Regarding Archers

[tommylaw]

I'll get right to it. I suspect archers or rather bows are overpowered in that they have a spectacular rate of fire. Archers barely have to aim before the loose off, then their hands just flick back and another arrow is notched and loosed just as quickly. He was aiming for me, I know this because I was the only guy left, I rode past him and he got a shot to my back, not 2 seconds later did I sprout another feather. I believe that's too fast.
Also, archers have no consideration for friendly fire, I would be fighting one on one with a melee soldier and an archer 90 degrees of us and 15 yards away would feel secure in taking a shot! As of yet, I have never witnessed the shot hit my foe.

Before I go and decrease reload times on bows, I want to know if I am right in thinking this.

 

[Kasimir]

I have not noticed this. My experience of bows is that they are only really deadly in large numbers. An arrow can be loosed every few seconds, but if there are only one or two archers it is not that difficult to dodge.

I would recommend against reducing the speed. Historically military archery was partly about volume and getting as many arrows in the air as possible. If you want to tone them down a bit, I would suggest reducing accuracy.

 

[Archie]

Off the top of my head:

In the middle of the Hundred Years War a good longbowman was capable of firing 10 or 12 (I forget which it is) arrows a minute. Of course, they were firing into a large body of troops rather than trying to pick out an individual, and that was probably an optimum rather than standard rate of fire.

As for friendly fire I seem to remember reading about some commanders who would have their archers firing into the enemy until the instant the lines clashed: the risk of taking out a few of your own was considered worth it (obviously the infantry may have disagreed slightly...).

 

[Tintin]

Off the top of my head:

In the middle of the Hundred Years War a good longbowman was capable of firing 10 or 12 (I forget which it is) arrows a minute

Twas 12. One every five seconds or something along those lines

 

[Agent707]

An experienced archer "can" fire arrows every couple seconds.  However, this does not allow enough time to do anything other than pull back and fling...
More than half the shots are made so pourly, you're lucky to hit the side of a barn.  A lot of them don't even make it to a full pull.

Accuracy and damage (from the reduced pull) are evident in this game when you let arrows loose at this rate (at lower skills anyway).

I don't do archery IRL, but I had a friend once who did.  He's the one who is responsible for me playing archers in RPG's. 

I used to go watch them at archery shoots (not really competitions, just a bunch of local archers get together and have some fun) and they would do all kinds of weird stuff, like, see who could shoot the most arrows in 30 seconds.  It was pretty funny to see some of them, almost shoot themselves in the foot after their arm started getting tired. lol

But some, that were really strong, and could really fling arrows - very fast.  And not half bad accurate!


Normal time to load and shoot a bow is about 5 seconds for an experienced archer.  This includes a few seconds to get a full pull and take a pretty descent aim.  Even if you are vollying arrows, you still have to take a pretty good aim.  You dont just aim for the sky and shoot.  Doesn't work that way.

----
I think archery in this game pretty close.  The longer you hold and aim, the better shot you get off (with good damage).  But if you hold it too long, you start to lose your aim, and eventually it just hits the ground in front of you.

The only problem I can see, is when your skill gets so high, your aim zeros in a bit too fast.  Once you hit 7 or 8, and you're standing still, you don't have to hold the mouse to get a good aim.  Once the bow is drawn, you're pretty much zero'd in.

In castle raids, I break in and just stand on the wall and drop them left and right.

NPC archers in this game, are really bad.  I mean really.  If they were half descent, the game would be much harder than it is. 
----

But then again, I already know you have this thing against archery. 

So 

 

[Lord Burgess1]

I've never experinced FF in M&B

I have an army of 100 Royal Sharpshooter (from Rangers Apprentice)

I often stand infront of the enemy lines, an arrow never ever hits me.

 

[Agent707]

I've never experinced FF in M&B

I have an army of 100 Royal Sharpshooter (from Rangers Apprentice)

I often stand infront of the enemy lines, an arrow never ever hits me.

Yea, I don't know if NPC's can do this or not.  Their shots are so bad though, that surely you would see messages all the time like "Ymira was wounded by an allie archer..." or something.

I myself can't recall ever being hit either.

Me, on the other hand.... I hit them all the time when they run in front of me... or I might hit someones horse.

I haven't killed a friendly - yet. 

 

[Lord Burgess1]

I think they don't aim for you, it's just if the archer is inaccurate, it could hit you.

 

[dryhte]

I know for a fact that I've been hit quite often by my own archers...

 

[duracell]

Normal time to load and shoot a bow is about 5 seconds for an experienced archer.  This includes a few seconds to get a full pull and take a pretty descent aim.  Even if you are vollying arrows, you still have to take a pretty good aim.  You dont just aim for the sky and shoot.  Doesn't work that way.

The archer isnt supposed to "take aim" with a war bow, the moment he reaches full pull he should release, its not about aiming, its about routine and practice, he aims with the pull.
Keeping a war bow in full pull even for a few seconds is extremely tiring.

I know for a fact that I've been hit quite often by my own archers...

Normally the archer AI will not shoot if there is a chance for friendly fire (when a friend is in the possible "spread" of their shot), friendly fire only happen to me when I move in to the way of my archer's already released shots, like when I zigzag to confuse enemy archers (how ironic )

 

[kingofnoobia]

English longbowmen fired 6 arrows in a minute. That's one every 10 seconds (look it up on wikipedia).

Most bowmen would not try for more than 1 arrow every 6 seconds.

So yes, rate of fire is too high in MnB.

It would be nice if bows were handled a bit more like crossbows: first click nocks the arrow (but with a bow you can move while doing this), then you can move around with your nocked arrow. Holding lmb again after that draws it and releasing it fires.

 

[AWdeV]

No, that wouldn't be nice. It would actually be rather silly to run around with arrow knocked, it'd make swinging the bow around a lot less practical as it's possible you acidentally release the arrow without having the bow drawn. Which would lead to the silly situation of it simply flopping to your feet just when you needed to hit Lord Chargey McCharge in the armoured face.  Crossbows use all sorts of nifty mechanisms to keep the bolt in place before firing, but that simply won't work with any hand-drawn bow.

 

[Lord Burgess1]

English longbowmen fired 6 arrows in a minute. That's one every 10 seconds (look it up on wikipedia).

Most bowmen would not try for more than 1 arrow every 6 seconds.

So yes, rate of fire is too high in MnB.

It would be nice if bows were handled a bit more like crossbows: first click nocks the arrow (but with a bow you can move while doing this), then you can move around with your nocked arrow. Holding lmb again after that draws it and releasing it fires.

Every 10 seconds? Bull****

It's more like every 3-5 depending on archer and how long they will be firing for.

The archers that fight in a war practise for years, they know what to do, taking 10 seconds to fire an arrow, would mean about 6 seconds drawing the arrow (probably more because they tended to stick the arrows in the ground infront so loading was quicker) A full longbow would mean no chance of that.

 

[tommylaw]

Drawing a bow is apparently hard work, maybe they have to flex or clench to relieve physical stress once in a while.

Whatever the time it takes, 2 seconds is definitely too much if he's aiming for a specific target.

 

[Lord Burgess1]

Well generally the archer wouldn't fire for too long. In a siege they wouldn't be firing constantly, but if a cavalry battalion is charging, there will be a lot of archers firing for probably about 40 seconds.

 

[kingofnoobia]

English longbowmen fired 6 arrows in a minute. That's one every 10 seconds (look it up on wikipedia).

Most bowmen would not try for more than 1 arrow every 6 seconds.

So yes, rate of fire is too high in MnB.

It would be nice if bows were handled a bit more like crossbows: first click nocks the arrow (but with a bow you can move while doing this), then you can move around with your nocked arrow. Holding lmb again after that draws it and releasing it fires.

Every 10 seconds? Bull****

It's more like every 3-5 depending on archer and how long they will be firing for.

The archers that fight in a war practise for years, they know what to do, taking 10 seconds to fire an arrow, would mean about 6 seconds drawing the arrow (probably more because they tended to stick the arrows in the ground infront so loading was quicker) A full longbow would mean no chance of that.

[quote author=wikipedia]
A typical military longbow archer would be provided with between 60 and 72 arrows at the time of battle. Most archers would not loose arrows at maximum rate, as it would exhaust even the most experienced man. "With the heaviest bows (a modern warbow archer) does not like to try for more than six a minute".[15] Not only are the arms and shoulder muscles tired from the exertion, but the fingers holding the bowstring become strained; therefore, actual rates of shooting in combat would vary considerably. Ranged volleys at the beginning of the battle would differ markedly from the closer, aimed shots as the battle progressed and the enemy neared. Arrows were not unlimited, so archers and their commanders took every effort to ration their use to the situation at hand.
[/quote]

If you think that's bull****, edit the wiki page. True, they did mention that this is with 'the heaviest bows'. I actually said you can easily look it up on wikipedia, you didn't even do that effort before declaring my statement bull****.

Agreed that it would really vary, and when a force of horsemen is charging at archers, they will probably try to get as many shots off in a short time. But when they are firing from long to medium range, they would fire calmly methinks.

 

[Lord Burgess1]

Yes Wikipedia, the notoriously accurate website, where just about any **** wit can act like they are a genius.

 

[King Loras]

In real life, an archer's rate of fire varies considerably based on who the archer is, how strong they are (for the relevant muscles, at least), how much training they have had, what they are doing at the time (are they aiming carefully or just spamming), etc. The computer isn't very smart when it comes to that sort of thing.

 

[Lord Burgess1]

In real life, an archer's rate of fire varies considerably based on who the archer is, how strong they are (for the relevant muscles, at least), how much training they have had, what they are doing at the time (are they aiming carefully or just spamming), etc. The computer isn't very smart when it comes to that sort of thing.

Generally though archers in war would be able to use a full draw weight Longbow.

 

[kingofnoobia]

Yes Wikipedia, the notoriously accurate website, where just about any **** wit can act like they are a genius.

The line I bolded was quoted from "Strickland M. The Great Warbow. page 31. Stroud Publishing 2005, Gloucestershire. ISBN 0-7509-3167-1."

Apart from that, while wikipedia is hardly proof in a discussion, your personal theories are even less. Wikipedia may be an arguable source, but it is better nonetheless than no source at all.