Missile troops historical accuracy & rebalancing

[tmodelsk]

SSHIP Dev Team & Community.

I would like to propose that we discuss in this separate thread all aspects of Missile Troops efficiency :

• historical efficiency of various missile unit types against various unit types as reference,
• current in-game situation , concrete tests results, .... .
• re-balancing proposals, technical knowledge about in-game missile system (very weird from my tests).

And only this. So I hope it justifies this new thread.

IMO the SSHIP missile troops are not ideally balanced .

But before any serious re-balancing attempts - the historical knowledge is needed about efficiency,
or in lack of historical sources - logic conclusions based on history, modern tests results, etc.

I have some conclusions & thoughts & proposals about whole topic but also I need your historical & technical assistance.
Especially I need 'historical' verification of my concepts.

I propose that we use specified battle 'scenario' : given missile unit is 'defending' and the another given unit type (infantry, cavalry) is attacking, charging.
And to consider what amount of missile damage should be caused till the clash on units (no skimirshing).
Such scenario is quite historical (I think) but the most important - is easily to test in-game in custom battle.
But of course we could consider another well defined scenarios.

So, let me start with this below and please verify if I'm 'historically' correct, also feel free to any discussion within the given topic frame.

###########################################################################
### Early Professional Archers (in-game unit name in western Europe is 'Archers' , technically 'Prussian Archers'). ###
IMO this is good representative example of early professional not-levy Archer unit, long trained, already with quite long range , etc.

1. Against no-shield, no-armor troops (ex.: Peasants) 'Archers' should be deadly effective.
Should kill about 50%-75% of charging Peasants, (in above battle scenario) or even rout the opponent or even kill them all.

2. Against basic common Levy Spearmen (ex.: Spear Militia) - so unit with shield and basic armor.
Archers should be also very effective, killing ~ 25% - 50%. (how much ??)

3. Late Heavy Plate Armor units, ex.: Chivalric Foot Knight (the most Armor + Shield valued unit I have found).
Basing on my tiny historical knowledge - 'Archers' should not be able to deal almost ANY casualties.

What I have learned from Matt Easton channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCt1...d5FCGCwcjhrOdA) is that :
ALL written historical sources that we have when describing the situation that Noble Knight in Plate Armor was seriously injured or killed by the arrow,
all them states that the person was hit by the arrow in head, not wearing helmet or throught helmet 'holes'.
And such situations were very rare, showing that plate armor was very very protective effective against any arrows, bows, etc.

If above #3 is correct than this is non-balanced issue in SSHIP.

.. to be continiued ... .

[tmodelsk]

Below I'm copy-pasting my post abput crossbowmen & Lifthrasir answer - to keep everything in this thread.

Crossbowmen considerations (tmodelsk):

• Crossbowmen are loading their crossbows just before first time ordered to shot, it takes a while.
  I think they should enter battlefield already with loaded crossbows, crossbows ready to fire.
  
  It works really bad especially when crossbowmen are skimirshing or are first defense line against incoming enemy charge.
  (so it's how they are mainly used)
  And only when enemy is in range they start to load crossbows - unrealistic, non-historic.
  Their crossbows in such circumstances should be ready for first volley - press the 'trigger' and volley of bolts should be fired AND THEN comes long reloading.
  
  Don't know if it could be done (engine limitations ?)
• Effectiveness compared to archers - little too low in my opinion.
  Playing as Aragorn, standard non-peasant Archers (missile attack 4) and standard Crossbowmen (missile attack 6).
  I have a battle having one Archer and one Crossbowmen unit, being on much higher ground,
  the circumstances where that both units started to shoot on similar time, both had a very long time to pepper the enemy until they attacked.
  Opponent was Moors, rather heavier armored forces.
  Archers fired all their arrows, Crossbowmen 75%-80% percent of bolts.
  
  The kills result was Archers 210, Crossbowmen - 130.
  I think - on such 'ideal' circumstances for Crossbowmen (good 'stable' position allowing them to repetitively fire for a long time)
  their effectiveness should be better than Archers or even a lot better.
  Archers are more flexible, greater range, can fire from second line, etc .... ., but Crossbowmen when placed in good position (which is rare and hard) should be deadly effective.
• Production times.
  As far as I know from history - professional Archers (not levies) required many years of constant training.
  And that was the advantage of Crossbowmen - they could be massively quickly trained.
  So I think Crossbowmen production time should be one turn (not 2) and possibly little higher replenish rates.

(Lifthrasir) :
I'm not sure it can be done. I need to have a look at it. But for the principle, I agree. Crossbowmen should start with their weapon loaded.
Regarding the efficiency, I think you can adjust that in the EDU if I remember correctly.
Regarding their recruitment time, it depends if it is just a basic militia, and in that case, you're right, or a semi-professional/profesional unit that requiers more time due to obvious reasons.

[Lifthrasir]

Regarding archers and arrows, it depends on the types of arrow's head and on the type of armour.
This kind of discussion has been rised already in SSHIP forum as in many others. Nobody as far as I know is able to find an answer to that question that satisfies the majority of people.
I'm honestly not in favor to start this kind of discussion again and I'm afraid to know how it will end.

So to anybody who wants to post here, please follow these simple rules:
- any post on that topic must be justified with sources.
- respect the opinion of others even if you don't agree. If you can't refrain yourself, go out, have a smoke, a coffee or whatever and come back only when you have calmed down.

As long the discussion stays "friendly", that's fine. Any violation of these rules and I'll ask the moderators to close the thread. You've been warned!!!

[Alavaria]

Right now it uses the RC setup, doesn't it?

[Dekhatres]

Right now it uses the RC setup, doesn't it?

the armor rating has been greatly increased on armored units, there may still be some unbalance left but imo pretty much everything is fine as it is now

[Jurand of Cracow]

Guys,
I have a related question - about horse crossbows (HC). There's a Polish unit Strzelcy (perhaps HC exists also somewhere else, I haven't checked it). They are ok, even that they were more effective in SS6.4, perhaps due to having AP attibute they were perfect to counterfight knight. The thing which bothers me is their ability to load crosswobows while riding. Basically, a unit of enemy cavalry is chasing them, and they can load and shoot behind. So they do like HA with the Parthian shot. Is it historically correct?
Hm, I'm aware that if we'd remove this ability the unit would be pretty useless, but still I dare to pose this question.
JoC

[Lifthrasir]

Actually, I've been wondering the same question for a while

Anyhow, I'm not sure that it will be good for the gameplay to make it "too much" realistic as you mentioned. I haven't looked at it yet to be honest.

[bigdaddy1204]

I agree with the OP. Missile units are under powered in this game. It looks silly seeing an enemy unit received thousands of arrows, and only one or two men fall down dead. I think the problem is the mod team listened too much to one person (we all know who he is), who wanted archers nerfed.

I remember arguing against this at the time, I said it was a bad idea to nerf the archers.

I am surprised that the mod team actually listened to the person I am talking about, tbh. The current poor performance of archers is a direct result of the mod team allowing themselves to be bullied by one view of history, which is largely based by western europeans are "superior" to all others, such as Arab or Turkish factions.

As someone who mostly plays with factions that rely on horse archers and other ranged units, I didn't like the changes and would like to see archers buffed a bit, as they were nerfed too far last time this was discussed. Thank you to the OP for raising this valuable topic, and thank you mod team for giving us the chance to play this mod.

[Lifthrasir]

1. We (SSHIP team) listen anybody who provide constructive remark. Regarding the member you mentioned, he's basically the only one who has proposed something concrete until tmodelsk launched this thread again which hasn't been active since last July and until JoC uses it again. On top of that, I remind you that I also said that it was a basis as we had to start from somewhere and that it can be implemented.

2. Considering some sources I've checked later, I have to admit that his logic is actually not that bad. Arrows and bolts weren't able to pierce plate armour in their most comon form. Even specific arrow heads hardened could'nt pierce plate armour unless reaching their target with a certain angle, certain velocity and some other factors that can't be represented in game. On the other hand, some other sources say the contrary. Who do we have to believe?

3. All in all, from my opinion, the actual stats for missiles aren't too bad. They might requier some slight adjustments but not that much I think (note that I might be wrong). My guess is that some other stats and factors need to be adjust to represent at least that if not lethal, these arrows or bolts could injure and/or at least be annoying for the fighting movements (if you see my point).

[Jurand of Cracow]

Hello,
to be perfectly clear on my opinions:
* I'm not aware about past discussions about missile troops and I don't know (and I don't want to know) who is the person bigdaddy1204 refers to.
* My point in the main thread was not about missile troops in general, but about crossbows. I find it un-historical that archers are so much better than crossbows. The result is I employ only archers in my armies, while historically crossbows should start replacing them in my Polish army.
* In this thread my point was about horse crossbowmen. As a matter of fact, the conclusion from my entry is: if we stick to common sense, we should logically nerf Strzelcy even more (no on-the-run loading).


Now my current opinion on missiles in SSHIP, even though I still need gain more experience to be firm on them.
I like the fast-paced battles (soldiers dying fast) because it makes some very un-historical types of behavior of the player impossible. For instance, in the other mods I would send my battle line against AI battle line, then send crossbows and especially javelinmen around flanks to position themselves behind the lines of the AI, and then kill his superior troops from behind. The BAI is unfortunately too stupid to foresee this, and also not able to learn how to counteract it (as Byg used to repeat). But in SSHIP I'm short of time to do it as my battle line breaks before missiles inflict serious damage. So it's a positive change in SSHIP. On the other hand, I cannot find use of the missile troops other than regular archers (and not that many archers – two units is enough). So it's a negative. I imagine that playing a faction with many such troops (Middle East, but also Hungary) might be difficult and somewhat unattractive. I had some defensive settlement battles and the archers performed great from the walls, so I don’t think there’s a big problem. The crossbow admittedly not so.
I haven't played other factions than Poland in SSHIP, so I may just say that momentarily I tilt towards bigdaddy1204 opinion: missile units could be buffed up. For the crossbows it’s essential – otherwise I’d not use them in any situation other than garrisons (well, I’m still to see those Pavise ones). For javelinmen (again, I know only Lithuanian Skirmishers, Slavic Javelinmen and Chude Militia) buffing up should also occur, maybe through increasing their melee abilities (I tried to use them many times, but the long time for throwing javelins made them very ineffective).
However, any change should be done with care to unable some other unrealistic behavior of the players exploiting the limits of BAI.
JoC

[MWY]

It looks silly seeing an enemy unit received thousands of arrows, and only one or two men fall down dead.

Really?

[bigdaddy1204]

Really?

This screenshot should provide an interesting analysis. I was defending, against a much larger Crusader States army. They had about 1800 men vs my 1100 or so. It was a river crossing, which is the easiest to win. Still, here are some conclusions:

1. My archers killed about 500 enemies in this battle, out of a total of 1800 enemies killed. So 28% of enemy losses were caused by missile fire
2. However, of the 1800 enemies who "died", around 800 of them were captured during the rout after their general was killed. If we subtract these, then we have about 500 kills out of around 1000 enemies that died before the rout
3. The conclusion is that my archers caused about 50% of the total casualties before the enemy routed

Additional impressions:

A. the archer fire was quite effective against unarmoured troops crossing the bridge, but should probably have been slightly more so, given the concentration of fire
B. the archer fire was quite ineffective against armoured troops, until they got to very close range, at which point the arrows started taking a toll. This was quite good.
C. this was a bridge battle, in which the enemy were packed together in a tight space for a long time, allowing my archers plenty of time to shoot at them. A battle in open terrain would likely see much fewer casualties caused by archers

[Alavaria]

This screenshot should provide an interesting analysis. I was defending, against a much larger Crusader States army. They had about 1800 men vs my 1100 or so. It was a river crossing, which is the easiest to win. Still, here are some conclusions:

1. My archers killed about 500 enemies in this battle, out of a total of 1800 enemies killed. So 28% of enemy losses were caused by missile fire
2. However, of the 1800 enemies who "died", around 800 of them were captured during the rout after their general was killed. If we subtract these, then we have about 500 kills out of around 1000 enemies that died before the rout
3. The conclusion is that my archers caused about 50% of the total casualties before the enemy routed.

Additional impressions:

A. the archer fire was quite effective against unarmoured troops crossing the bridge, but should probably have been slightly more so, given the concentration of fire
B. the archer fire was quite ineffective against armoured troops, until they got to very close range, at which point the arrows started taking a toll. This was quite good.
C. this was a bridge battle, in which the enemy were packed together in a tight space for a long time, allowing my archers plenty of time to shoot at them. A battle in open terrain would likely see much fewer casualties caused by archers

Interesting. Open field and enemy had the upper ground. Typical AI it didn't feel like committing. 1493 out of 1598 kills were by crossbow bolt.

In general, the vast majority of battlefield kills are by crossbow bolt, and prisoners by horse (of course). And infantry get the vast majority of casualties

Archers even with a missile value of 2 will cause casualties to light troops and 4-5+ will cause proper casualties to heavy troops.

I believe you simply want the enjoyment of constant repetitive archergasms in your gameplays and see the enemy massacred as they reach your lines.

Yes, I find the crossbow units above (the ones available at the start of game are 6 to 7 attack, non-armor piercing) are really quite capable even against Generals Bodyguard knights which you would imagine (looking at their armor/shield) shouldn't be destroyed as easily as they do.

The most disappointing battles are where the AI doesn't want to commit to an attack and just eats bolts time and time again. Especially since when it's messing around, I have a lot of bolts...

[+Marius+]

So this is what you people emailed me about

What a way to come back to a forum.

I agree with the OP. Missile units are under powered in this game. It looks silly seeing an enemy unit received thousands of arrows, and only one or two men fall down dead.

This does not happen.

I think the problem is the mod team listened too much to one person (we all know who he is), who wanted archers nerfed.

The mod teams ask for historical assistance and, when I have the time, I answer.

This is not bullying or mobbing this is simply other people not engaging in historical debate, leaving me as the main dude without anyone rebutting anything with historical sources.

I am surprised that the mod team actually listened to the person I am talking about, tbh.

Yeah, those primary historical sources sure are a heck.

allowing themselves to be bullied by one view of history, which is largely based by western europeans are "superior" to all others, such as Arab or Turkish factions.

A am not "western Europeans are superior hur dur", I am "archers are overpowered hur dur", as you will also remember that my nerfings were spread across the map, including western archers as well.

As someone who mostly plays with factions that rely on horse archers and other ranged units, I didn't like the changes and would like to see archers buffed a bit, as they were nerfed too far last time this was discussed. Thank you to the OP for raising this valuable topic, and thank you mod team for giving us the chance to play this mod.

Find primary historical sources describing horse archery being the primary factor in a victory on the battlefield.

3. All in all, from my opinion, the actual stats for missiles aren't too bad. They might requier some slight adjustments but not that much I think (note that I might be wrong). My guess is that some other stats and factors need to be adjust to represent at least that if not lethal, these arrows or bolts could injure and/or at least be annoying for the fighting movements (if you see my point).

Archers still do damage, they just aren't the artillery they used to be.

The thing which bothers me is their ability to load crosswobows while riding. Basically, a unit of enemy cavalry is chasing them, and they can load and shoot behind. So they do like HA with the Parthian shot. Is it historically correct?
Hm, I'm aware that if we'd remove this ability the unit would be pretty useless, but still I dare to pose this question.
JoC

Reloading a crossbow while riding is possible(especially a goats foot span), it just takes longer.

The Parthian shot with a crossbow is historical;

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For the crossbows it’s essential – otherwise I’d not use them in any situation other than garrisons (well, I’m still to see those Pavise ones).

I don't understand, isn't the current crossbow damage range 7-11?

That should wreak havoc at anything below 20ish armor.

@ MWY, there are sources (Muslim actually) mentionning that when Kilij Arslan's army met the main army of the 1st crusade (battle of Dorylaeum if I remember correctly), the Western knights seemed to be "immuned" to arrows and that their usual tactic (going forth and back, firing arrows) failed. That why then he decided to apply the principle of the burned land, leaving nothing to the invading army (no food, no water, nothing to pillage).

Precisely, and the answer to the later crusaders were massive heavy cavalry charges with horse archers in support.

Thus, the Turks used their numerically superior cavalry to envelop crusader knights who would often separate themselves from the main body of infantry.

This can also be seen in the description of the battle of Hattin by Ali ibn al-Athir.




All in all, if the missile damage values are deemed to low, it is incredibly easy to change them.

Although, I do not see the point and find your statements exaggerations.

Archers even with a missile value of 2 will cause casualties to light troops and 4-5+ will cause proper casualties to heavy troops.


I believe you simply want the enjoyment of constant repetitive archergasms in your gameplays and see the enemy massacred as they reach your lines.

That is my 2 cents.

I am now off to see what I missed on this forum in my months of absence

[Jurand of Cracow]

Reloading a crossbow while riding is possible(especially a goats foot span), it just takes longer.
The Parthian shot with a crossbow is historical;

I don't understand, isn't the current crossbow damage range 7-11?
That should wreak havoc at anything below 20ish armor.

Archers even with a missile value of 2 will cause casualties to light troops and 4-5+ will cause proper casualties to heavy troops.

Thanks, Marius, for these explanations. Even if I'm not sure if this loading-on-the-run ability of Horse Crossbows was so widespread, I think for the gameplay purpose and taking into account many simpifications in game (not least those described by Sar1n), I think the situation now in SSHIP is realistic and it should stay as it is.

The problem with foot crossbows is not their missile value (7-11), but the tactical inability to use them. Simply, they don't have time to shoot because they are slow to load and they need an open range. Enemy battle line advances so quickly that they've no chance. And after the clash of the battle lines, even if crossbows manage to move around flanks, there's no time for shooting either: simply, the battle is over thanks to cavalry charge or infantry win/break.
The situations shown by bigdaddy1204 and Alavaria are exceptional and not really useful for my considerations: enemy standing and waiting is something I've seen only in a bridge battle. I almost never attack with such a superiority that AI is shy to attack and just stands. So I still need to find use of foot crossbows. What I would like is that they shoot in arc, like bows. I think it happened in reality, what do you think?

This difference "missile value of 2 will cause casualties to light troops and 4-5+ will cause proper casualties to heavy troops" is very interesting. If you have a formula how it's counted or a link to webpage where the discussion took place, I'd be interested to read.

cheers
JoC

[Lifthrasir]

This is not bullying or mobbing this is simply other people not engaging in historical debate, leaving me as the main dude without anyone rebutting anything with historical sources.

True but on the other hand, it doesn't mean that you're always rigth

Find primary historical sources describing horse archery being the primary factor in a victory on the battlefield.

Actually, there are some but mostly prior to the game period.

Archers still do damage, they just aren't the artillery they used to be.

I'm wondering sometimes if you read carefully my posts
Below, my answer with the important parts in bold for a better understanding:

All in all, from my opinion, the actual stats for missiles aren't too bad. They might requier some slight adjustments but not that much I think (note that I might be wrong). My guess is that some other stats and factors need to be adjust to represent at least that if not lethal, these arrows or bolts could injure and/or at least be annoying for the fighting movements (if you see my point).

All in all, if the missile damage values are deemed to low, it is incredibly easy to change them.

Although, I do not see the point and find your statements exaggerations.

Archers even with a missile value of 2 will cause casualties to light troops and 4-5+ will cause proper casualties to heavy troops.

I believe you simply want the enjoyment of constant repetitive archergasms in your gameplays and see the enemy massacred as they reach your lines.

That is my 2 cents.

Not my opininon (see comment above). However, this is not only the matter of missiles units stats but also on several other factors such as armour upgrade, armour stats, units costs to only mention these. I'm convinced that the right balance between gameplay and historical accuracy needs to consider all of them as a whole and not only 1 by 1. My 2 cents

[+Marius+]

True but on the other hand, it doesn't mean that you're always rigth

Fact.

I'm wondering sometimes if you read carefully my posts
Below, my answer with the important parts in bold for a better understanding:

My bad, I seems I replied to a wrong quote.

[Lifthrasir]

@ JoC, I think that considering tmodelsk suggestions might be a good way to see how to implement this. I'm also working on something else but it requiers some tests for the right adjustment and I don't want to spoil it in public until I'm sure it works. For now, let's say that if it works, it would make some missile units more useful. Anyway, you know where we can discuss about that if you want

@ MWY, there are sources (Muslim actually) mentionning that when Kilij Arslan's army met the main army of the 1st crusade (battle of Dorylaeum if I remember correctly), the Western knights seemed to be "immuned" to arrows and that their usual tactic (going forth and back, firing arrows) failed. That why then he decided to apply the principle of the burned land, leaving nothing to the invading army (no food, no water, nothing to pillage). Anyway, the point here is to demonstrate that medieval armours (even far before the use of plates) were already quite effective against arrows. I just need to look through my archives to find the exact source of that

[nikossaiz]

armored sholdiers hardly had a major problem, except form occasionally injuries and distraction and frastration. the thing is that only few were armored. In medieval 2 total war due to gameplay i believe, after the fierst cheep units all others have some kind of armor.

[Lifthrasir]

I think a solution might be to work on the projectiles themselves. Making specific projectiles stats, efficient or not depending on the armour type, might help to represent some parameters
Beside that, another mix of stats between armour protection and shield protection could complete the adjustment.
In all cases, it will requier time and a lot of tests.