Gun range < bow range?

[nameless]

Well it's balanced out by the fact that you have armstrong and gatling guns.

By the time the "traditional army" has moved in their numbers will have been decimated.

Plus, it's a simple matter of moving the line infantry closer and their accuracy and firing rate will mow the archers down no problem.

And in regards to melee units, by the time they even get close enough for the sword their numbers will also have been dwindled and that's without the suppression and knee fire.

But yeah I can understand why it's annoying.

Though the bow unit should be more expensive since it takes longer to train an archer compared to a rifleman.

[Humble Warrior]

Welcome to 1868.

I said in the beta and I'll say here that melee units are still pretty damn devastating if you can get them into the melee. Unfortunately, some people were upset that their S2 tactics didn't work anymore, apparently they were operating under the belief that, for some reason, rifle armed troops should be secondary to the Glorious Samurai Charge, despite the title of the game.

Unfortunately, CA decided to listen to them.

And this was always my fear. How can we expect a better, more authentic game if CA accepts a bunch of muelling kids who`s only interest is to `pwn` everything online instantly and whine if anything to do with battle realism is used?

So we get guns that are totally outta wack to suit people who can`t handle it. CA need to know when to draw the line between balance and `dumbing down`.

[krisslanza]

Welcome to 1868.

I said in the beta and I'll say here that melee units are still pretty damn devastating if you can get them into the melee. Unfortunately, some people were upset that their S2 tactics didn't work anymore, apparently they were operating under the belief that, for some reason, rifle armed troops should be secondary to the Glorious Samurai Charge, despite the title of the game.

Unfortunately, CA decided to listen to them.

That's a very large "if".

Despite what Humble might go on and on about, a melee charge is a highly risky thing. If you do it too soon, your men will get killed and rout. If you wait too long, they may not have enough numbers to make the line infantry break first.

Especially with the lower friendly fire morale hit, firing into your own line infantry to kill attacking melee troops is not an automatic rout like it used to be.

Making line infantry more accurate, or with more range, would basically just flip the bird to everyone and say "Use the same army and troops as everyone, because guns win all the time."

Historically accurate? Probably. Fun in a game? Not really. If I wanted strict historical accuracy, I'd play some like Europea or Victoria.

[Humble Warrior]

Historically accurate? Probably. Fun in a game? Not really. If I wanted strict historical accuracy, I'd play some like Europea or Victoria.

Pah. twaddle, but that`s the quality of our onliner gamer today I guess.

[krisslanza]

Pah. twaddle, but that`s the quality of our onliner gamer today I guess.

So your idea of fun is where you can line up your line infantry, turn on fire at will... and just come back a few minutes later when your infantry mow down all the bushido troops without a problem?

I mean, if melee charges were half as effective as you try to make it out to be, I'd see a lot more people fielding melee. As it stands, the only way I win any of my fights is because if the charge works, a lot of players are doomed - they don't have troops that can hold their own in a melee fight.

[Swerg]

In the beta, I had some success with using shielding cannon fodder units combined with pinning the enemy using rifles as a means of getting melee into range. Generally once they were in range, melee units owned everything, since the enemy couldn't turn his remaining rifle units without fear of your own rifles closing in and opening fire.

[Tepok]

My armies (In solo. I don't bother with multiplayer anymore) generally field 50% rifles, 33% kaichi (spear or katana) and some artillery. It works pretty well as both rifle lines thin each other out, spears block cavalry if there is any that survived volleys of fire (by the way CA, make it so that they flank more...) then when enemy volume of fire is lowered enough, charge in with the samurais to mop up everything while the riflemen take a break.

This has proved successful, and would remain so with longer range rifles, as their riflemen are a bit tired and already wounded morale-wise, if not destroyed by parrot guns...

[Dileos]

So your idea of fun is where you can line up your line infantry, turn on fire at will... and just come back a few minutes later when your infantry mow down all the bushido troops without a problem?

The people who complain about realism in Total War are identical to the people who complain about realism in games like Medal of Honor and Call of Duty.

They have very strange ideas of what constitutes as fun.

[August]

I hate game balance decisions especially where it`s made to suit multi-player games. It destroys realism yet again. Few weapons in reality are `balanced`.

Yet multiplayer games can be `unbalanced` so things were proportionately correct to reality, but of course the kiddie crowd can`t handle it so they whine CA into screwing history. Look, people, there are ways to defeat an enemy even if he has a better weapon than you- It just takes strategy and tactics and a bit of the grey, mushy matter in that skull of yours.

Multiplayer, the death of Total war slice by slice.

While I think I understand the overall sentiment, I feel that you pine for the golden age that never was.

[Prätorianer]

The unit 'range' indicates the effective range of the units.

This!

[Ronin]

This!

I think some people believe realism means that undisciplined Japanese peasants should be able to snipe moving targets from several miles away .

Infantry units aren't equip with Berrata .50 cals and operate as a hive mind so they all fire their anti-material sniper rifles at once. You are all vastly overestimating the accuracy and range of pre-modern firearms. No officer in his right mind is going to order a block of riflemen to open fire at maximum range with relatively crappy rifles so that 80-90 percent of his soldiers make holes in the air or dirt.

Rifle equip infantry at the time relied on rigorous discipline to hold fire even while taking casualties until well within effective range. The officers didn't just go "righto chaps, just advance and fire randomly in the general direction of the enemy".

Archers do not suffer from the problem of needing to get right up in the enemies face because their weapon is a completely different beast. A bow is not an inferior gun. A bow is a bow. It fires into the air. You don't march right up to a guy and shoot him in the face with an arrow...

*Sigh* .

[sabaku_no_gaara]

That's a very large "if".

Despite what Humble might go on and on about, a melee charge is a highly risky thing. If you do it too soon, your men will get killed and rout. If you wait too long, they may not have enough numbers to make the line infantry break first.

Especially with the lower friendly fire morale hit, firing into your own line infantry to kill attacking melee troops is not an automatic rout like it used to be.

Making line infantry more accurate, or with more range, would basically just flip the bird to everyone and say "Use the same army and troops as everyone, because guns win all the time."

Historically accurate? Probably. Fun in a game? Not really. If I wanted strict historical accuracy, I'd play some like Europea or Victoria.

Oh please, outdated weapons and tactics where at a severe disadvantage against modern weapons, instead of balancing this by dumbing everything down, they should have left players at the mercy of their brains and think of basic ways to minimise casualties in the own ranks and getting the pointy things in the soft bellies of the enemy, there are numerous ways to try to achieve this, for example: luring your enemy to a certain point where he has to pass a forrest where you have hidden some fast running sword or spear units. When he passes it, you charge them into his flanks, and whilst he is trying to asemble his men to fight off this surprise attack and whilst his mind is recovering from shock, you launch fast attacks at other points of his battle line.

Or maybe using kisho units to create the same effect, or placing your men on a downward slope where they are sheltered from Cannon fire and musket fire because the enemy has to close in to be able to hit your men, simply have your troops close enough to the top so they can charge at the oncomming enemy and charge them, if nessescary have 2 or 3 useless units charge in first so he wastes a volley on them. Have you learned nothing from Empire and Napoleon? Or from playing the Hattori in Shogun?

[Lord Dakier]

Do missile units lose attack damage for firing into forests? Always one of those things which should be in a TW game but I wasn't sure myself.

[Ronin]

Oh please, outdated weapons and tactics where at a severe disadvantage against modern weapons...

Not Japan but happened during the same time period with the same tactics and weapons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana

Weapons and tactics only win battles if they are used in conjunction with the circumstances that favor them. If 200 imperial line infantry had to go toe to toe in a close quarters with 200 samurai my bets would be on the samurai. Guns of the period only offered favorable conditions if units of infantry could maintain discipline and keep the enemy at range.

[Illuminato]

Well CA is just trying to cater to all their fans, I mean rifles have been such a focal point in their last game (empire-napoleonTW) . Now some people loved that and some other fans such as myself didn't, I bought s2 unlike the other too games because it has those qualities i enjoyed in Mediaval/rome In fact if realism was brought to the extreme were all my favorite bow/melee unit were removed/useless i would not buy the expansion.

[SPARTAN VI]

Because there needs to be a reason for people to use the unit. Why would I use archers if my levy infantry have a similar upkeep, but can perform better? If a unit isn't worth using, why even bother having it waste space in the game?

I agree that the unit needs value, but I don't agree that this should have been achieved by spitting on history. The effective range of Minié rifles in the era easily out-ranged a yumi bow 8 fold and ultimately contributed to the fall of the samurai. However in the game, the yumi out-ranges nearly all firearms, and only matches the later rifles. If CA wanted to balance the bow kachi units, I'd rather see a more realistic range stat, a higher accuracy and reload skill stat, and perhaps the inclusion of special abilities (e.g. second wind, rapid advance.. just ideas).

I too would love a mod that makes this more realistic; then I'd start up a new Shogun-loyal campaign and embrace the challenge that comes with it.

[Ecka65]

Good grief. After boring myself to death within a week or so of S2TW, I had high hopes for FotS. I even played S2TW again a few months back so I'd know the "difference".

Then I started reading on the forums........................ So arrows made from reeds have a longer effective range than a 19th Century rifle now? ROFLMAO and shame on those who even attempt to argue and justify such utter nonesense. A Japanese bow and arrow didn't even have a greater effective range than the matchlock 3 centuries earlier for goodness sake!

Then I read "no bayonets". Forgive me but FFS! Is "FotS" still stuck in the Renaissance, or is it mid 19th Century? The idea of using pikes or spear to protect missile troops went out the military window nearly 200 years before FotS. Why? Bayonets! I never thought I'd say it, but Hollywood's "Last Samurai" at least got this part right. You can't tell me FotS wasn't inspired by the movie. CA didn't have to do any research - just watch Tom Cruise and they'd have got it more correct. Now how pathetically sad is that?

[metziih]

Good grief. After boring myself to death within a week or so of S2TW, I had high hopes for FotS. I even played S2TW again a few months back so I'd know the "difference".

Then I started reading on the forums........................ So arrows made from reeds have a longer effective range than a 19th Century rifle now? ROFLMAO and shame on those who even attempt to argue and justify such utter nonesense. A Japanese bow and arrow didn't even have a greater effective range than the matchlock 3 centuries earlier for goodness sake!

Then I read "no bayonets". Forgive me but FFS! Is "FotS" still stuck in the Renaissance, or is it mid 19th Century? The idea of using pikes or spear to protect missile troops went out the military window nearly 200 years before FotS. Why? Bayonets! I never thought I'd say it, but Hollywood's "Last Samurai" at least got this part right. You can't tell me FotS wasn't inspired by the movie. CA didn't have to do any research - just watch Tom Cruise and they'd have got it more correct. Now how pathetically sad is that?

I was about to say something like this but yeah, I do agree with you. In case of Total War games, ignorance is a bliss, and knowledge (of history) is just pain.

[Ronin]

Then I started reading on the forums........................ So arrows made from reeds have a longer effective range than a 19th Century rifle now? ROFLMAO and shame on those who even attempt to argue and justify such utter nonesense. A Japanese bow and arrow didn't even have a greater effective range than the matchlock 3 centuries earlier for goodness sake!

The French believed the bow was obsolete at The Battle of Agincourt and used crossbowmen with supposed longer range...

I think we all know what happened at that battle...

The French underestimated the range and power of the long-bow in favor of their easy to use shoot in a straight line weapon and failed big time.

The real reason firearms rendered the bow obsolete was because while it took much training to become effective with the bow as long as you got close enough to your target with a gun you could be moderately effective. I don't know how many 19th century rifles you've fired but I'd hazard a guess you wouldn't be able to hit the broadside of a barn from more than a couple of hundred meters away. What do you think they had? Laser-sights and scopes? This isn't TOTAL WAR: CALL OF DUTY...

Even the twentieth century Lee Enfield coming 100 years after the time period and being infinitely better than the rifles of the time only had an effective range of around 500 metres compared to the bows that the samurai were using that had an effective range of around half that.

Typical that people believe realism means guns > everything always and forever.

[Rhio]

Not Japan but happened during the same time period with the same tactics and weapons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana

Weapons and tactics only win battles if they are used in conjunction with the circumstances that favor them.

If by "circumunstances" you mean a 10:1 advantage in numbers, then sure, okay

This whole discussion of "realism" by internet-historians is quite amusing, despite being a bit sad...and most miss the point completely. The game is called "Fall of the Samurai", so you can't blame CA for wanting to have actual samurai in the game. However, if you want to make samurai units to be actually useful, you have to give them some perks. This is especially true for multiplayer.

Now you can boast how your fellow gamers, who are obviously vastly inferior to your own superior mind, just need to use "tactics" and their brain to overcome a unit's shortcomings. Unfortunately, that only makes you look like an arrogant windbag. The reality of FotS is that, firearms form the bulk of every army and, thanks to the perks given, samurai units make for some handy auxiliaries.

Right now, archers make for decent skirmish units loosely operating around your main line. Harassing the enemy and backing your own, all while staying out of range. Take away their advantage in range though, and they'll simply be ripped to shreds by firearms. Making them utterly useless. Is the greater range realisticl though? Simply answer, no.

But neither is the firing speed of muzzle-loaded rifles, the absence of bayonets or the plentiful availability of modern rifles and cannons. And I'm sure there's much, much, much more. Too much to name probably.

TW-games have never been, and never claimed to be, a historical simulation. So don't act like you're being duped, because the game doesn't live up to your vision of history. Mostly because the latter is probably not realistic either.