Bowmen and crossbowmen balance

[dicsoupcan]

Yes but i do not think the solution lies in increasing the range of bowmen, then crossbowmen will be completely useless since in a ranged vs ranged fight bowmen can shoot the crossbowmen while the corssbowmen cannot. And the power of the bowmen lies in the high fire rate so decreased acccuracy will not help much in making them less powerfull. and as i sadi, the poor precision only works for the first row, they often fore over more then just the first row so they disadvantage is hardly there.

[Esthlos]

Yes but i do not think the solution lies in increasing the range of bowmen, then crossbowmen will be completely useless since in a ranged vs ranged fight bowmen can shoot the crossbowmen while the corssbowmen cannot.

Again, that's the idea: to make Bowmen a strong response to an enemy that is mostly training Crossbowmen.

And the power of the bowmen lies in the high fire rate so decreased acccuracy will not help much in making them less powerfull.

That's not supposed to make them less powerful, it's supposed to make them a two-edged sword you wouldn't want to use if you have other troops fighting.

Imagine the situation: 24 Crossbowmen and 24 Axe Fighters vs 24 Bowmen and 24 Axe Fighters.
The Axe Fighters successfully ran and engaged the enemy Axe Fighters.
Let's say Crossbowmen and Bowmen have the same DPS (more power but shoot less often vs less power but shoot more often), and that in the same time interval they both kill 8 enemy units.
Crossbowmen are precise, and killed 8 enemy Axe Fighters; the Bowmen instead killed 4 enemy Axe Fighters and 4 allied Axe Fighters.
Let's say that in the meanwhile the Axe Fighters managed to kill 4 enemies on both sides thanks to the damage they are contributing in the fight.
Let's also say that the Bowmen, that started shooting sooner thanks to their range, managed to kill 2 extra Axe Fighters before the actual fight happened.

Now the groups are 24 Crossbowmen and 14 Axe Fighters vs 24 Bowmen and 8 Axe Fighters.
The group with the Bowmen is losing the fight - and when the melee fight will be done, any surviving Axe Fighters should be able to easily slaughter the Bowmen.

Now for another example; same numbers, different situation: this time, both groups are hesitating to initiate the fight.
Bowmen are hitting the enemy thanks to their superior range, while the enemy is not able to fight back at all.
This time, the group with the Bowmen is clearly winning.

[Bence791]

Esthlos, I really don't want to discourage you with giving ideas, really...
But the thing you are speaking about is not a solution imo. In KaM, no units except for Towers and Catapults can harm your own soldiers (your own towers and catapults) in a way that you can actually say they were killed by friendly fire. Of course sometimes ranged miss and deal some damage to your own troops, but that's rare. For example, send melee at a house, and at the same time, order your archers to shoot at the same building. They might kill 1 of your own. Raising this risk factor for bowmen isn't a good thing. Who would train anything in masses that harm his own troops (or citizens, when you defend against breaching) as well as the enemies'? Of course no-one. At the moment both xbows and bows miss some times, so they deal some (not much) damage to your own. I don't want to write it more times. So let me just say, increasing the "your bowmen deals damage to your own troops on a much higher chance" factor makes them useless. Even if they have a bigger range. In a fight, the basic rule of ranged is to help your melee troops, not to shoot at enemy ranged (of course you can get a big advantage by moving your archers closer or halt them to re-aim and thus way shoot at the enemies' archers). This is why your idea isn't good.

On the other hand, bowmen vs crossbowmen should be obvious crossbowmen win...

[Lewin]

I don't think it would be good if bowmen and crossbowmen had different ranges. In multiplayer KaM you often end up with standoffs between armies before they fight, where you place your ranged units at the front taking shots at the enemy ranged units. If crossbowmen had a shorter range they would be completely useless for this role, which basically forces everyone to make bowmen, and decreases the variety in possible tactics. It's better that both types of ranged units can take part in these standoffs so everyone has a chance at them.

I also don't really think team kills is a good solution for balancing the game. That's a very frustrating mechanic for the player, seeing his own units killing themselves. Currently it's very rare, if it was as common as you were suggesting it would become very annoying.

[Esthlos]

Well, in my opinion it would promote more aggressive plays (he got Bowmen, I've got Crossbowmen... better send in the Knights quickly, I'll win this battle easily but only if I fully engage now)...and in my opinion having to order Bowmen to retreat and not fight after the battle starts would just become another part of the game, something that you should keep an eye on... but you're the developer after all: the final decision is yours to take.

Yet, I still think that Bowmen and Crossbowmen should be unique and not just one an enhanced version of the other, or else there wouldn't really be a reason to train them untill/unless forced to (i.e. no more iron, can't trade for it in the Market).
(By the way I think this of the other troops and their counterparts too, but we're not talking about them right now )

[dicsoupcan]

I disagree, you pay more for crossbowmen and you cannot mass them as easy as bowmen. So you may expect them to be superior over bowmen.

[Leeuwgie]

I think it will be a very poor idea to increase the range of bowmen. Even without the suggested extra range these are my main 5 reasons why you should always go for bowmen:

1 Bowmen are very easy to mass, crossbowmen not.

2 While training bowmen you also get food in the process, for making crossbowmen you get no food.

3 Bowmen are created from renewable resources, crossbowmen not.

4 While making bowmen I can get the most swordsmen on the battlefield.

5 More ranged troops on my side will kill more troops (overall) than my enemy who has lesser ranged troops (if he decides to go for crossbows he has also less quality melee).

Can anyone name me some advantages the crossbowmen has, cause the only thing I can think of is that it saves you some goldchests. The last games I played nobody made crossbowmen so I suggest a buff of some kind on the crossbowmen too. The accuracy sounds like a good idea to me.

To

[Ben]

Can anyone name me some advantages the crossbowmen has...

Right now? There really aren't any, other than because the sound of a crossbow firing sounds cool

Bowmen are easily a better choice, this much is pretty clear by now. Adding a buff to bowmen is certainly not an option in my opinion.

[Esthlos]

Ok, different idea: what about giving Bowmen even more fire rate and less damage and making Iron troops more resistant to Bowmen's arrows, while further lowering Crossbowmen's rate of fire and increasing their damage?

This should make Bowmen a counter to massed Wood troops, able to quickly decimate them but barely able to annoy Iron troops, and should make Crossbowmen able to quickly decimate Iron troops while not being able to manage large Wood waves...

Also, what about (in addition to buffing the resistance of all Iron troops) giving more movement speed and less food consumption to Wood troops?
This way you'd train Iron troops when you want their raw power, for example when assaulting a defended enemy position, and Wood troops when you need speed (or cheapness) more than power, for example when defending large bases or for hit-and-run tactics, or when your food production is not great yet.

P.S. Ben, your signature... that's one of my favorite quotes too

[krisdw]

Ok, different idea: what about giving Bowmen even more fire rate and less damage and making Iron troops more resistant to Bowmen's arrows, while further lowering Crossbowmen's rate of fire and increasing their damage?

This should make Bowmen a counter to massed Wood troops, able to quickly decimate them but barely able to annoy Iron troops, and should make Crossbowmen able to quickly decimate Iron troops while not being able to manage large Wood waves...

Man I like this Esthlos, he comes up with some good ideas. He thinks outside the box which is sometimes needed to get out of a stalemate discussion
It's also logical that bows would not harm iron armored troops as much. Again, I like this idea.

[dicsoupcan]

Ok, different idea: what about giving Bowmen even more fire rate and less damage and making Iron troops more resistant to Bowmen's arrows, while further lowering Crossbowmen's rate of fire and increasing their damage?

This should make Bowmen a counter to massed Wood troops, able to quickly decimate them but barely able to annoy Iron troops, and should make Crossbowmen able to quickly decimate Iron troops while not being able to manage large Wood waves...

Man I like this Esthlos, he comes up with some good ideas. He thinks outside the box which is sometimes needed to get out of a stalemate discussion
It's also logical that bows would not harm iron armored troops as much. Again, I like this idea.

Well it is good that he jst gives the ideas that can be considered, but this will actually change pretty much nothing yes bowmen do less damage but fire even faster thenthey do now which results in more hits and thus more chances to kill/injure an enemy units while crossbowmen fire slower with better damage which gives a bigger chance to kill but thye can deal less hits which means the chances to injure/kill are more or less the same. The only difference is that bowmen are even more flexible and crossbowmen even less flexible since bowmen can more easily get free hits on crossbowmen.

[Esthlos]

Well it is good that he jst gives the ideas that can be considered, but this will actually change pretty much nothing yes bowmen do less damage but fire even faster thenthey do now which results in more hits and thus more chances to kill/injure an enemy units while crossbowmen fire slower with better damage which gives a bigger chance to kill but thye can deal less hits which means the chances to injure/kill are more or less the same. The only difference is that bowmen are even more flexible and crossbowmen even less flexible since bowmen can more easily get free hits on crossbowmen.

Well, if Iron troops get a buff to their defence versus Bowmen's arrows and Wood troops get more mobility (as I suggested), in a direct confrontation Crossbowmen would definitely win versus Bowmen, but wouldn't be able to force them to fight (they'd get outrun or even kited to Hell and beyond) without the support of other troops.

[Islar]

Hi

In the test version of the very first game there was a building like the tower where you could put your xbows. Is this an idea to implent this. You can put like 3 xbows in a tower in 3 directions and only alowed to put your xbows in it. Your xbow can only be killed when the tower is destroyed.

I do know there must be maked sprites for xbows shooting from the tower, but what do you all think of this idea besides that?

[pawel95]

Hi

In the test version of the very first game there was a building like the tower where you could put your xbows. Is this an idea to implent this. You can put like 3 xbows in a tower in 3 directions and only alowed to put your xbows in it. Your xbow can only be killed when the tower is destroyed.

I do know there must be maked sprites for xbows shooting from the tower, but what do you all think of this idea besides that?

Sorry, but I think that doesn´t solve the balance problem on the battlefield really.

[Islar]

Sorry, but I think that doesn´t solve the balance problem on the battlefield really.

That not, but the i thought this problem is about that bowmen has more adventage than the xbow. So it will (i think) give the xbow an adventage to the bowmen. maybe it is worth to make xbow then?