate a character from the beginning to the build.

 

[Filou]

Yes it's worth investing in PD if you want to play an archer.  Being able to one-shot most troops at 100 meters is a worthy investment IMHO. 
Horse Archery is optional. Last guy archer I played had zero HA, I just kept my horse still when I needed to attack while mounted.

My archers characters start out with a shield but at some point I lose it for a second quiver.  Usually when I can get good armor and have higher skills.  Keep other troops in front of you if you face other ranged troops.

I really can't imagine going into a siege attack without at least a crossbow.  The AI ignores way too many archers for me to just stand there and let them mow us down.

 

[Ludial]

@OP:
one very simple thing about survivability when facing ranged troops - when you have a shield, a concentrated barrage by some crossbowmen or throwers can chew through your shield pretty fast. Which basically can make shields rather short-term solutions. Now, the only long-term solution to an enemy archer is to kill him. And when you can't reach him with a melee weapon the only possible way is to shoot him. Like others said, in your early game you should probably bring a shield along to ensure your survivability, but after you hit the 200 mark on your chosen ranged proficiency, you don't need that shield anymore.

You know what's cool about crossbows? You don't need skill points for them. Meaning you can start using them even in your late game if you meet the STR reqs (which you most certainly would if you can use a voulge). While they aren't really necessary in the field if you're heading a substantial bunch of heavy cav, you most certainly need them in big sieges, where missile troops can essentially dominate the fight. Not to mention that crossbows are mostly siege weapons (shoot-duck in cover to reload-peek out and cap someone-duck again to reload). So you can really rack up some kills and improve your prof in a couple of big sieges.

Another little advice - what I usually do is to bring only two different weapon types to a fight. This ensures quick drawing, minimized confusion and more ammo. So next time you're in a siege, bring a voulge and a siege crossbow with two bags of bolts. Once you and your peeps have wiped out enemy archers, just go up the ladder and start splitting enemy infantry in half with your big and choppy polearm. In the field, the most effective thing would be a bastard sword/morning star(bastard weapons!) and three shields. I`d rather pick a bastard sword since it`s faster and I can actually lance with it without risking my sorry hide (one of the worst things about lances is that you can`t use them except when couching).

 

[VikingHaag]

@OP:
one very simple thing about survivability when facing ranged troops - when you have a shield, a concentrated barrage by some crossbowmen or throwers can chew through your shield pretty fast. Which basically can make shields rather short-term solutions. Now, the only long-term solution to an enemy archer is to kill him. And when you can't reach him with a melee weapon the only possible way is to shoot him. Like others said, in your early game you should probably bring a shield along to ensure your survivability, but after you hit the 200 mark on your chosen ranged proficiency, you don't need that shield anymore.

You know what's cool about crossbows? You don't need skill points for them. Meaning you can start using them even in your late game if you meet the STR reqs (which you most certainly would if you can use a voulge). While they aren't really necessary in the field if you're heading a substantial bunch of heavy cav, you most certainly need them in big sieges, where missile troops can essentially dominate the fight. Not to mention that crossbows are mostly siege weapons (shoot-duck in cover to reload-peek out and cap someone-duck again to reload). So you can really rack up some kills and improve your prof in a couple of big sieges.

Another little advice - what I usually do is to bring only two different weapon types to a fight. This ensures quick drawing, minimized confusion and more ammo. So next time you're in a siege, bring a voulge and a siege crossbow with two bags of bolts. Once you and your peeps have wiped out enemy archers, just go up the ladder and start splitting enemy infantry in half with your big and choppy polearm. In the field, the most effective thing would be a bastard sword/morning star(bastard weapons!) and three shields. I`d rather pick a bastard sword since it`s faster and I can actually lance with it without risking my sorry hide (one of the worst things about lances is that you can`t use them except when couching).

Honestly, in open field i just walk (or ride) up to meele range, takes a while, but a tempered steel shield won't break even in 100 hits.
When in meele, i just pull out my 54 dmg weapon and start grinding them.  And a lance is welcome, i love stopping horses dead in their track. (What lance are you referring? light lance and likes or jousting one?)

 

[Ludial]

any lance. I charge in, whether I hit or miss doesn`t matter because I`m suddenly surrounded by a huge mob of light cavalrymen/archers with voulges and usually get my arse kicked.

So I lance with a bastard sword. Pretty effective, can be done even at low speeds, don't have to switch weapon when my horse stops (can directly start chopping in all directions), and when the thrusting attack is chambered, my shield actually covers me better than the small shields usable with lances (especially if the shield I'm using is of the (Nord) Round shield family). In addition, I can bring either two extra shields or a crossbow with a bag of arrows. With lance, hand weapon and shield the only extra thing you can bring is either a shield or one bag of throwing weapons.

 

[Fattyfat]

I don't think I've played a character since original M&B that wasn't a horse archer to some extent (even CHA/INT build characters, I deem must-have 4 in horse archery, +4 power draw if bow, not if x-bow).

There are two reasons for the ranged -

1:  Khergit armies.  They will run you in circles for hours on end, being able to take them (or just their horses if you aren't a good shot works almost as well) out from range is a huge advantage.

2: Sieges.  Yeah, you can bring your own archers, but I am certain that the player can dish out way more kills with a ranged weapon than his troops can, which ends a siege much faster.

 

[Ludial]

@OP:
just another thing (two actually):
1. I only equip from loot, so no steel shield for me. I can get a huscarl's shield or a heavy board shield, tho.
2. steel shield belongs to the smallest variety of shield. The ones that usually tend to make your legs a prime target for anything with a ranged weapon at all times. On horse your legs and right side get shot at all the time. on foot it's the legs. And believe me, the legs can kill. And if you have a bunch of points in shield skill, then the use of the small shield doesn't really count, since that skill is unrealistic as hell. For the sake of realism, I put no points in that skill and use the biggest shields possible. Oh, and I switch them for an extra bag of ammo once my ranged and melee proficiencies have gone up.

 

[juicemaestro]

One thing in favor of thrown is that you can move while shooting with little impact to accuracy. With a bow you have to stop to shoot. I can't remember how much crossbow reticule was affected by running.

 

[Captain_Octavius]

@OP, make sure you have a siege crossbow and a large bag of steel bolts in your inventory. Only use them in sieges. Otherwise you'll find out how frustrating it is to be in a siege battle and you can't really do anything because melee is one big cluster ****, while you could be headshotting top tier troops that are on the ladder from a few meters distance.

Crossbows don't require any skill point investment, so there is simply no reason at all not take them with you in sieges. You can get tons of XP if you bring one.