Gun range < bow range?

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Forgive my ignorance, but I don't see how archers and sharpshooters play different roles in the context of gameplay. If you use sharpshooters as harassment units, that's a tactical decision, something that archers can also be used for in the right situation. You can also use archers and sharpshooters for frontline roles as skirmishers, but that does not change the fact that they play a support role in your army unless you play with 20 archer/sharpshooter units in your army. Like you said, giving all units the same range wouldn't be realistic or fun. The question is whether players value fun more than realism, and while I like realism, I place a greater value on fun, which I believe most of us here do as long as gameplay is not out of this world. There's no point arguing about realism if there's no concrete example of how nerfing archers' range would make the game more fun.

I never said they did, which is the issue.

You shouldn't be able to use archers the same way you use sharshooters armed with modern rifles.

[fws2468]

I never said they did, which is the issue.

You shouldn't be able to use archers the same way you use sharshooters armed with modern rifles.

No but your earlier explanation gave me the impression that you wanted to reconcile archers' and sharpshooters' roles in reality with their roles in the context of gameplay. I still don't see how their roles are different even in reality btw. The technology is different but their role as support units is similar. Again, we are going back to the realism debate but I won't be drawn into that beyond what I've already said in my last post. I think what you're suggesting is subjective and as far as gameplay is concerned, I don't see any issues with archer range.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

No but your earlier explanation gave me the impression that you wanted to reconcile archers' and sharpshooters' roles in reality with their roles in the context of gameplay. I still don't see how their roles are different even in reality btw. The technology is different but their role as support units is similar. Again, we are going back to the realism debate but I won't be drawn into that beyond what I've already said in my last post. I think what you're suggesting is subjective and as far as gameplay is concerned, I don't see any issues with archer range.

Like medics are similar to mechanics?

I guess, but on the battlefield you wouldn't send a mechanic to go patch up your fallen teammate, just like you wouldn't use archers to pick off officers.

I mean, this is exactly like if they included horses that could gallop at 200MPH. Sure, they could balance it to where it didn't break the game, but it wouldn't make any sense, and would just be stupid. Same with archers that can fire as far as a unit of sharpshooters using modern rifles.

Again, like I said, this is no big deal. It's easily moddable. All Im saying is it was stupid to be in in the first place. They could have balanced archers any number of other ways.

[fws2468]

I don't see where this argument is leading. Obviously mechanics are not medics, but you can't compare archers and sharpshooters in this manner as they belong to different time periods in terms of how heavily they were used in war of the particular time period.

Also, there are no fixed rules saying all roles are exclusive in war. I've heard reports of wars where US corporals and sergeants led the entire unit because all the unit's officers died. As a former army medic myself, there were times when I also supported logistics. Now assuming, and I mean assuming archers and sharpshooters belonged to the same time period before silencers were invented, would you use an archer to pick off an officer if the sharpshooter's shot would have alerted the enemy? If you're a sharpshooter and ran out of bullets, would you use a bow and arrows found on the ground or surrender to the enemy?

It's no big deal for me too, but to be honest, I never felt any imbalance from enemy archers in the game. I just simply blast them with my cannons before they get even close, run them down from the flanks with cav or deploy my own sharpshooters to counter.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

I don't see where this argument is leading. Obviously mechanics are not medics, but you can't compare archers and sharpshooters in this manner as they belong to different time periods in terms of how heavily they were used in war of the particular time period.

Also, there are no fixed rules saying all roles are exclusive in war. I've heard reports of wars where US corporals and sergeants led the entire unit because all the unit's officers died. As a former army medic myself, there were times when I also supported logistics. Now assuming, and I mean assuming archers and sharpshooters belonged to the same time period before silencers were invented, would you use an archer to pick off an officer if the sharpshooter's shot would have alerted the enemy? If you're a sharpshooter and ran out of bullets, would you use a bow and arrows found on the ground or surrender to the enemy?

It's no big deal for me too, but to be honest, I never felt any imbalance from enemy archers in the game. I just simply blast them with my cannons before they get even close, run them down from the flanks with cav or deploy my own sharpshooters to counter.

But that doesn't mean the serve the same purpose. If I ran out of bullets with my rife, and had to use a bow, I sure as hell wouldn't use it the same way I used my rifle.

All Im saying is they could have made two seperate units, that have way different combat styles and uses on the battlefield, rather than just making a "Traditional Sharpshooter" unit.

[fws2468]

But that doesn't mean the serve the same purpose. If I ran out of bullets with my rife, and had to use a bow, I sure as hell wouldn't use it the same way I used my rifle.

All Im saying is they could have made two seperate units, that have way different combat styles and uses on the battlefield, rather than just making a "Traditional Sharpshooter" unit.

Bows were used as ranged weapons just as rifles are. The purpose is the same even if the mechanics of handling both have differences. Archers are already separate units from sharpshooters in fots. So any change in combat styles could be made to the archer unit, but I'm not sure if that would simplify or complicate gameplay.

[Humble Warrior]

Ridiculous rubbish. Top hat is correct, but as is usual on the net those who don`t want to see that, won`t. You`re wasting your time on them.

[fws2468]

I respect Top Hat Zebra's views, otherwise I wouldn't bother explaining anything. But it's sad that there are still some people here who think theirs is the only correct view and dismiss what others say as rubbish without explaining. They may give the usual no point explaining to you reply, but that's to be expected. No point arguing with them. Not directed at Top Hat btw, I honestly appreciate your arguments.

[Lord Baal]

I think that, just like in real life, bows should be simply outpaced by guns. So players should remember to not bring a bow to a gunfight. It's simple. In fact I think bows (Japanese composite bows or any type of quality bows) where quite hard to make, even with the right technologies and plenty of artisans. While the guns, once you have the right tech can be massively produced and require less practice to become proficient than the bow.

Mano a mano, on the hands of experts the bows have better accuracy and reloading rate, the guns have more punching power and overall (maybe not effective) range.

Used in massed formations the rifles (and teppos and all that) are cheaper to produce and faster to learn.

[Humble Warrior]

I blame the multiplayer `everything must be balanced` syndrome. Contrary to popular belief, many games based on real life warfare keep weapons historically accurate and tactical players simply use the weapons intelligently and to their strengths...

Not whine them to have implausible ranges because a more modern weapon would beat it.

Problem is, CA aren`t strong enough when it comes to staying with keeping things realistic so basically suck up to the easiest common denominater that, presumably will gain the greatest MP kiddie cash.

[SonOfCrusader76]

how do you balance them then? guns wreck regardless of armor. they kill more per volley. fire slower and require direct LOS. bows less effective but easier to use. i mean im not saying the current system is amazing but what can you change to keep them balanced? only thing i've seen is stay hidden while firing but i think that would make them ridiculously strong. i also think its fine to treat the guns in s2 and FOTS differently instead of a packaged deal.

How did they balance them in real life?

What I was getting at, is that they weren't balanced. Bows became obsolete for a reason.

For gameplay, you could just make them cheap. Hell, I would even be fine with them firing while hidden. But making them fire further than rifles is stupid.

Yep - even worse that removing the archer's crucial higher ground range advantage.

TW is not an ultra simulation but tries to balance realism with gameplay. In fots, modernisation is inevitable and the challenge is greater for the player who wishes to play fully traditional with no modern units. Giving archers the range to match sharpshooters (who also carry modern rifles) is fair because both unit types play a support role. You can always counter the archers with sharpshooters. If you want to compare abilities, then you should compare similar unit roles like regular line versus traditional swordsmen (as frontline troops) rather than archers.

Giving archers the same range as a sharpshooter isn't fair. It's daft, unrealistic and needs to stay 1,000,000 miles away from TW!

I blame the multiplayer `everything must be balanced` syndrome. Contrary to popular belief, many games based on real life warfare keep weapons historically accurate and tactical players simply use the weapons intelligently and to their strengths...

Not whine them to have implausible ranges because a more modern weapon would beat it.

Problem is, CA aren`t strong enough when it comes to staying with keeping things realistic so basically suck up to the easiest common denominater that, presumably will gain the greatest MP kiddie cash.

Yep - it isn't as if they have enough multiplayer nonsense - let them play that if they don't want to use their heads! One of the joys of TW is winning a battle where you're at a severe disadvantage - because you used your head. I love TW to bits, but if it continues to lean towards this 'must be balanced for MP' rubbish, then I'll probably stop buying it. Because it's only going to get worse. First, archers that can't fire further when on higher ground. Now archers that have the same range as rifles for God's sake! What's going to be next? 'Remove flank attacks bonus because it unbalances MP'? Stop ruining TW, Sega - for that's who is behind this. Sod off and make some arcade games or something.

[AzureNight]

how do you balance them then? guns wreck regardless of armor. they kill more per volley. fire slower and require direct LOS. bows less effective but easier to use. i mean im not saying the current system is amazing but what can you change to keep them balanced? only thing i've seen is stay hidden while firing but i think that would make them ridiculously strong. i also think its fine to treat the guns in s2 and FOTS differently instead of a packaged deal.

Why the hell should bows and rifles be balanced? Rifles should be superior, just as they are in real life. It's absurd to suggest there is any sort of "balance" between a rifle and a bow in warfare.

Thank god for Darthmod. CA have their heads so far up their asses that they think the target audience of Total War games are the same people who play Starcraft II, Call of Duty, etc.

[Humble Warrior]

That reminds me, it`s about time I reinstalled Darthmod now I`ve run vanilla FOTs for a bit. i`ve been avoiding archers almost totally because of their stupid ranges, but it really annoys me when the AI brings archers to a battle and are hitting my riflemen who can`t shoot back. Madness. What was the point of inventing guns??

CA, you know it`s stupid, so please stop this kind of thing. There are better ways to do it.

[Janne]

I blame the multiplayer `everything must be balanced` syndrome. Contrary to popular belief, many games based on real life warfare keep weapons historically accurate and tactical players simply use the weapons intelligently and to their strengths...

Not whine them to have implausible ranges because a more modern weapon would beat it.

Problem is, CA aren`t strong enough when it comes to staying with keeping things realistic so basically suck up to the easiest common denominater that, presumably will gain the greatest MP kiddie cash.

I suggest you look up how many casualties there were in the real boshin war and then get back to us about 'realism'. Game balance is necessary, because it's a game, and too much realism would destroy this game, as well as all total war titles.

I don't play multiplayer and I don't want to at the moment, but it would annoy me to no end if I used one faction that was on the losing side historically and it just could not compete in any way with other factions. There would be little point in even including that content in the game. The bow ranges are good the way they are, or else there would be no point in recruiting them. In real life, the bow has no "strengths" when compared with the rifle.

[Humble Warrior]

I suggest you look up how many casualties there were in the real boshin war and then get back to us about 'realism'. Game balance is necessary, because it's a game, and too much realism would destroy this game, as well as all total war titles.

I don't play multiplayer and I don't want to at the moment, but it would annoy me to no end if I used one faction that was on the losing side historically and it just could not compete in any way with other factions. There would be little point in even including that content in the game. The bow ranges are good the way they are, or else there would be no point in recruiting them. In real life, the bow has no "strengths" when compared with the rifle.

The problem with people like you is you only think 2 dimensionally. Very similar to people who say the Hurricane is rubbish against a 109 because it can`t climb as well or fly as fast and even has lesser guns. You act like there are no way that bows can compete with superior guns. You panic and say `Oh woe is me, he`s much better!`

And no they can`t in a sterile environment, 1 on 1. But bows aren`t likely to face guns exclusively alone if you`re smart (but even then it`s not all one sided).

Use them in conjunction with other troops, environment, weather and with smart tactical manouevers, just for one small example and much can be done with them. Experience can also help. They will never be as good as guns, but in certain cases you can equal the playing field without whining it to stupidity at a CA Dev. A Pawn can become more important than a Queen sometimes.

I say again, play it to its strengths and their (the enemy) weaknesses and even in a game a smart player will ultimately find ways to win. Just think about it, people.

[DarkArk]

I suggest you look up how many casualties there were in the real boshin war and then get back to us about 'realism'.

Stawmanning at its finest.

too much realism

I hate analogies, but I'm going to use one because I think it illustrates the point quite well. If this were a WWII game, it would be like having a Pershing be as strong as a King Tiger for balance purposes. It's stupid and laughs in the face of history, and yet games like CoH and MoW make a balanced game while still keeping the basics of the historical situation.

I think what it comes down to on a certain level is people are ignorant of just how powerful guns of this era were. Keep in mind we're only 30 years away from rifles like the Mosin-Nagant and Kar98. Sniper rifles had effective ranges of a km during this time. Guns should be long ranged and should be deadly because that's how they were historically. Hell, really there shouldn't be bows at the end of S2, much less FotS. Nobody used bows during the period, because they all knew rifles were better.

[Humble Warrior]

delete

[Humble Warrior]

Funny thing, if you go to more recent times, even kiddies would get upset if a Sherman tank was given as long range to shoot at a Tiger tank or as good armour.

And how did the Allies deal with that? They just shoved more tanks at the Germans than Tigers that could be fielded. In other cases, they had to rush the German tanks to close the range fast, etc, etc...

Tactics. Warfare is never about military technical equality. But what can be in plenty is smarts and tactics. As long as CA place the tactical requirements like logistics, environment, weather, munitions and troops experience there should always be a good chance for inferior weapons to win against superior all the way up to near modern times.

[Janne]

The problem with people like you is you only think 2 dimensionally. Very similar to people who say the Hurricane is rubbish against a 109 because it can`t climb as well or fly as fast and even has lesser guns. You act like there are no way that bows can compete with superior guns. You panic and say `Oh woe is me, he`s much better!`

And no they can`t in a sterile environment, 1 on 1. But bows aren`t likely to face guns exclusively alone if you`re smart (but even then it`s not all one sided).

Use them in conjunction with other troops, environment, weather and with smart tactical manouevers, just for one small example and much can be done with them. They will never be as good as guns, but in certain cases you can equal the playing field without whining it to stupidity at a CA Dev.

I say again, play it to its strengths and their (the enemy) weaknesses and even in a game a smart player will ultimately find ways to win. Just think about it, people.

Actually I don't think of bows vs rifles at all (or hurricanes vs whatever). That was your issue, remember? I use bows for a different purpose in FOTS -- they work quite nicely behind a meat shield or a line of rifles, for extra oomph. What I'm saying is, as far as my skill goes, bows would be almost totally useless if there wasn't a range compromise. The fact that they can fire over obstacles is useful, but the troops in this game move so quickly that it is not a very large advantage.

It seems to me that CA has made an incredibly good and tight wargame based loosely on events and technology surrounding the Boshin war, and I think it's a really interesting setting. It's fine with me if they play up the traditional samurai vs progressive military aspect (even though that's not really what the war was about as far as I can tell), because it makes for a very interesting game that features a range of different fighting styles.

The games that CA has been turning out recently have, I think, been very well done and well thought-out. I'm confident that it is the game balance that really makes them so very replayable (IMO, no other series of games have the same replayability, not civ, not EU).

[Humble Warrior]

There`s balance and then there`s just throwing the laws of physics out of the window. I played TW games since the start and weapons were relatively realistic compared to each other and had longer ranges only on higher elevation.

I`m confident CA will ruin their game if they go further and further to pleasing the MP lobby who get scared by real world tactics by creating stupid things like archers having super muscles and able to fire arrows further than a gun can shoot on straight ground.

I know I`ll stop buying their games if it continues and go elsewhere.