has the archers range been increased?

[avesta]

They seem to shoot very far. Have there been made any changes?

[julianus heraclius]

They seem to shoot very far. Have there been made any changes?

Yes, all missle weapons have had their ranges extended, including archers. They vary from about 140 metres for basic archers up to 200 metres for steppe horse archers.

[Valentinian Victor]

Yes, all missle weapons have had their ranges extended, including archers. They vary from about 140 metres for basic archers up to 200 metres for steppe horse archers.

There are a number of problems with this. Foot archery ranges were always longer than their mounted counterparts, this has been proved using a number of modern research experiments. Also, steppe type horse archers tended to ride up as close as possible before loosing their arrows to guarantee hits. This was due to resupply problems. Foot archers could and were resupplied by both mules and waggons behind them, whereas the horse archers had to ride back to a resupply point if there was one. Therefore, guaranteeing a hit was of a much greater concern to the steppe horseman than it was to foot archer who could fire at greater ranges, knowing that even if hits were not scored then they were going to receive a generous resupply to compensate.

If we believe that the Sasanids practiced 'shower shooting' at this stage, then their cavalry bow range would be approximately the same as the foot archers, but in reality probably about a quarter to a third shorter in range.

[julianus heraclius]

There are a number of problems with this. Foot archery ranges were always longer than their mounted counterparts, this has been proved using a number of modern research experiments. Also, steppe type horse archers tended to ride up as close as possible before loosing their arrows to guarantee hits. This was due to resupply problems. Foot archers could and were resupplied by both mules and waggons behind them, whereas the horse archers had to ride back to a resupply point if there was one. Therefore, guaranteeing a hit was of a much greater concern to the steppe horseman than it was to foot archer who could fire at greater ranges, knowing that even if hits were not scored then they were going to receive a generous resupply to compensate.

If we believe that the Sasanids practiced 'shower shooting' at this stage, then their cavalry bow range would be approximately the same as the foot archers, but in reality probably about a quarter to a third shorter in range.

I think I should elaborate here. The 140 to 200 metre range are the extreme ends of the scale so to speak. 140metres applies to germanic bowmen whos bows were not as powerful as composite bows. So you will find that sassanid foot archers have a range of 190 metres, elite sassanid archers 192.5 metres, indian guptas longbowmen 200 metres etc. Roman archers range varies depending upon training. For example limitanei archers and numeri indiginae archers have a range of about 140 metres, whereas numerii sagitarii blemmye have a range of 170 metres becasue blemmye archers were renowned for being good. Comitatensis and palatinae archers have longer ranges being better trained at about 185 metres. And yes, hunnic archers come in at 200 metres. This is to take into account that hunnic archers were very good and deadly. So you will find that well trained foot archers have a range comparible to horse archers. Having said that, I'm happy to be convinced that cavalry archers should have their ranges reduced.

Cheers

[Valentinian Victor]

I think I should elaborate here. The 140 to 200 metre range are the extreme ends of the scale so to speak. 140metres applies to germanic bowmen whos bows were not as powerful as composite bows. So you will find that sassanid foot archers have a range of 190 metres, elite sassanid archers 192.5 metres, indian guptas longbowmen 200 metres etc. Roman archers range varies depending upon training. For example limitanei archers and numeri indiginae archers have a range of about 140 metres, whereas numerii sagitarii blemmye have a range of 170 metres becasue blemmye archers were renowned for being good. Comitatensis and palatinae archers have longer ranges being better trained at about 185 metres. And yes, hunnic archers come in at 200 metres. This is to take into account that hunnic archers were very good and deadly. So you will find that well trained foot archers have a range comparible to horse archers. Having said that, I'm happy to be convinced that cavalry archers should have their ranges reduced.

Cheers

Thanks for the clarification.

I believe there is now enough evidence in many books and journal articles for us to make the assumption that at least light horse archers shot at almost point blank ranges, relying on the speed of their horses to get them out of trouble should they be counter-charged. Many steppe armies used the 'swarm and pounce' tactic, where they attempted to surround the opposing army, used feigned flights to lure out groups of the enemy then pounced and swarmed over them. I think you need to make all but shower shooting types range either point blank or close. This would also apply to Catafract cavalry armed with lance and bow, they appeared to have loosed a volley just before charging in.

[julianus heraclius]

Thanks for the clarification.

I believe there is now enough evidence in many books and journal articles for us to make the assumption that at least light horse archers shot at almost point blank ranges, relying on the speed of their horses to get them out of trouble should they be counter-charged. Many steppe armies used the 'swarm and pounce' tactic, where they attempted to surround the opposing army, used feigned flights to lure out groups of the enemy then pounced and swarmed over them. I think you need to make all but shower shooting types range either point blank or close. This would also apply to Catafract cavalry armed with lance and bow, they appeared to have loosed a volley just before charging in.

So you are suggesting say a maximum range of 100 metres or less but have a higher impact than other archers. But this would only apply to steppe horseman and cataphracts with lance and bow. Hmm, I may try that for the next patch.

If you could suggest a maximimum distance for each that would be good.

Cheers

[avesta]

They probably should. I've just started my campaign but I have noticed that their range seems slightly too far. However, it is ok if the damage has been reduced to compensate for the range. I don't want 75% of an army to be clobbered by archers before they even reach the enemy.

Anyway, i'll keep an eye out for this and give feedback on it as I play more.

[Julianus Flavius]

I suppose it depends on what style of warfare you like as to whenther or not you like long range for cavalry archers. I personally think nothing could be worse than in one mod (Who's name I can't remember) some samatian noble archers could fire from the back of your deployment zone to the middle of your opponents!
but I think range should be variable depending on battle difficulty, and unit size. If you've got bigger units, longer range would be acceptable.

[avesta]

That's pretty interesting. I would like this purely for the sole purpose that it would nerf the horse archers. They seem too powerful. As a matter of fact, archers in general seem to be way too effective. Most of the battles I've fought so far in my early campaign are decided by who does the most damage before the lines clash. I want the line clash to decide the outcome moreso then the missile volleys.

I would think the more you get into you campaign, stronger and more armored troops are more often used, making archers less effective overall. It's not guaranteed though. Anyone else have any feedback on this?

[julianus heraclius]

So do we make the hunnic horse archers and/or steppe horses different from other horse archers. If they were more inclined to fight hand to hand, then we could replicate this, but the 30metre range would be too short as the hunnic cavalry wouldn't have a chance to get a first shot in before they made contact. I couyld play around with different ranges. It would depend on how many shots you would want them to get in before the melee. So they would become similiar to cataphract archers who would normally fire before charging.

So, for example, you could have hunnic horse archers at say 60 -80 metres which should give then two shots before making contact. Should we then give similiar ranges to cataphract archers? also do we give the huns a higher pri_stat rating. Currently it is this:
stat_pri 6, 8, arrow, 200, 40, missile, archery, piercing, none, 25, 1

so we could change these stats to

stat_pri 7, 9, arrow, 80, 40, missile, archery, piercing, none, 25, 1

But what would we do about other types of horse archers who would keep their distance generally?

[Valentinian Victor]

So do we make the hunnic horse archers and/or steppe horses different from other horse archers. If they were more inclined to fight hand to hand, then we could replicate this, but the 30metre range would be too short as the hunnic cavalry wouldn't have a chance to get a first shot in before they made contact. I couyld play around with different ranges. It would depend on how many shots you would want them to get in before the melee. So they would become similiar to cataphract archers who would normally fire before charging.

So, for example, you could have hunnic horse archers at say 60 -80 metres which should give then two shots before making contact. Should we then give similiar ranges to cataphract archers? also do we give the huns a higher pri_stat rating. Currently it is this:
stat_pri 6, 8, arrow, 200, 40, missile, archery, piercing, none, 25, 1

so we could change these stats to

stat_pri 7, 9, arrow, 80, 40, missile, archery, piercing, none, 25, 1

But what would we do about other types of horse archers who would keep their distance generally?

I would say use your new stats shown above for all light horse archers such as Parthians, Huns, Alans, Chionites, Kiderites, and other similar. Also use the same ranges for Cataphracts armed with bows, Avars and other similar heavy cavalry with bows who did not 'shower shoot', and have all other mounted with bows range between 100-120 metres.

Parthian light horse archers and similar types really would not charge in after firing unless those fired upon became demoralised, or they were attacking the flanks or rear. Huns, Alans etc appear to have fired a dense volley and charged in hard before the enemy could react.

[avesta]

I don't know much about the stat numbers and I haven't played with the huns but I can definately tell you that archers do way too much damage, especially against heavy infantry.

Playing as the sassanids, I just fought a battle against the kidarites. My front line were the khoraswan heavy infantry. I had about 6 of them. When I got in range, the AI fired a couple of volleys and at least half of my units got decimated! Most of them went from 160 men to 90 men after his first couple volleys.

By the time I reached his line my infantry was practically gone. I even had ballistas and my own archers, but his horse archers proved way too powerful.

I say decreasing the range for MOST horse archers would suffice. Perhaps you can keep the current range for rare elite troops within horse-archer factions like the Huns, Scythia, etc.

Foot archers' range should probably be decreased too but not as much.


The other way to balance the horse archers is to increase the cost of them. Horses need food, and should generally have a higher upkeep I think. Especially given that they have to carry all the ammunition. Right now in my campaign, basically ALL the factions' armies are composed of 80% missile units. I think that's too much. Perhaps a cost increased would prevent this.

Lastly, what I noticed is that when firing down a hill (even the slightest incline), the range seems abnormally long. On a completely flat map it doesn't seem so bad. It's just too bad that 99.9% of battlefields are too bumpy, I can never get a nice flat battlefield even when the ground on the campaign seems flat. lol. I wonder if there's a way to mod this to offer more flat battlefields without changing the campaign map. Anyway I'll start another thread for that.

But yeah, like I said, the battles are usually lopsided in my campaign because of the powerful archers and non-flat maps you get.

[julianus heraclius]

I don't know much about the stat numbers and I haven't played with the huns but I can definately tell you that archers do way too much damage, especially against heavy infantry.

Playing as the sassanids, I just fought a battle against the kidarites. My front line were the khoraswan heavy infantry. I had about 6 of them. When I got in range, the AI fired a couple of volleys and at least half of my units got decimated! Most of them went from 160 men to 90 men after his first couple volleys.

By the time I reached his line my infantry was practically gone. I even had ballistas and my own archers, but his horse archers proved way too powerful.

I say decreasing the range for MOST horse archers would suffice. Perhaps you can keep the current range for rare elite troops within horse-archer factions like the Huns, Scythia, etc.

Foot archers' range should probably be decreased too but not as much.


The other way to balance the horse archers is to increase the cost of them. Horses need food, and should generally have a higher upkeep I think. Especially given that they have to carry all the ammunition. Right now in my campaign, basically ALL the factions' armies are composed of 80% missile units. I think that's too much. Perhaps a cost increased would prevent this.

Lastly, what I noticed is that when firing down a hill (even the slightest incline), the range seems abnormally long. On a completely flat map it doesn't seem so bad. It's just too bad that 99.9% of battlefields are too bumpy, I can never get a nice flat battlefield even when the ground on the campaign seems flat. lol. I wonder if there's a way to mod this to offer more flat battlefields without changing the campaign map. Anyway I'll start another thread for that.

But yeah, like I said, the battles are usually lopsided in my campaign because of the powerful archers and non-flat maps you get.

I think that first you must realise that in the east and on the steppes the bow was the primary weapon, and deadly, especially the composite bow. So your armies should consist of archers as a prominent part of the army. Any heavy infantry need to be screened by light troops to protect them, and of course you need to rush archers to minimise damage.

I won't be reducing the ranges for infantry units but will probably reduce horse archers ranges to below most infantry ones, except for those basic archers. So I would gather that mounted archers ranges will be in the vicinity of 140 - 160 metres, except Hunnic horse archers who will have a smaller range, such as 80 -120 metres (yet to be confirmed).

I would like other peoples opinions on all of this. remember we are trying to get historical accuracy and gameplay combined.

All discussions and opinions welcomed.

[Gäiten]

Due the limits of the game engine simulating these (correct) ideas is difficult. RTW uses arrow showers for all of its archer units and does not differ between penetration power of different ranges. Furthermore, you can not differ between firing arrows when the unit does not move nor unit is moving.

[Valentinian Victor]

Due the limits of the game engine simulating these (correct) ideas is difficult. RTW uses arrow showers for all of its archer units and does not differ between penetration power of different ranges. Furthermore, you can not differ between firing arrows when the unit does not move nor unit is moving.

I hear you Gaiten, I'm not going to critise anyone over this, every game system/mechanic has its limitations, be it table-top wargaming or computer simulations. On the whole I find computer simulations/wargames model things much more accurately than table-top rules as you can program in many more mitigating factors such as effects of weather, wind, speed of combatants etc.

[Gäiten]

Never understood that as bad criticism.

However, for IBFD V8 I chose the following: mounted archers do have shorter ranges, but higher penetration power than foot archers.
For game balance that has produced some very interesting results.

[julianus heraclius]

Never understood that as bad criticism.

However, for IBFD V8 I chose the following: mounted archers do have shorter ranges, but higher penetration power than foot archers.
For game balance that has produced some very interesting results.

Hmm, would you mind sharing that information with us?

[Athenogoras]

Interesting discussion. As I am currently working on archerybalance for Chivalry I might chip in.
I have made the archers range dependent on how the AI uses siegedeployment. I have also changed the
AI formation so that they stay out of archers range.
The reason being I find it very unrealistic that my enemy deploy within range for my archers!

Some things can be modded, others not. I have not been able to change the distance where AI deploys
its rams, siegetowers etc. The upper limit(on stonewalls) seems to be around 98-99 meters(if I put my archer up on the walls).
If AI has siegeweapons(catapults) they will be set based on their range. If they have less than ca 170-180 meter they
will also be deployed at the same distance as the rams, therefore I set the minimumrange to 190 of catapults(this way I can expand archery range to up about 105 without
them being able to reach the catapults).

So the effective span of my footarchers is rather short from 98 to 105. I make differentiation through other means:
1. Number of soldiers
2. Available ammo(from 14 to 20)
3. Attackvalue in EDU
4. Accuracy (set in descr_projectile)
5. Affected by rain( I set the elite to have no effect of rain)

For footarchers I have 4 classes: levy, western, eastern, elite
So the levies and the western are only able to attack the siegeequipment as it advances, while the eastern ones
are able to attack it right away. No archers are able to attack the catapults or the ballistas.

Ranges for horsearchers are set to 95(except for Cumans which have 100). That is lower than footarchers, but they have more ammo.

[Gäiten]

Not sure that I understood you correctly, however,

so far many of the mounted units were somewhat overbalanced. More than often you could use horsearchers to wear down even the best troops with longrange archery.
Especially for the Sassanians, these tactics were very effective and almost a you-can-only-win-tactic.

I differ for the standard nomadic horse archer (NHA) and an armoured composite Savaran (ACS) unit.
Compare that to a general eastern footarcher (EFA)

NHA:
stat_pri 7, 5, arrow, 100, 40, missile, archery, piercing, none, 25, 1
ACS
stat_pri 15, 15, arrow, 45, 40, missile, archery, piercing, none, 25, 1

EFA:
stat_pri 4, 3, arrow, 130, 40, missile, archery, piercing, none, 25, 1

[julianus heraclius]

Thanks for sharing that Gaiten. I'm curious as to how many volleys the Sassanid Clibinarii get out before contact?