Archers gaining Melee Proficiency from XP ?

[Ruprecht]

Playing 6.2-RC4 again and i seem to have forgotten that Archers, for some reason beyond my understanding, gain Proficiency in Melee combat with experience, as opposed to Ranged.

I'de have a hard time believing this was deliberate and would like to know if it's possible to change the Type of combat proficiency a specific unit gets upon gaining chevrons.

It's not so much that i feel i need better archers, but more to the fact that it's totally unrealistic and illogical for a soldier to fire arrows all day and yet get better at something he never does and was not trained for.

I'm not sure if the same issue applies to 6.3/6.4, i was not able to play it for long enough to find out.

[Losthief]

Playing 6.2-RC4 again and i seem to have forgotten that Archers, for some reason beyond my understanding, gain Proficiency in Melee combat with experience, as opposed to Ranged.

I'de have a hard time believing this was deliberate and would like to know if it's possible to change the Type of combat proficiency a specific unit gets upon gaining chevrons.

It's not so much that i feel i need better archers, but more to the fact that it's totally unrealistic and illogical for a soldier to fire arrows all day and yet get better at something he never does and was not trained for.

this is a vinalla thing, exp adds to 1 meelee attack each color level (bronze, silver, gold). But, as they gain experience its been shown in tests by people archers may get more accurate at range attacks.

I'm not sure if the same issue applies to 6.3/6.4, i was not able to play it for long enough to find out.

?, not able to play because u didn't like it, or it didn't work for you? Just curious.

[nickname]

They should gain accuracy to. Just test it in a skirmishmatch.
And that is the only thing they should get.

An melesoilder with experience knows better how to hit, where to hit and how to defend (sadly they don't gain defence). So his meleattacks are better.
What should experienced archer do more then aim better. TW is not simulatin weakneses in armors.

And this way jalvinmans become better in mele and range attacks .

[k/t]

Archers shouldn't get any better at melee by shooting, but this is a hardcoded thing so there's nothing we can do. Their accuracy increases from experience, though, so it's not all useless.

Oh yeah, because it's hardcoded, it's the same in all mods.

[Ruprecht]

?, not able to play because u didn't like it, or it didn't work for you? Just curious.

The impression i got from playing 6.3 was that it shouldn't have been released, or was possibly just a placeholder until 6.4 came out. Where as every version i have played from 5.0 was rock-solid and could actually pass as a release.

Apart from the fact my campaign broke on turn 37, i couldn't say i enjoyed any of the changes made regarding unit balancing and function. I was also experiencing path-finding issues and trait bugs. Though things like this might be expected when a project goes into a transitional period and loses it's lead developer.

I've always loved SS and could not praise it enough, and still do, but in all honesty the only thing i enjoyed in 6.3 was the new music.

They should gain accuracy to. Just test it in a skirmishmatch.
And that is the only thing they should get.
TW is not simulatin weakneses in armors.

True, but it should.

The game is already simulating fine details such as morale, stamina, encumbrance , armor-penetration, why shouldn't it simulate an archers ability to discern weak points in armor ? even if to justify a much needed and useful stat increase.

Even if you disregard weakness in armor, there is also the real life mechanic of "Overdrawing" which does fire arrows faster and further, thus causing more penetration = damage.

A green archer would have the strength of a 16 year old princess, but given time they would build strength in their arrow arm from consistent use. RomeTW had it right in the first place, this is just a bad design choice from CA, one of many i must add.

Archers shouldn't get any better at melee by shooting, but this is a hardcoded thing so there's nothing we can do. Their accuracy increases from experience, though, so it's not all useless.

Oh yeah, because it's hardcoded, it's the same in all mods.

Yeah, i apologize for my ignorance, i had totally forgotten this was inherent to M2TW and not SS. It just irritates me that CA sits back churning out new games that aren't half the game SS has become, yet they won't release critical developing tools to modders, who imo are the reason their games get so much attention.


Thanks for the feedback guys.

[k/t]

An archer wouldn't be able to discern weak points in armour other than "hey, he's wearing a breastplate but only pants on his legs". Archers don't aim all that much in a battle.

Overdrawing is used for distance shooting with special equipment and light arrows. It's not meant for combat.

6.3 incorporated RR/RC, so it had to be superior to whatever came before it. However, it also added a whole bunch of things I didn't like either. It didn't affect me, though, because I'm playing the RR/RC Compilation. The next version of it will be based on 6.4, but PB's magic balancing touch will make it much better.

If better mods for M2 were made, people wouldn't buy S2 or Empire because they'd still be playing M2 mods. M2 is the only TW game I have, and until CA reverses course and makes moddable games again, that's the way it's going to stay.

[Kaidonni]

If better mods for M2 were made, people wouldn't buy S2 or Empire because they'd still be playing M2 mods. M2 is the only TW game I have, and until CA reverses course and makes moddable games again, that's the way it's going to stay.

Slightly off-topic, but people would still be playing those later games. There are people who don't give two hoots about any mods, and they are the majority. They pick up a game, play it some, then proceed to the next installment in the franchise. Games sell millions of copies, and I don't think any mod has had millions of downloads. Forums can have tens of thousands of people signed up, but in reality only a small percentage will be involved in forum discussions to any great extent. There are also the people who like the later games as well as Medieval 2, even though they have played plenty of mods - not to mention the earlier games, such as Medieval 1.

It is a shame about how the ability to mod Empire and beyond has been scaled back, though. While Medieval 1 had rather strict limitations, you could add extra provinces, new factions, and even design new maps (there's a Shogun mod for Medieval 1).

[Ruprecht]

An archer wouldn't be able to discern weak points in armour other than "hey, he's wearing a breastplate but only pants on his legs". Archers don't aim all that much in a battle..

I can't help but feel you are nit-picking a perfectly valid reason to justify ranged combat bonuses for archers. I bet if Melee unit types gained missile damage bonuses you would have something different to say about it, as that would equal the uselessness of giving archers melee proficiency, it's a waste. They are not trained or attired for melee combat. Even if used in desperation their effectiveness is still questionable.

In actuality, an archer that was experienced enough to know which parts of the armor are weakest, would indeed inflict more damage.

Your point that archers don't aim is entirely situational, in that a Volley is more calculation, but for Skirmishes, Sieges and Horse-archery Accuracy would play a huge part.

Overdrawing is used for distance shooting with special equipment and light arrows. It's not meant for combat...

You only need read a Wiki to learn that Overdraw was used in medieval combat, though you shouldn't have to read anything to understand how this mechanic works.

6.3 incorporated RR/RC, so it had to be superior to whatever came before it. However, it also added a whole bunch of things I didn't like either. It didn't affect me, though, because I'm playing the RR/RC Compilation. The next version of it will be based on 6.4, but PB's magic balancing touch will make it much better.

What makes you think it's better because it had xx mod ?, it comes down to personal preference. I myself have never used RR/RC and never will, so that argument holds no weight for me. Perhaps having the "option" could be perceived as better, but the overall quality of game play depends purely on taste.

Slightly off-topic, but people would still be playing those later games. There are people who don't give two hoots about any mods, and they are the majority. They pick up a game, play it some, then proceed to the next installment in the franchise. Games sell millions of copies, and I don't think any mod has had millions of downloads. Forums can have tens of thousands of people signed up, but in reality only a small percentage will be involved in forum discussions to any great extent. There are also the people who like the later games as well as Medieval 2, even though they have played plenty of mods - not to mention the earlier games, such as Medieval 1.

It is a shame about how the ability to mod Empire and beyond has been scaled back, though. While Medieval 1 had rather strict limitations, you could add extra provinces, new factions, and even design new maps (there's a Shogun mod for Medieval 1).

Spot on!

[Ichon]

I can't help but feel you are nit-picking a perfectly valid reason to justify ranged combat bonuses for archers. I bet if Melee unit types gained missile damage bonuses you would have something different to say about it, as that would equal the uselessness of giving archers melee proficiency, it's a waste. They are not trained or attired for melee combat. Even if used in desperation their effectiveness is still questionable.

In actuality, an archer that was experienced enough to know which parts of the armor are weakest, would indeed inflict more damage.

Your point that archers don't aim is entirely situational, in that a Volley is more calculation, but for Skirmishes, Sieges and Horse-archery Accuracy would play a huge part.

The difficulty for ranged attack bonuses is balance... especially given the time span. Although I would think given the current MTW2 engine good archers starting at 3 attack and reaching 6 might be fair although then current peasant archers starting at 1 would reach 4 and be quite deadly for their price. It is pointless to theorize as the experience gain is hardcoded anyway.

I do not agree that archers were so specialized in medieval warfare as you make them out to be. They did become more specialized as time went on and in England and a few other places dedicated archers were valued but much of the time archers would shoot and then engage in melee. Agincourt was not so rare where the archers went into the melee aiding the frontline troops. It was probably even more frequent in the east where nearly everyone was an archer.

In the case of England the current melee bonus gain actually makes sense as hardened archers having gone on frequent campaign acquired better arms and armor as well as practiced with the melee warriors on campaign. There does seem to be some accuracy bonus as well with XP but from my tests it seems very small.

The ranges where an archer could reliably aim for a particular point of armor are so low it does not make sense to include that. By the time the range is that close an archer would need to drop their bow and either run or defend themselves in melee.

[k/t]

"In actuality, an archer that was experienced enough to know which parts of the armor are weakest, would indeed inflict more damage. "

Yeah, and archers gain accuracy with experience. More accuracy = more kills.

It is better because RR/RC is more realistic. You should try BC; it has utter fantasy stats you'll love.

Horse archers aimed at a specific individual at 40 metres or less. Beyond that, they shot in the pack.

[Ruprecht]

"In actuality, an archer that was experienced enough to know which parts of the armor are weakest, would indeed inflict more damage. "

"Yeah, and archers gain accuracy with experience. More accuracy = more kills. .

We are not talking about Accuracy, we are talking about Experience effects. You were the one that brought Accuracy into the equation, i merely contradicted your statement about it. I have to ask why you referenced that particular quote for your reply, it's not even relevant. You're trying to invalidate my argument by substituting it with something else.

It is better because RR/RC is more realistic. You should try BC; it has utter fantasy stats you'll love.

No need to be cheeky, if you are struggling to understand this subject, as you seem to be, don't post irrelevant information. It seems you are forming a habit of posting things without checking them first, then you try to worm your way out with insults and misinformation.

Admittedly, my condescending reply probably didn't help much, but it was more out of frustration that you did not understand, or were being blatantly ignorant.

Horse archers aimed at a specific individual at 40 metres or less. Beyond that, they shot in the pack.

And this invalidates what i said how exactly ?

Why do you feel it's necessary to refute everything i say, was it because i proved you dead wrong in a previous post, surely you are not mad about that ? Anyone would think i am trying to pass a Bill the way you probe every word i say for inconsistencies with reality, it a GAME mate, there is room for leniency.

[nickname]

Hitting weak points.

Guys please. Everybody here who fired a bow or crossbow in his life?

With the "old" bows and arrows from middleage it is hard to hit a targed of 1.22m (normal bowtarget today) from 70m away. Every arrow was unique!
And there where bows with a range up to 400m (Longbow ~200m, Crossbow ~80m).

Yes, there are story about HAs fightig for the turks that killed enemy heavy armored riders while shooting through the holes in the helmet. But they also shoot through the weak points under the arm, when the enemy rises the arm to attack.
Just look at mongolian HA-competitions. Firering an arrow at a target less then 10m away. You hit the target when your arrow gets through.
Aming weak spots was used, when the enemy is nearly close enough to attack in mele. In all other situations. Hope that your arrow hits something and is penetrating the armor or that you hit the horse.

Lord of the Rings and Robin Hood are not good scources .


Simulating weak points would mean to give higher attackvalue for lesser (very low) range for the same archerunit.

[k/t]

We are not talking about Accuracy, we are talking about Experience effects. You were the one that brought Accuracy into the equation, i merely contradicted your statement about it. I have to ask why you referenced that particular quote for your reply, it's not even relevant. You're trying to invalidate my argument by substituting it with something else.

Yeah, and the effect of experience is higher accuracy. Not more damage. How's that irrelevant?

No need to be cheeky, if you are struggling to understand this subject, as you seem to be, don't post irrelevant information. It seems you are forming a habit of posting things without checking them first, then you try to worm your way out with insults and misinformation.

Admittedly, my condescending reply probably didn't help much, but it was more out of frustration that you did not understand, or were being blatantly ignorant.

Talkin' 'bout wha? You seem to be in a world of your own.

Why do you feel it's necessary to refute everything i say, was it because i proved you dead wrong in a previous post, surely you are not mad about that ? Anyone would think i am trying to pass a Bill the way you probe every word i say for inconsistencies with reality, it a GAME mate, there is room for leniency.

Because a lot of what you've said is wrong. You didn't prove me wrong at all, except in that world of your own. Produce this precious wiki of yours with the combat overdraw. Let's see who posts unverified crap.

[Homeros]

I believe it's worth nothing that there are plenty of "missile" units who are also (reasonably) effective in melee. These units are among my most prized soldiers - deadly at range, and capable to hold the line (without suffering heavy casualties) for a while and/or good flankers.

To name a few: Ottomans, Mourtatoi, Mongols archers, Rus Archers, Basque archers, Norse Archers and likely a couple more (Javelinmen come to mind). Although I agree with the OP that accuracy and/or (arrow) damage should increase when gaining XP, I can live with an accuracy boost and better melee capabilities. It's ain't perfect, but it's neither a game-breaker.

[Byg]

Having thought about it a bit I think archers not gaining accuracy or missile power due to battles is ok. Archers already knew how to use their bows before entering battle. It would be very difficult once in battle to guage whether they were accurate or not in order to gain any skill increase. Battle experience is more about confidence and this is better refected via morale and melee.

[Point Blank]

The problem is that M2TW has these problems with its missile system that are hardcoded:

1) Impacts that undermatch stronger armor have too much chance of penetrating etc, eg even impacts with attack 1 have too much chance of hurting a target with heavy armor
2) Impacts that overmatch weaker armor have not enough chance of penetrating etc, eg even impacts with attack 30 have not enough chance of hurting a target with minimal or no armor
3) Hit probability at close ranges is too low
4) Hit probability at long ranges is too high
5) Regardless of impact energy, there is still about a 40% chance of any hit just causing a light wound that allows the target to keep fighting, eg a heavy musket that blows through leather armor, and an arrow that just penetrates heavy mail, have similar chances of causing wounds once that armor has been penetrated

Balancing all this is very difficult because compensating for any of these issues accentuates the negative impact of the others.

[nickname]

The problem is that M2TW has these problems with its missile system that are hardcoded:

1) Impacts that undermatch stronger armor have too much chance of penetrating etc, eg even impacts with attack 1 have too much chance of hurting a target with heavy armor
2) Impacts that overmatch weaker armor have not enough chance of penetrating etc, eg even impacts with attack 30 have not enough chance of hurting a target with minimal or no armor
3) Hit probability at close ranges is too low
4) Hit probability at long ranges is too high
5) Regardless of impact energy, there is still about a 40% chance of any hit just causing a light wound that allows the target to keep fighting, eg a heavy musket that blows through leather armor, and an arrow that just penetrates heavy mail, have similar chances of causing wounds once that armor has been penetrated

Balancing all this is very difficult because compensating for any of these issues accentuates the negative impact of the others.

1. Yes.
2. No, lighter armors, for example padded armors where often better then steelarmors against arrows. The arrow will lose to much energy in the thight but soft woof and will become stuck while the arrow will break through the thin plate of metal. If the arrow is an penetrating arrow, then the chances are better to penetrate strong hart armors then weak soft. Just for example, the chinese armors made out of paper! would withstand an bodkinarrow fired by a english longbow. It would withstand swordhits too, but thats another story.
3. At close range (10m) its 100% if there is a direct line of sight.
4. Yes and no. Hard to tell. Depends on unit, bow, weather and enemy formation. For some the chances are to high for some not.
5. No question, yes. The wounds are different, but the targed would be unable to fight.

[PerXX]

2. No, lighter armors, for example padded armors where often better then steelarmors against arrows. The arrow will lose to much energy in the thight but soft woof and will become stuck while the arrow will break through the thin plate of metal. If the arrow is an penetrating arrow, then the chances are better to penetrate strong hart armors then weak soft. Just for example, the chinese armors made out of paper! would withstand an bodkinarrow fired by a english longbow. It would withstand swordhits too, but thats another story.

No one wore just plate armour though. They would wear thick padded armour underneath, which as you mention are very good at absorbing the impact of an arrow. Not to mention that in order to deliver the full force and penetrate metal, the arrows would have to hit dead on. Any sort of angle would cause the arrow to deflect. Seeing as plate armour are slightly barrel shaped, not a flat sheet of metal, there's very little chance of hitting it directly dead on, so the arrow can deliver it's full amount of energy.

[Point Blank]

1. Yes.
2. No, lighter armors, for example padded armors where often better then steelarmors against arrows. The arrow will lose to much energy in the thight but soft woof and will become stuck while the arrow will break through the thin plate of metal. If the arrow is an penetrating arrow, then the chances are better to penetrate strong hart armors then weak soft. Just for example, the chinese armors made out of paper! would withstand an bodkinarrow fired by a english longbow. It would withstand swordhits too, but thats another story.

I was saying how the game falls down in general by not adequately taking account of the degree to which the projectile overmatches the armor rather than considering specific examples.

3. At close range (10m) its 100% if there is a direct line of sight.

Where did you find this? Seems odd, and if so also highly unrealistic.

4. Yes and no. Hard to tell. Depends on unit, bow, weather and enemy formation. For some the chances are to high for some not.

Agreed, the game takes better account of longer range shooting than close range. I did many tests where I looked at the dispersion footprint of long-range arrow volleys overlaid with various unit formations, and it did an OK job of matching # of arrows that fell in the overlap area with number of hits - high, but not too bad.

5. No question, yes. The wounds are different, but the targed would be unable to fight.

My point was more that whether you are hit with a 3000J heavy musket ball or a 100J arrow, if the armor is penetrated, the wound effect is about the same ingame, though yes I accept that to a large degree its where on the body the target is hit that is most significant.

[Ruprecht]

Yeah, and the effect of experience is higher accuracy. Not more damage. How's that irrelevant?

You are apparently too busy arguing, that you have lost sight of what the argument was about. It is irrelevant because A) I am not arguing about the effect of accuracy, B) This whole discussion is about the justification of giving archers Ranged Proficiency. C) Your reply was not in context with the quote. It made no sense to me reading it in contrast to the quote you used, it was irrelevant.

Because a lot of what you've said is wrong. You didn't prove me wrong at all, except in that world of your own. Produce this precious wiki of yours with the combat overdraw. Let's see who posts unverified crap.

"Very short arrows have been used, shot through a guide attached either to the bow (an "overdraw") or to the archer's wrist (the Turkish "siper").[4] These may fly farther than heavier arrows, and an enemy without suitable equipment may find himself unable to return them."

Quote from the Wiki.


It surprises me how you can argue this is not a strong enough justification to be applied into a Game. It is already used in many games as a learned proficiency. Even in other medieval war simulation games you will find "Overdraw" as a typical game mechanic. A mechanic that is thought my most to mesh seamlessly into any conventional war game.


More so, is the fact that it was already implemented into the Predecessor of M2TW, and was only taken out so combat balancing could coincide with engine limitations. By your ration-el, all games that have this are Fantasy ?

I must ask, do you think it is consistent to reality that a soldier in this game can take 300 arrows in the face before they die ?, Do you think its consistent to reality that it can take years to traverse a landmass that would actually take a few months in real life ?. There are a tonne of unrealistic parameters in this game, but god forbid they give archers ranged proficiency, that must belong in a fantasy game.


You are trying to argue everything within the constraints of strict science, even then it must apply to an overwhelming degree for you to believe it is acceptable for a video game. Even after i presented you with factual real life applications for ranged Proficiency, you still argue, and it has become painfully obvious you can't comprehend anything that does not fit into you narrow minded point of view.

Now i know how skewed your views are on everything, i'll thank you to stay out of any of my future topics. I find it hard to argue with someone that gives false, biased information and just does it out of spite.

The problem is that M2TW has these problems with its missile system that are hardcoded:

1) Impacts that undermatch stronger armor have too much chance of penetrating etc, eg even impacts with attack 1 have too much chance of hurting a target with heavy armor
2) Impacts that overmatch weaker armor have not enough chance of penetrating etc, eg even impacts with attack 30 have not enough chance of hurting a target with minimal or no armor
3) Hit probability at close ranges is too low
4) Hit probability at long ranges is too high
5) Regardless of impact energy, there is still about a 40% chance of any hit just causing a light wound that allows the target to keep fighting, eg a heavy musket that blows through leather armor, and an arrow that just penetrates heavy mail, have similar chances of causing wounds once that armor has been penetrated

Balancing all this is very difficult because compensating for any of these issues accentuates the negative impact of the others.

Thank you, that was most useful.