Too many horse archers!

[DaLagga]

One thing new to version .702 is the addition of horse archers to forest and mountain bandit groups. I remember that a group of 60 or so might have had 1 or 2 back in .632, but now about 80% of their cavalry is comprised of horse archers. They are meant to be feared. Which is why the black khergits earn their place as the most feared enemy party IMO. But for petty bandits to have access to such a powerful unit? And to have 8-10 of them running around the field at once!? Now sure, they're not as accurate as the black khergit variety, but they're still more than just an annoyance. It's almost like throwing a few dark knights in with the river pirates as backup... Anyone else feel this way? So my suggestion is to reduce the number of horse archers back to that of the old version.

 

[Volkier]

Bandits would normally ambush their victums. If you are going to ambush somebody, which weapons are you going to take with you? I'm not gonna say anything more :

 

[barbaros]

I welcome nearly everything that makes the game more challenging as long as its not very nonsense. Bandits having horse archers is not a major problem. Im sure we can deal with it especially since those horse archers you mention are very inaccurate.

 

[NikkTheTrick]

First of all, bandit horse archers' accuracy SUCKS! They end up killing more of their units than of mine! Khregits are still way more powerful.

Second, a bow is the most probable weapon for a bandit anyway...

 

[catsoup]

I still don't think normal bandits should have horse archers and ill name a few reasons's:
1. River bandits are seemingly peasants who don't even know how to handle a rock correctly.
2. Sea bandits travel by sea and taking horses isn't easy. Vikings didn't use it afaik.
3. Forest bandits... maybe they could do it. But using cavallery in a forest is still strange.
4. Mountain bandits should be kinda jigits and thus charge blindly into death. They should have a lot of cavallery, but without bows.
5. Horses just ain't cheap.
6. Using a bow requires a lot of learning usually not avaible to commoners.
7. Europeans did not have small and efficient bows unlike some nomad peoples. Our usual bandits represent most probably be europeans.
8. Horse archery made Khergits so special. Each group should be special in its own way.

First of all, bandit horse archers' accuracy SUCKS! They end up killing more of their units than of mine! Khregits are still way more powerful.

9. If they dont use it correctly, why should they do it at all?

 

[Archonsod]

6. Using a bow requires a lot of learning usually not avaible to commoners.
7. Europeans did not have small and efficient bows unlike some nomad peoples. Our usual bandits represent most probably be europeans.
9. If they dont use it correctly, why should they do it at all?

Hunting with a shortbow was a major way of catching food, practiced by a large percentage of the populace.
The bows used may not be as powerful, armour penetrating or as useful in war as, for example, a longbow, but I'm betting you still wouldn't want to take an arrow from one in the chest.

 

[Orion]

Ah HA! Hunting. There you go.

That's what we need now more than anything else

HUNTING.

That would be fun

 

[okiN]

That's what we need now more than anything else

No, it isn't.

 

[Orion]

Besides bug fixes and stuff, sure it is.

Pies too.

 

[NikkTheTrick]

1. and 2. We are talking about bandits. Leave pirates alone
3. Of course they could. and a couple of horsemen is helpful even in forest: as scouts at least.
4. There are different kinds of mountain people and these mountain bandits do not look like Chechens to me, so no jigits Mountains is a good terrain for an ambush, and a bow is a good weapon for that.
5. They arent, but a band of bandits could still get their hands on some: take from the peasants for example.
6. Not true. Using the bow WELL requires training. Most archers used on European battlefields were drafted peasants who had less training than those bandits. Usualy they werre used as cannon fodder.
However, a bow itself is very cheap: a piece of wood and a string! Every peasant could make one and use for hunt. If needed, against a human.
7. First, bows handled oy those bandits are not efficient. Second, those guys are in a contact with Khregits and can learn a couple of tricks from them.
8. GOOD horse archery made Khregits special and so it does now. I do not see why no one else can use it! It's not like khregits have copywright for horse archery.
9. First of all, they can still get SOME benefit from horse archery. They are good at killing isolated infantry. Also, every bandit dreams of becoming a khregit one day They actualy think they will survive the engagement

 

[Sir Prince]

Horse archery wasn't easy to master, and i doubt most bandits bothered, especialy european bandits. It seems to me they shouldn't have 80% horse archers in their cav, only 40%.

 

[Devercia]

however, a bow itself is very cheap: a piece of wood and a string! Every peasant could make one and use for hunt.

this is quite untrue. even a simple self bow can have a good amount of effort, and an enormous amount of planning going into its construction. it took me a week of reading to make my first bow, and it ended up being a 25 pound toy. the next one was 65 pounds, more than enough for hunting, but a bit low for war. a bow is more than just a peice of wood that bends. It is specially engineered to bend while being as thick as possable without breaking and useing the least amount of wood without violating the grain. my 65 pounder ended up breaking simply becouse it was too thick, and it was a flatbow. Bowyers were artisans, not just domestic tool makers.(i've made more than 2)

bows made of treelimbs are impractical to anyone who is not a master; who can go so far out of his way to make it work to the point of mediocrity. they break, they are grossly inefficiant, and often are very low draw weights, nothing more than a child's toy.

I do like the more challenging aspect of horsearchers as opponants. however, i don't like the fact that they are more challenging simply becouse the AI handles archery better than malee, or that if im not mounted and dont have a range weapon, im simply impotent in comparison. In my oppinion, it is simply too easy to reach they high proficiantcy levels in archery, and that it effects achery too much. In my latest charicters im not even spending proficiantcy points, i have 300 or more saved up. I think archery should hover around 80 for a long, long time, as it is a good amount of accuracy to still be able to miss.

 

[NikkTheTrick]

Good bows are hard to produce.
For a peasant, however, it is still easier to make a low-quality shortbow (that WILL break) that will perform as well as the crap mountain bandits use than to make a metal sword or get a horse, which are also used by mountain bandits.

 

[Laurence of Arabia]

I don't like having mountain bandits with horse archers. I don't think they should have horses at all myself. But horse archers.

 

[catsoup]

@NikkTheTrick, Making even a simple bow is already hard. A friend of mine wasted weeks on it and he had access to specific literature. OK, even if commoners would be able to make decent bow, learn riding a horse and shoot from it, which I think already is barely possible, (Archers were professionals- Horse archers elite.) even if they could learn it and would have the time for it, why should they? Robbers usually have to get on with merchants and other folks rather then fully armored knights and thus having a sword and a horse would be fairly enough to do robbery. Horse archery is just something belonging to armies and steppe peoples who raided whole settlements. Whenever I think of medieval robbers or bandits I cant imagine a cavallery. It would be strange as their main clichée job was to ambush people on roads, not to hunt caravans like their eastern counterparts.
As to my point 4., all mountain peoples have something in common. Just think of basques, swiss and tibetans in comparisson to their lowland mates. Besides horses just dont fit to mountain bands if they arent, as you pointed out, peoples living between the black and caspian seas. Lawrence of Arabia has found a good point here. They just dont fit. We have a good steppe/desert for bandit riders.

 

[DaLagga]

Well, there seems to be quite a division among people's opinion on the realism factor, so i'm not even going to argue it. My point is that it just simply is not nearly as fun when 1/3 of the bandits are horse archers. You cannot fight them on foot (at least not on 200% battle size, as there are many of them at once), and are thus forced to fight mounted until they're all dead. Then i dismount to kill some infantry, and again must mount when the second wave comes in. Its just not nearly as fun, and almost seems like a chore. My point is i should not have to play as an uber mounted character to dispatch petty mountain and forest bandits... Leave the horse archers to the steppe bandits and black khergits and all is good.

 

[catsoup]

Indeed, it also aint as fun, especially for lowleveled chars. Steppe enemies had their own feel because they were so different.

 

[Luthius]

Making a bow in this day and age is difficult. In those days everyone may need them in life and the skill to make one would be close to common knowledge, at least for bandits. If the general populace are armed with bows then so will the bandits. If they have horses they will experiment with horse archery and i don't see it being difficult for them to have horses. The huns came from mountainous terrain and were among the best cavalry archers in history. I admit steppe raiders and khegrits kinda take their place in the game but it shouldn't stop mountain bandits trying it.

80% is high proportion though. ( i actually believe it is about 50% which is more reasonable, but seems a lot in a fight )

Although they may suck with the bows they cause more trouble than being on foot so it's not surprising that they do it.

 

[Merentha]

I have to agree here, toning down the number of horse archers that mountain and forest bandits get is a decent idea. They are starting to frustrate me, (and not in a fun way) when they turned into better equipped steppe bandits. Recently compared a group of 24 steppe bandits and 30 forest, the forest had one more horse archer than the steppe. granted, the forest had more men to begin with, but still, those proportions are a little crazy. Much prefered the old skirmishing light cavalry those forest guys got.

 

[NikkTheTrick]

First, about avaliability of the bows. For a bandit, it is one of the most useful tools! It allows him to disable the victim out of an ambush, it gives him a chance against a skilled fighter who does not happen to wear good armor. It allows him to kill the victim before she rides away on the horse.

As for production: A skilled person (who has been making bows all his life) can produce mediocre-quality bows quite quickly and will sell them at a reasonable price. Loot from a raid would be enough to buy a bow and arrows.

As for "wasting" time for training: bandits survival depends on use of his weapons! that is like saying "US soldiers waste too much time on combat training! They could be drinking beer all that time!" Having a sword isnot sufficient!

Archers were professionals- Horse archers elite.

Archers in Europe were poorly trained peasants who were whipped to the battlefiield after a couple of weeks of training, who had performed like crap and who had been used like cannon fodder anyway. British longbowmen were an exception.

Bow would not earn too much for a mercenary and was not required from a noble (except for Britain).

Robbers usually have to get on with merchants and other folks rather then fully armored knights

Arrows are way more effective against non-armored targets! Against an armored knight on an armored warhorse a shortbow would be useless - hence a bandit would not attack.

having a sword and a horse would be fairly enough to do robbery.

No for 3 reasons:
1: When a bandit charges a target, trying to kill it with a sword, the target is likely to ride away. Since the horses avaliable to bandits are what they steal from farms, they are unlikely to wit the chase.
2: If a fight ensies, the robber can get killed if the target is a skilled fighter - which is more than possible. And bandits do not want to die! In fact, jigits would not like to die either
3: It is much easier for a bandit to afford a bow than to afford a horse and a steel sword.

It would be strange as their main clichée job was to ambush people on roads, not to hunt caravans like their eastern counterparts.

Their job is to get the loot, whenever it comes from. If the caravan was poorly guarded or weakened in a previous engagement, the bandits might decide to take their chances.

Besides horses just dont fit to mountain bands if they arent, as you pointed out, peoples living between the black and caspian seas. Lawrence of Arabia has found a good point here. They just dont fit. We have a good steppe/desert for bandit riders.

I agree that forest and mountain bandits have too many HORSEMEN, but not too many ARCHERS. just give them less horses (who were hard to maintain indeed).

As a footman, you can get them with ranged weapons.Their accuracy is so bad that you will get them down without too much problem. Just remember to have that shield.

If they charge in meele, you have a bunch of followers around you.

If you are alone on foot, you are just asking for trouble: there is a reason why people did not travel alone on foot in middle ages! The best knight on foot could be killed by a couple of bandits with horses: Just shoot him with arrows, throw stones at him till he falls down exhausted and then do anything your sick mind wants.

In any case, khregits are still MUCH better horse archers! They shoot accurately and ride faster.