Knights and Merchants.net Forum

No need to laugh at other's arguments Romo, pawel made a point too so why being so unreceiving to those arguments ?
I don't know wether there is a problem or not, but I just wanted to write it (again ...)

I want to say that according to games where I played or games what I watched your point of view is totaly invalid and I realy have no idea from what kind of games it comes from.

Pawel speaks from his game experience, maybe you play more, or anything, but he can still make a point.
And if he's wrong, try to prove it while not laughing at his argument and being clear, showing that your input is valuable.

You are wrong Shadaoe because I am not laughing at his arguments. I want to show him that his point of view is totaly wrong. I know him from TS and i know he is playing and watching many games - in almost every single game there is no place for xbows now. That why I cant understand about what he is talking about.

But you forgot to mention that it still doesn't change the fact that what he wrote is rather ridiculous.

I don't know wether there is a problem or not, but I just wanted to write it (again ...)

In the rc 4 the much text is not readable (dutch) because the words and phrases are too long.
Like in this screenshot.

TextBig.gif

I don't know about other languages and this was only the map editor.
I hope this will change.

In the rc 4 the much text is not readable (dutch) because the words and phrases are too long.
Like in this screenshot.

TextBig.gif

I don't know about other languages and this was only the map editor.
I hope this will change.

archers are even better because of realoading time so you can micro with them.
It is still much much better to focus on melee iron troops and mass bows.

But you forgot to mention that it still doesn't change the fact that what he wrote is rather ridiculous.

and i know he is playing and watching many games

archers are even better because of realoading time so you can micro with them.
It is still much much better to focus on melee iron troops and mass bows.

Wow. The question is how much better . Bowmen are shooting nearly 2 times while an xbow is shooting one time. Its clear that you can spam them better than Xbows like Bludmaster said. However normaly you choose between these 2 systems: Axefighters+Xbows // Swordmen+Bowmen.

I have done some tests with these two groups, pls tell me if it isnt balanced or sth. I think that are 2 makeables armies after 60 Min on normal maps:

1# 40 Axefighters and 30 Crossbowmen. The costs for this army is like:
80 wood, 40 leatherjackets, 60 ironore and 120 coal.

2# 30 Swordmen and like 40 Bowmen. The costs for this army is like:
40 wood, 40 leatherjackets, 90 ironore and 180 coal.

In 5 tests every time the 2# won the game. Sometimes 18 swordmen survived, sometimes "only" 13. Still this is an interesting result, but comparing the costs for these armies show, that you need way more "expensive" recources for 2# than for 1#

can't do it myself as I don't have the beta )

So it looks like quite a lot of people think crossbowmen are a better choice than bowmen now since we

3. Slightly decrease shields defence bonus against crossbowmen (so they are more armour piercing than bowmen)

So it looks like quite a lot of people think crossbowmen are a better choice than bowmen now since we

The other way round

My call: stop the exaggerations! And try to close Pandora's box again.

However about the widths, you mean how man soldiers are in one row, right? Well I have tested it with nearly equal "widths" so I think there is no case, the swordmen will loose, except some hardcore things, like 1-4 swordmen per row!

So it looks like quite a lot of people think bowmen are a better choice than crossbowmen now since we reduced the bowmen reloading/aiming time. If that's true, there are a few ways we could "solve" this:
1. Slightly increase bowmen aiming time (somewhere between now and before when nobody used bowmen)
2. Slightly increase crossbowmen accuracy (or decrease bowmen accuracy)
3. Slightly decrease shields defence bonus against crossbowmen (so they are more armour piercing than bowmen)

I'd like to try and keep some difference between bowmen and crossbowmen. The faster reloading already does that, bowmen are better for fast manoeuvring (move, shoot, move, shoot etc.), crossbowmen are better for staying still and providing continuous fire, more for defensive situations. Because of that I'd rather not take option 1 since that reduces the difference between the units.

I'm interested in hearing more opinions, especially if people think bowmen/crossbowmen are fine as they are right now (I haven't really seen anybody disagree about bowmen being better yet)

Has this only been noticed recently? Because this change to bowmen was made in the so called "shields patch" (r4297) which has been out for ages.

can't do it myself as I don't have the beta )

Anyone is free to join beta testing, just send us your email address.

So it looks like quite a lot of people think bowmen are a better choice than crossbowmen now since we reduced the bowmen reloading/aiming time. If that's true, there are a few ways we could "solve" this:
1. Slightly increase bowmen aiming time (somewhere between now and before when nobody used bowmen)
2. Slightly increase crossbowmen accuracy (or decrease bowmen accuracy)
3. Slightly decrease shields defence bonus against crossbowmen (so they are more armour piercing than bowmen)

I'd like to try and keep some difference between bowmen and crossbowmen. The faster reloading already does that, bowmen are better for fast manoeuvring (move, shoot, move, shoot etc.), crossbowmen are better for staying still and providing continuous fire, more for defensive situations. Because of that I'd rather not take option 1 since that reduces the difference between the units.

I'm interested in hearing more opinions, especially if people think bowmen/crossbowmen are fine as they are right now (I haven't really seen anybody disagree about bowmen being better yet)

Has this only been noticed recently? Because this change to bowmen was made in the so called "shields patch" (r4297) which has been out for ages.

can't do it myself as I don't have the beta )

Anyone is free to join beta testing, just send us your email address.

The biggest problem with xbow unit is that you cannot efficiently micro with them against much of anything.
when it comes to strategy games it should always come down to micro between the different types of army's and ways that one could have an advantage in certain areas while other has it in other areas, but xbow micro is just pure hard against someone who knows how to control bow men.

In my opinion xbow should be very effective against sword fighters because you are building xbows instead, you will not have sword fighters.
when it comes to xbow vs swords, xbows must have quite a strong counter against swords while bow men will counter xbow in micro as swords are only directly countered (efficiently enough to be called counter) by swords themselves.
So I think the best choice is to have armour pierce against iron units .

While horse having a nice counter vs range

but the xbow should not be strong vs leather axe fighter.

From Lewin's proposals I will suggest number 2 in paragraphs.

Instead of boosting crossbowmen... making archers less accurate. Because they shoot fast, and hit fast (from what I have seen).
Many times in replays you see the arrow "hitting the ground" but actually kills another swordman... gg.
And even knigths are taken down by archers with alarming speed.

It would be fun to watch archers spam killing own units from time to time because their aim is not so good compared to elite Crossbowmen.
A interesting price to pay if you backup your infantry with mass archers (instead of more accurate crossbowmen).

For Matt and Romo: The change you suggest, allowing better micro with Xbows won't have the impact that is needed.
Archers will keep ruling, because Swordmen/Knights eat Axemen easily... and even mass Pikemen do great vs leather.
Secondly... no matter how much micro you have, leather macro owns theorically (of course you need the building skills to do so).