Bowmen and crossbowmen balance

[pawel95]

Actualy I played many games in the nightlies and were unhappy sometimes, because people did like only xbows and axefighters and said that " it´s worse than bowmen+swords. It´s not worth to make xbows"
That was never the idea of that changement! The idea was to bring xbows back to the game BUT also keeping the other soldiers on the battlefield, why we should go back to lances+xbows In most of those games I did like 10-15 xbows, rest bowmen and swords(some knights also). And actualy I pretty like that new balance of having xbows a "special force against knights and swords(Specialy dancing with knights isn´t going that well for longer time ). However also my current played games aren´t enough to give a solid and prooved feedback here, it´s only my first opinion about the change, that it´s going into the right direction



Thunder lol? The problem is that scouts are "useless" Sure you can make/trade them, but why someone should do it? Even on leather locs you see

a.) going for 2 extra swinefarms instead of stables
b.) trading some swords/shields, just to get 2-3 knights

My point was, that in tpr at least the small reason why to make them, is the real function of "scouting" further. However even that isn´t enough to bring them on the battlefield on masses

I actualy have some ideas of bringing them back into the game, but I think we should stay like the title of the topic says at the "Bowmen crossbowmen balance" and discuss that later on, after this balance is completed

[Killer!!]

I think thay the problem isn't that xbows are not good enough, I think that the problem is by the axeman, because i tried it many times to play with a combination of xbow-axeman against someone with a combination swords-bow.
You can see that even as youe xbows kill many swodman you see that the axeman are dieing like flies.
Maybe that is the reason that that comination doensn't work well because the swordman are much stronger then the axeman

[pawel95]

I think thay the problem isn't that xbows are not good enough, I think that the problem is by the axeman, because i tried it many times to play with a combination of xbow-axeman against someone with a combination swords-bow.
You can see that even as youe xbows kill many swodman you see that the axeman are dieing like flies.

I think, that´s what I just wrote. The aim was never to make axemen+xbows the favourite combo (again).

[EDMatt]

I think thay the problem isn't that xbows are not good enough, I think that the problem is by the axeman, because i tried it many times to play with a combination of xbow-axeman against someone with a combination swords-bow.
You can see that even as youe xbows kill many swodman you see that the axeman are dieing like flies.

I think, that´s what I just wrote. The aim was never to make axemen+xbows the favourite combo (again).

So under what kind of combination will make xbows be able to compete against other builds?

[pawel95]

I will go in full detail with this after I discuss about this with a few other testers to see if we have the same point of view, and perhaps write a summery of what/how we found it to be.

Hmm. Still no results of your "discussions" ? Can´t wait any longer.

So under what kind of combination will make xbows be able to compete against other builds?

That´s the job of the testers, to find that out! Have you any results done yourself yet?
Again, it was never the aim to go 1 step forward and 2 steps back. So if you want for xbows+axe only-combo it´s rather a wrong way that you want to go, same as swords+bowmen only-combo was.

[Ben]

I think Matthew is referring to days in the shield patch when axe+xbows and sword+bows were both viable options. I don't think that was "a step back" but maybe not necessarily a "step forward." However, it was nice seeing crossbowmen on the field...

[EDMatt]

I think Matthew is referring to days in the shield patch when axe+xbows and sword+bows were both viable options. I don't think that was "a step back" but maybe not necessarily a "step forward." However, it was nice seeing crossbowmen on the field...

Nice assessment. for someone who just looked at 2 lines of text, you read me well!
Not viable indeed , but perhaps it might just be manageable if the x-bow will be mixed with some pike, as some games (3v3,4v4 in particular) proved that the general good old 25 swords 12 knights and 25 bow men are having trouble to initiate at something/anything that is pike based . Although it does not show so much in 2v2/1v1, or atleast not enough testing was done in that department.

EDIT: 1 line of text actually

here is an example of a possible combo that counters the standard 12 horse 20 sword 25 bowmen combo
: 20 pike 30 xbow 40 axe fighters
that is well within the capabilities of most players on ts, its a defensive army that can take on the 12 horse 20 sword and 25 bowmen quite comfortably to be honest.

[Totengraeber]

Hey! Sry im new and I actually skiped the last pages, cause I wanna say st now and have to leave, so excuse me if stuff is already said.

In medival warfare the xbow was stronger than the bow.
1.Due to the ability to "preload", u dont have to pull the string all time. This gave the xbow the possibility to take cover, while still aiming at the target.
2.Higher piercing rate
(3. everyone can use a xbow but u have to highly trained as an exellent bowmen)

But actually lifelong trained bowmen where better than xbows, due to higher range and higher fire rate (but only the britans had those ).

So I think if we want to give them different roles in the game we can take a look at those fact.

In my opinion increasing the bolt speed is a good option, giving xbows the possibility to hit 1time before bowman shoot, when the bowman are approaching.
But when xbows approaching, the bowman get 2 shoots while the xbow might get 1.
This would give the xbows a better position while defending making them special troops for defence purposes.

Higher percing rate is discussable, in my understanding they should have an advantage killing iron troops, but this might be ok right now, I cant really tell.

Another Idea i had, was to mass with the production chains and change the cost from ironArmor+xbow to leatherArmor+xbow, to make xbows cheaper, but I dont want to mass anyone with this as it would be a major change in the game balance which can cause more trouble than it solves (production chains).

Hope there will be some solution to this problem, where both xbow and bow are usable in different ways

[Ben]

I really don't like changing the rate of the projectiles. Crossbowmen having a longer reload time already made bowmen superior in micro. Your suggestion here seems like it would just make bowmen useless (although maybe bowmen would be worse the first show, but still able to counter-attack due to faster reload hm....)

Crossbowmen already have a higher piercing rate (in the latesest version)

The idea of having an xbow have leather is interesting, but it's changing the game too much. You won't get much support for it, I think

[Totengraeber]

(although maybe bowmen would be worse the first show, but still able to counter-attack due to faster reload hm....)

here is the point I would like to catch on,

EDIT: Just to make this clear, in this example xbows get a HIT on the archers before the archers could launch an attack, giving the xbows the ability to "preload" their xbow. And having them such high bolt speed that the impact of the bolts is fast enough.

What happens if Xbows get a hit on bowman before they shoot?

Lets we have such a confrontation: 20 xbows of Player Red against 40 Bowman of Player Blue
Blue wants to attack, but the passage is blocked by the 20 Xbows of Red standing in a single row. So just assume Blue tries to attack with his bowman which are standing in 2 rows. Blue does know what micro means, so hes just sending them in one tile. So the red xbows will get the first hit, before blues bowman will get the first shoot of.
Here comes a test:
20 xbow (Player Red) in 1 row against 20 Archers (Player Blue) in a row looking away from the xbows, giving the xbows the first shot
counting how many of the 20 Archers the xbows were albe to kill with the first shot.
Test results:
1: 7/20 Archers
2: 8/20 Archers
3: 8/20 Archers
4: 8/20 Archers
5: 8/20 Archers

I had the problem that the archers started moving, and i donno how that might change the precion of the xbows.
Just for the example, the xbows having a 40% kill chance on the first row of archers.
So we got 12 Archers left shooting back at the xbows

Next test 20 Archers shooting at 20 xbows counting the killed xbows.
Test results:
1: 4/20 xbows
2: 4/20 xbows
3: 4/20 xbows
4: 3/20 xbows
5: 4/20 xbows

(I had the same problem that the xbows started moving)

So we have Blues 12 archers shooting back having a 20% kill chance on the red xbows, means 2,4 xbows killed. If the fight just will stand Blue will loose by far. But now Blues archers get the 2nd chance to attack, which can be used even more effective, if Blue moves in his second row of bowman in (as bowman have the ability to move one tile while reloading)
So after moving the blue archers one tile forward 12+20 (from the second row)=32 blue archers are now shooting at the red xbows. Assuming the 20% kill chance killing another 6,4 red xbows leaving 11-12 red xbows to shoot back at the blue archers.
These 11-12 red Xbows could kill 4-5 blue archers. Leaving Blue with 27-28 Archers, which are able too shoot before reds xbows. So now Blue will clearly win the battle.

But what happens if Red has also good micro going on? He might be able to move his xbows 2 tiles back, so they can shoot back? Then only blues few bowman in front are able too shoot back and will be shot down by the xbows. This way red is pushed back (which is never good) and Blues army is weaked.
But what if Blue has exellent micro going on, being able to take the first shot of the xbows with a dancing knight? Than red has to retreat 2 tiles to get the advantage of first shot back. The Dancing knight will be likely to die after a while, making even scouts for the distraction of xbows possible, as scouts are much cheaper. And if Red is using his retreat to set up a trap? Or just buying time? Or what if Red is pushed into a bad slot? What if Red has bowman somewhere waiting aswell? What if red has 2 rows of xbows?

I like about the idea with the first hit for xbows, that it would give something special that would be an addition to the combat options, and enhance the possibilities of tactics and manovers.

[Ben]

Could you post a replay instead? These results are hard to follow. In fact, I guarantee that 90% will just TL;DR this

but anyway...it seems as though your "tests" don't consider micromanagement of troops, which makes them totally irrelevant (no offence intended).

[Totengraeber]

Im sry if I didnt make this clear enough for the tests micromanaging is irrelevant as I just wanted to get the Kill % for xbow vs bow, or bow vs xbows.
The test was only to get more realistic numbers in there.
The point I wanted to make, was just that if xbows get the first hit on bows, while they have a longer reload time, there is the possibility of different micro, and different style of gameplay, giving the xbows a new role in the game.
But still its possible to kill them if u have enough archers. Not making them superb to archers but making the xbows stronger if u have to hold ground.
Edit: Added the replays.

[Lewin]

So the 50% reduction in shield bonus against crossbows hasn't really changed anything? Let's take it a step further and remove the shields bonus for crossbows, so it only applies to bows.

So currently the preferred ranged soldiers are bowmen because they are more nimble (better at so called "shoot and go back") and have almost the same DPS as crossbows. However under my proposed change if you are fighting an enemy with mostly swordfighters/axefighters/knights crossbowmen will be a better ranged unit because they can tear through those heavily armored units (crossbows would have a much higher DPS). However, if you are fighting an enemy using mostly crossbows you would avoid using shielded units so use pikemen/lance carriers more often.

Hopefully this will reward more mixed armies (crossbows for killing tank melee, bowmen for nimbleness/lightly armored targets) and mixed economies rather than the current situation where spamming just 2-3 types of soldiers is rewarded the most. Sounds worth trying anyway, what do you think?

[Ben]

Meh, I say it's worth trying, but you're going to get hate from some players. I just don't want to see knights and swords getting one-shotted by xbows.

However, 50% did do quite a bit. Not surprisingly, people were quick to say that it made "no difference" but that isn't the case. Xbows eat up melee pretty quick, but without swords in front of your xbows, you'll still die pretty fast. Xbows are only practical in team games where you have an ally massing swords.

[Lewin]

Meh, I say it's worth trying, but you're going to get hate from some players. I just don't want to see knights and swords getting one-shotted by xbows.

That will never happen. It takes a minimum of 4 hits to kill a knight and 3 for a swordfighter. But you might think twice before dancing a knight in front of a large group of crossbows. What it means is that when your enemy is using crossbowmen instead of bowmen, swordfighters will take damage the same as pikemen (but they have ~57% extra attack strength than pikemen).

However, 50% did do quite a bit. Not surprisingly, people were quick to say that it made "no difference" but that isn't the case. Xbows eat up melee pretty quick, but without swords in front of your xbows, you'll still die pretty fast. Xbows are only practical in team games where you have an ally massing swords.

That's good to hear, but maybe this change will make swordfighters less essential, so axefighters or pikemen or mass lances can work?