Page 2 of 2
Re: Archers
PostPosted: 31 Aug 2012, 13:54
by -George Stain-
My last game after PT: 40+ iron soldiers and 16 leather soldiers
who cares.. but try test
(archers+Pikes VS Xbows+Lancers) I know who will win in probably real numbers like 20+20 vs 20+20 or 30+30 vs 30+30... same cost for both sides.. it proves that archer isn't bad.. IMO is balanced
Re: Archers
PostPosted: 31 Aug 2012, 14:16
by Bo_
I think that the biggest problem when judging archers is that when they're shooting on moving tartgets that they miss like always. When you use archers to shoot on targets from behind, or from 2 sides, on a not moving target you will see that they can still do a nice amount of damage. So IMO archers are just too hard to controll compared to the xbow.
Re: Archers
PostPosted: 31 Aug 2012, 14:45
by The Dark Lord
My last game after PT: 40+ iron soldiers and 16 leather soldiers
who cares.. but try test
(archers+Pikes VS Xbows+Lancers) I know who will win in probably real numbers like 20+20 vs 20+20 or 30+30 vs 30+30... same cost for both sides.. it proves that archer isn't bad.. IMO is balanced
Explain your tests please. What are the results?
Re: Archers
PostPosted: 31 Aug 2012, 14:53
by Lewin
I think that the biggest problem when judging archers is that when they're shooting on moving tartgets that they miss like always. When you use archers to shoot on targets from behind, or from 2 sides, on a not moving target you will see that they can still do a nice amount of damage. So IMO archers are just too hard to controll compared to the xbow.
The only difference is that crossbowmen have double the chance to injure. They miss the same amount as crossbowmen (actually they miss less often because we were trying to make bowmen more useful) So the trouble is you need twice as many archers to do the same damage as crossbowmen.
Re: Archers
PostPosted: 31 Aug 2012, 16:56
by -George Stain-
Explain your tests please. What are the results?
in my 9 tests were archers and pikemans better than lancers and xbows in 8 situations (they usualy won with large majority).. It makes me think what is wrong.. becouse both armies are for same cost and they representing same combo..
Re: Archers
PostPosted: 31 Aug 2012, 17:07
by The Dark Lord
What were your numbers?
Re: Archers
PostPosted: 31 Aug 2012, 17:19
by -George Stain-
I tested it with 10 bow +10 pike vs 10 lance +10 xbow, then 20+20 vs 20+20 and than 30+30 vs 30+30
Re: Archers
PostPosted: 31 Aug 2012, 19:56
by The Dark Lord
Hm... I still need to see it with my own eyes...
Re: Archers
PostPosted: 31 Aug 2012, 20:18
by Da Revolution
Even if pikemen + archers is more effective. I prefer having more melee than ranged which means the lancer + xbows is the cheaper option of the two.
Re: Archers
PostPosted: 31 Aug 2012, 20:29
by The Dark Lord
Well I still doubt it pikemen + archer is more effective, but even IF it is: crossbowmen can be easily retreated. You send in some new cheap units like lance carriers and the battle restarts. In the end crossbowmen will be more effective.
Re: Archers
PostPosted: 01 Sep 2012, 08:37
by -George Stain-
you are right.. xbows are efective themselves.. and many players have most of them.. in my test it was 50% melee and 50% archery.. and there was still enought pikemens (after pikemans vs lancers battle) who could kill xbows easily.. but reality is slightlly different.. cos you usualy run away with your xbows behind your towers, after losed battle.. so I dont know.. just interesting point for me.. I am using that in my tactic.. but I don't want say what exactly
Re: Archers
PostPosted: 01 Sep 2012, 13:05
by Bo_
Well yes, I think the reason players make xbows is, like you say, they are more durable than melee. Since iron is limitated, you will be able to keep iron soldiers during the whole game.
Re: Archers
PostPosted: 06 Sep 2012, 06:56
by Jeronimo
Crossbowmen firing/reload sequence takes 2.8 seconds, then we add between 0.8 and 1.6 seconds of random delay. So that adds up to 4 seconds between each arrow on average.
For bowmen it's 1.8 seconds, so 3 seconds between each arrow.
Still, crossbowmen are effectively twice as likely to injure with each bolt, that's a really big difference. Swordfighters are not nearly twice as likely as axemen (35 vs 55), pikemen are not twice as good as lance carriers (35 vs 25).
I still feel like crossbowmen are the only sensible choice for ranged units in multiplayer, and that's a shame.
Many have suggested increasing Archery accuracy a bit...
What about increasing
fire rate a bit instead?
Bowmen could have a sequence of
1.5 seconds (-0,3), but same spread attack + 10% chances to hit.
In average -> 2,7 seconds between each arrow (33% faster than Xbows, instead of 25%). It sounds FAIR enough.
Another advantage they gain (compared to accuracy), is that they become +valuable because can destroy Towers slightly faster.