Gun range < bow range?

[Lord Baal]

Edit: The word 'simulator' is a bit of a misnomer to be honest.

I guess it could be interpreted as such... as almost any other word. It's more a matter of simulator= tool, game= toy.

[Ferdiad]

Something like Arma would be a simulation game, TW is nowhere near that level of realism.

[Lord Baal]

Arma?

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

http://www.armedassault.com/agegate.html

[Ferdiad]

http://www.arma2.com/agegate/agegate.html

[SonOfCrusader76]

Something like Arma would be a simulation game, TW is nowhere near that level of realism.

Indeed. In fact, it was either an Arma game, or Operation Flashpoint, but there was the most annoying mission I've ever experienced in any game. Basically, you had to babysit a base all night. In real time. That's right - several hours of doing nothing but walk slowly around a camp watching out for infiltrators. You couldn't speed the time up, because as soon as you did, someone would slip in and blow the base before you could react. That was true 'simulation' at its absolute worst!

[Humble Warrior]

Indeed. In fact, it was either an Arma game, or Operation Flashpoint, but there was the most annoying mission I've ever experienced in any game. Basically, you had to babysit a base all night. In real time. That's right - several hours of doing nothing but walk slowly around a camp watching out for infiltrators. You couldn't speed the time up, because as soon as you did, someone would slip in and blow the base before you could react. That was true 'simulation' at its absolute worst!

I actually played Arma 2 where I had to creep on all floors in the middle of the night to escape a search party after I`d just destroyed a radar array. During this I was forced to swim in water losing my infrared goggles, my pistol and half-drowning (suffering actual effects).

It took several hours, but I escaped the search party, the helo and made it back. It took the utmost patience.

Loved it.

[Ferdiad]

Arma 2 is pretty successful right? It shows that there is a market for extremely realistic games

[cyox]

@cyox: I agree that gameplay should come first, but there has to be a balance. I don't want a simulation, but I DO want a certain amount of realism in my Total War games.

Bowmen firing further than Riflemen? No.

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.

[Humble Warrior]

how do you balance them then? .

Plenty of ways, which has already been explained. one of the worse things anyone can do is alter reality and physics that we all instinctively understand because then we find it harder and harder to suspend our disbelief in a game based on historical reality.

There`s a limit to how far we go. Ignore that and you might as well have fluffy bunnies firing fish stick lazer guns- I know some of you would love that, but it destroys a game like this in the end.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

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?

[cyox]

How did they balance them in real life?

its like talking to a wall.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

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.

[fws2468]

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.

One lone archer firing while hidden might not be detectable, but a whole unit of them is impossible to stay hidden. In fots, bows already have greater reload skill on top of longer range than regular line infantry. I think that's good enough for gameplay, but if they need more incentive to use, perhaps make them much cheaper to recruit with much lower upkeep.

Edit: Forget to add, give bows a running speed bonus as well.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

One lone archer firing while hidden might not be detectable, but a whole unit of them is impossible to stay hidden. In fots, bows already have greater reload skill on top of longer range than regular line infantry. I think that's good enough for gameplay, but if they need more incentive to use, perhaps make them much cheaper to recruit with much lower upkeep.

Edit: Forget to add, give bows a running speed bonus as well.

No, we're talking about how they SHOULDN'T have longer range, because it's ridiculous. I was saying I'd rather just have the whole unit be invisible while firing.

[fws2468]

No, we're talking about how they SHOULDN'T have longer range, because it's ridiculous. I was saying I'd rather just have the whole unit be invisible while firing.

No harm in having longer range considering archers have to match the range of other support units like sharpshooters or yugekitai, on top of much longer ranged artillery fire.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

The harm is that it makes no sense. Why can bows outrange modern rifles?

Sharpshooters should be able to fire exponentially further than bowmen.

[fws2468]

The harm is that it makes no sense. Why can bows outrange modern rifles?

Sharpshooters should be able to fire exponentially further than bowmen.

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.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

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.

This isn't an ultra-realistic thing, either. It's basic knowledge.

Giving every unit the exact same range would be fair, too. But it wouldn't be realistic, nor would it be fun.

In real life, archers did not play the same role as sharpshooters. They're totally different things, and they should be totally different here, too. If archers had much shorter range (Or, rather, rifles had much longer) it would change the way they were used. This is something that mods can, and have, fixed easily, so it's not really that bothersome. It's just a stupid balancing decision.

[fws2468]

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.