same rome 1 arrow range (maybe longer)

[Greatonesh]

after rome 1 they decreased arrow range
i ve played shogan 2 and arrow range was disaster
i liked EB Mode arrow range , that was the best
what do you think?

[Emperor of The Great Unknown]

No Rome 1 was way too unrealistic with the arrow ranges. Some units even horse archers could shoot across the map the first second of battle.

Though I think in Shogun 2 the range was way too unit dynamic. I think the bow samurai range was best, elite units should only have a marginal difference in range. If every unit had the range of a Bow Hero and arrows where as lethal as they were in Shogun 2 then we are going to be having a real problem that can only be compensated by speeding up unit movement.

But from the siege of Carthage demo it looks like the flaming arrows go quite far so you may get what you wish.

[torongill]

Maximum arrow range during the timeline of Rome 2 would've been something like 200 m, but that's maximum theoretical range, at which you might hit the fortress you're aiming at, but then again maybe not. Throw in the wind and the odds are very much against you. Projectile dispersion would also be a big problem. So I'd suggest something like 100-150 effective range against group targets. Slingshot is another matter, depending on the projectile used, but again, 100-200 m for group targets, maximum range 400 for "elite" slingers like balearics.

[xjlxking]

Maximum arrow range during the timeline of Rome 2 would've been something like 200 m, but that's maximum theoretical range, at which you might hit the fortress you're aiming at, but then again maybe not. Throw in the wind and the odds are very much against you. Projectile dispersion would also be a big problem. So I'd suggest something like 100-150 effective range against group targets. Slingshot is another matter, depending on the projectile used, but again, 100-200 m for group targets, maximum range 400 for "elite" slingers like balearics.

You are good

- Egyptian bow : 60 -100 yard
- Han bow : 30-40 m , shorter than CHu _ Ko _ Nu
- Scythan bow : max effective range :160 yard
- Greek bow : 60 - 100 yard .
- Persian bow : around 60 - 100 m
- Sassaind bow : max effective range : 175 m
- Roman bow : 200 m .


But I prefer that they don't focus on archer range, but rather type of damage. Arrow heads should be effective against certain types like heavy, light..etc

[Greatonesh]

You are good

- Egyptian bow : 60 -100 yard
- Han bow : 30-40 m , shorter than CHu _ Ko _ Nu
- Scythan bow : max effective range :160 yard
- Greek bow : 60 - 100 yard .
- Persian bow : around 60 - 100 m
- Sassaind bow : max effective range : 175 m
- Roman bow : 200 m .


But I prefer that they don't focus on archer range, but rather type of damage. Arrow heads should be effective against certain types like heavy, light..etc

always thought Scythian was the best ! or Parthians , or Egyptian !
are you sure roman's had the best archer's?

[xjlxking]

always thought Scythian was the best ! or Parthians , or Egyptian !
are you sure roman's had the best archer's?

He answered it

I suppose that range would be for imperial rome archers, who were professional soldiers.

[Emperor of The Great Unknown]

You are good

- Egyptian bow : 60 -100 yard
- Han bow : 30-40 m , shorter than CHu _ Ko _ Nu
- Scythan bow : max effective range :160 yard
- Greek bow : 60 - 100 yard .
- Persian bow : around 60 - 100 m
- Sassaind bow : max effective range : 175 m
- Roman bow : 200 m .


But I prefer that they don't focus on archer range, but rather type of damage. Arrow heads should be effective against certain types like heavy, light..etc

yes about the arrowheads. Broadheads should lose more power at range, but be better against unarmored targets, or animals ,as they cause larger wounds. While more narrow bodkin arrows would maintain more energy at range, and penetrate deeper into armor but wont cause as much bleeding for the unarmored opponent.

[xjlxking]

yes about the arrowheads. Broadheads should lose more power at range, but be better against unarmored targets, or animals ,as they cause larger wounds. While more narrow bodkin arrows would maintain more energy at range, and penetrate deeper into armor but wont cause as much bleeding for the unarmored opponent.

Exactly, and there even more Arrow Heads used in ancient times, all with it's own perks

[Altimis]

I don't recall ROME 1 have longer or shorter than others TW games but I will tell you this.

They shoot arrow for efficient kill not just shoot the farest they can shoot to show 'yay! I shoot like 400m!' because that will not accurate and waste so its may looks like short range but they aimed for kill and I think arrow is hard to hit and must be skilled with it.

Well trained archer must know their jobs, they know how far they can 100% hit and how their accurate I think, not just shoot like child play toy.

[Emperor Domitianus]

I can't remember it war too much but in Rome1 it was good enough. Who had the best archery, could win the battle.

[Smartbomb]

I can't remember it war too much but in Rome1 it was good enough. Who had the best archery, could win the battle.

That depends. Horse archers were definitely overpowered though.

In rome1 the standard archers didn't have that long of a range compared to the elite or cretan mercenary archers.

[Asgaroth]

I think that range should depend on the weapon type.

A) Is it a bow, sling, javelin or gastraphetes ?

B) If it is a bow or a sling, what kind of bow or sling is it ?( eastern, cretan bow balearic or rhodian sling ?)

[Ichon]

I just remember hills making a huge difference in Rome 1 where putting archers on top of slope = win. Later TW had that to some degree but not as much, Shogun 2 had plenty of range for the lethality of the archers. Good archers could completely destroy several units in the time it took to get into melee from max archers range- actually OP in my opinion majority of my battles the archers had the most kills.

Biggest improvement I hope CA makes is that not only accuracy but damage at max range is very low and gets better as range gets lower. Right now accuracy has simply a larger dispersal at longer range which when it is hitting one unit even on 'loose' formation is fairly powerful.

[Rijul.J.Ballal]

Range should be slightly lowered and the impact of the arrows must be realistic. In shogun i when i fire away at a unit with few members remaining, the arrows hit them all bang on, but only 2 or 3 die...

[Rijul.J.Ballal]

^ to solve this them units should protect themselves with shields or doge the arrows. If they don't do that they must die. If this is done Units that are stationary and unengaged can concentrate on the archers and reduce the damage they inflict, and when in combat they cannot do this making the archers more deadly...

[Greatonesh]

but ive saw documentary in history and the guy said in carahee parthians shooter's could actually kill at 400m !!!
documentary was decisive battle of ancient world

[Emperor of The Great Unknown]

Actually i wouldn't mind if long range inaccuraate barrages were present, as this was the way to fire into a fort.

I just want when the archers have to arch up their bows their accuracy greatly decreases, along with their spread.

Right now warscape is horrible for projectiles, it was built off musket balls.

The area at which the projectile hits is controlled by a projectile calibration area this is a fixed value.

This also is not changed by range or firing angle.

Accuracy just increases the likely hood that it will hit a target, but it doesn't change the spread. Range however changes the chances it will hit a target, but not the size of the area the arrows are allowed to hit.

And the damage variables for long range and short range are fairly arbitary.

For instance if we look at two different arrow types, one a broad-head

and the other a bodkin


We see that the broad-head would cause more resistance in the air, and therefore would lose more energy in flight. Meanwhile the bodkin is designed to be much thinner, so it causes less drag in the air which means it's able to maintain more of it's energy aloft in flight.

So both should be particularly devastating at close range. But at longer range the bodkin should have more energy left compared to the broad-head.

[Ichon]

I have never heard there is a huge difference between broadhead and bodkin arrow flight characteristics. The way it impacts but I doubt only slight difference in tip would change max range more than a dozen meters and effective range even less.

It does seem that projectiles have more issues in warscape than past TW as the behaviours seem even weirder. I'm glad Shogun 2 took the huge advantage for hills away but the biggest improvement I'd like to see is with javelins as they were more prominent in Rome's era than bows or most other projectile weapons as nearly every culture used them. Animation particularly has seemed bugged in all past TW games.

[Father Jack]

I am an archer in real life and I shoot an English longbow with an an 80lb draw weight - 80lb is about as powerful as bows got in the ancient world- I could probably launch an arrow 200m but with that duration of flight the speed of the arrow hugely reduces. It would still be able to potentially kill an unarmoured opponent, but it would be impossible to accurately aim at a person at such a distance. For cavalry the poundage was likely to be less than 80lb, probably more around 40-50lb, otherwise it simply becomes too impractical and difficult to draw an arrow back while galloping a horse. For a large part of military history archers and horse archers served as excellent ways of harassing and steadily grinding down an opponent (provided there were enough archers) and from a morale perspective it is pretty devastating being constantly under a hail of arrows, but lethality and accuracy is significantly reduced when you add distance into the equation.

[Ichon]

I am an archer in real life and I shoot an English longbow with an an 80lb draw weight - 80lb is about as powerful as bows got in the ancient world- I could probably launch an arrow 200m but with that duration of flight the speed of the arrow hugely reduces. It would still be able to potentially kill an unarmoured opponent, but it would be impossible to accurately aim at a person at such a distance. For cavalry the poundage was likely to be less than 80lb, probably more around 40-50lb, otherwise it simply becomes too impractical and difficult to draw an arrow back while galloping a horse. For a large part of military history archers and horse archers served as excellent ways of harassing and steadily grinding down an opponent (provided there were enough archers) and from a morale perspective it is pretty devastating being constantly under a hail of arrows, but lethality and accuracy is significantly reduced when you add distance into the equation.

Exactly- I would prefer that being under arrow fire provide a morale negative just as fire arrows do now- fire arrows would set wooden things alight- artillery, ships, siege works, etc but have morale effects only vs animals and lose the -morale vs units.

Then at long range arrows will kill very little but still provide some morale affects and maybe slow units under fire down. As units slow down and raise their shields archers could have much more interesting impact than simply kill entire enemy armies by themselves as units moving slower would take perhaps 1 extra volley of arrows at lower range for higher kills so perhaps 3 volleys of arrow at close enough range to do many kills but at longer ranges mostly harassing fire.

I personally thought archers were a bit too strong in Shogun 2 but there is some evidence that archers were main cause of wounds in that era of Japan (not deaths, but wounds) so CA had more discretion there. If we see archers just as strong in R2 I'll be quite disappointed and that will be first thing I mod differently if possible. The hard part is that its really difficult to use CA's projectile mechanics to create anything significantly better so that is something CA has to make some progress toward improving before even modders can do much.