Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Discussing the performance of guns against infantry

cool_ladcool_lad Senior MemberIndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276
The difference in the performance of gun equipped units against single units and infantry is quite significant; while alright against single entity units, gun equipped units fail to impress against units of infantry (such as chaos warriors), to the extent that charging a unit of Chaos Warriors directly into the fire from a unit of gunners (be they thunderers or handgunners) results in the unit still being quite combat effective when they finish charging. This is particularly problematic for a unit that needs to be remain exposed and maintain line of sight in order to actually do damage.

Ideally; at least charging an infantry unit (any infantry unit), especially one with a lower number of models like Chaos Warriors, straight into the fire from a unit of gunners should not yield such good results; the consequences of such a reckless and thoughtless charge should in fact be punished with high casualties instead of being shrugged off.

What do you think can be done to improve the performance of gunners against such infantry units?
«1

Comments

  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 9,673
    You have a gun thread open were you are discussing exactly this.

    Guns are in a good spot now. Doesnt need nerfs or buffs.
    It needs to be pointed out that what people call "cheese" is just playing the game the way it actually exists not in some fictional way they think it is supposed to work.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276

    You have a gun thread open were you are discussing exactly this.

    Guns are in a good spot now. Doesnt need nerfs or buffs.

    The other thread was a more general one about guns and dealt with a number of things. This one specifically deals with the problem guns have with infantry; made quite obvious by the discrepancy in their performance against infantry as opposed to monsters.
  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Registered Users Posts: 1,935
    I agree that guns feel underwhelming vs infantry.

    I've said a few times that the DPS vs single entity needs to go down and the dps vs large entity units need to go up a bit.

    But, I'd argue that part of it is an FX problem. The sounds of a volley going off is underwhelming and the smoke looks more like smokeless powder than black powder. If guns sound and looked actually meaty, then the impression of underwhelming performance would be reduced substantially.

    As it is, they don't sound meaty and the impact is kinda meh unless you're shooting at cavalry or single entity units. In which case the damage looks like you're smacking them with a truck.
    Faith, Steel and Gunpowder Bows
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276
    edited June 2018

    I agree that guns feel underwhelming vs infantry.

    I've said a few times that the DPS vs single entity needs to go down and the dps vs large entity units need to go up a bit.

    But, I'd argue that part of it is an FX problem. The sounds of a volley going off is underwhelming and the smoke looks more like smokeless powder than black powder. If guns sound and looked actually meaty, then the impression of underwhelming performance would be reduced substantially.

    As it is, they don't sound meaty and the impact is kinda meh unless you're shooting at cavalry or single entity units. In which case the damage looks like you're smacking them with a truck.

    More than that I think that it's just that they seem to do little damage against some units like Chaos Warriors, the worst part is that these are the very units that gunners are supposed to be used against.

    Charging straight into a gun unit's line of fire should be a death sentence for a unit; it should be wiped out or at least largely combat ineffective at the end of such a charge.

    Maybe giving guns greater penetration might solve this issue (makes sense considering the force carried by bullets generally makes then capable of penetrating most armour, shields and bodies) by allowing them to hit multiple targets within the unit and sidestepping the problem of their volleys being absorbed by the front few models and therefore not reaching the models in the back.

    In terms of stat changes, an option would be to drastically change the ratio of AP to non AP damage in favour of AP, say 20+2, since the most notable thing about guns was in fact that they rendered armour useless; turning it from restrictive protection to bulky liability.
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 9,673
    What you say is untrue. Handgunners and thunderers deal good damage vs chaos warriors
    It needs to be pointed out that what people call "cheese" is just playing the game the way it actually exists not in some fictional way they think it is supposed to work.
  • MukipMukip Registered Users Posts: 596
    edited June 2018
    He wants them to annihilate Chaos Warriors if they attempt to charge Handgunners.

    The Empire in WHFB is loosely inspired by the the Holy Roman Empire during the Thirty Years War. It was not a period of Napoleonic musket lines and, contrary to some of your previous posts on the subject, the quality of training had a huge impact on the effective firepower of firearms during this period. Gunners used different types of guns to varying levels of effect. Poorly trained troops delivered poor levels of firepower. A lot of 'peasants with guns' were basically useless on the battlefied.

    Battles during the Thirty Years War were mostly sieges so it's not clear what Handgunners should be like in field battles if we're going off that. In other conflicts of the time period, while some armies used short-range volleys to cause lots of damage to enemy infantry (which became the go-to tactic eventually), this wasn't uniform early on and it's not clear that Empire Handgunners are meant to use that particular tactic. Some troops also used a tactic of putting out consistent firepower at range instead and they were much less accurate as a result, with inconsistent results on the battlefield.

    Empire Handgunners have a range almost comparable to bow troops, so it seems like they aren't saving their shots for the last moment and are using longer ranged tactics if anything, rather than the 'whites of their eyes' tactics of waiting until the enemy closes. If Handgunners were to work the way you want them to, causing massive damage to advancing enemies at short range, they'd have to have a range of like 60 or less, since historical hand gunners often saved their shots for when the enemy reached within the distance of two pike-lengths.

    The game isn't a history simulator anyway. In the tabletop game which TW2 is heavily derived from, Handgunners also did consistent chip damage out to medium range and weren't grossly devastating at short range. It would be totally possible for a unit of Chaos Warriors in TT to march across the tabletop into melee against Empire Handgunners.

    And Handgunners are not poorly balanced in the current meta. Their firepower is as good as any other missile unit when they get to shoot. When they perform poorly it's usually because they don't get to shoot for long enough. I'm not certain that Handgunners are a good unit at the moment (the Silver Bullets are decent at least), but they don't need radical changes.

    NO.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276
    @Mukip the fact remains that handgunners can't really afford to behave like any other unit; units such as (the AP version of) glade guard or Darkshards can afford to do consistent damage over time because of their ability to arc their shots, which allows them to sit behind a defensive line and support it. Handgunners can't afford to do the same, their flat trajectories mean that they have to expose themselves to the enemy if they wish to get shots off, which means that it's unfeasible for them to output damage at the same rate or manner as an archer unit.

    As for what we know of the weapon and its use; empire handgunners are professional troops who have been uniformly trained, with a weapon that is comparable to a musket from later periods. Regardless of this, we already know that by the time of the hundred years war, French arquebuses easily outranged weapons such as longbows, with French accounts noting the heavy disparity leading to almost an almost uniform result of defeat in ranged engagements for the English when faced with arquebusiers.

    Guns have appreciably shorter ranges than bows, with a difference of at least 15 units between guns and even the worst bows in the game (and the disparity only increases when compared to better quality bow units) and can't use indirect fire against enemy infantry. This tends to significantly limit their ability to inflict damage on such infantry. Combine this with their longer reload times and gunners simply can't act as a damage over time unit.

    While I would not ask for a change in their absolute damage, I think that it would be quite appropriate to either make them penetrate more troops or shift their damage ratio more heavily in favour of AP damage.
  • MukipMukip Registered Users Posts: 596
    What is your source for your claim that Empire Handgunners are "muskets from a later (historical time) period"?

    Handgunners outrange Orc Arrer Boyz and Darkshards. In the tabletop game they had the same range as a bow.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276
    Mukip said:

    What is your source for your claim that Empire Handgunners are "muskets from a later (historical time) period"?

    Handgunners outrange Orc Arrer Boyz and Darkshards. In the tabletop game they had the same range as a bow.

    Aplologies; that may have been a bit of an overstatement. However, its part of the the lore that the Empire's state troops such as handgunners and halberdiers are professional soldiers who are trained to a uniform standard.

    Even without that; firearms easily outranged and out shot even well trained longbows, such as those fielded by the English (and we do have longbow units in the game, such as elven archers and Bretonnian peasant archers) from the hundred years war period.

    From what I remember, the TT was hardly a balanced thing, and it represented weapons such as guns (and entire factions at times) quite badly

    Coming back to the point of the discussion, the fact remains that handgunners underperform against infantry, especially when compared to their performance against single entities. That is the sole point of this discussion.

    The reason I think is simple; their shots are absorbed by the front line of models and therefore can't reach the models in the back. The solution I proposed is also simple; up the penetration on guns, allowing them to reach the entire unit with their shots instead of having them absorbed by the frontline.
  • MukipMukip Registered Users Posts: 596
    Medieval armies sometimes fielded small units of marksmen, but they were the exception to the rule that muskets were rather inaccurate.

    It's not a fact that Handgunners under-perform vs infantry, it's your opinion. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between your subjective opinion and objective reality, given how often you state a false consensus with phrases like "we know x or y...", despite lots of posters disagreeing with you about x or y.
  • tank3487tank3487 Member Registered Users Posts: 2,027
    edited June 2018
    cool_lad said:

    @Mukip the fact remains that handgunners can't really afford to behave like any other unit; units such as (the AP version of) glade guard or Darkshards can afford to do consistent damage over time because of their ability to arc their shots, which allows them to sit behind a defensive line and support it.

    Do not forget that Handgunners are much more prone to missile dodging due to speed of projectile. Handgunners are already balanced unit after last patch any change to it would just make them OP.


    And in history gunpowder missiles were not so effective as you think. There is a reason why keeping the formation under fire was more benefical until the end of 19 century. Even during Napoleonic wars(which were much more late that TWW) handguns statistically inflicted less casualties than artillery and melee and have only third place.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276
    Mukip said:

    Medieval armies sometimes fielded small units of marksmen, but they were the exception to the rule that muskets were rather inaccurate.

    It's not a fact that Handgunners under-perform vs infantry, it's your opinion. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between your subjective opinion and objective reality, given how often you state a false consensus with phrases like "we know x or y...", despite lots of posters disagreeing with you about x or y.

    By the time of the sixty years war, the musket (and gunpowder weapons in general) had become a pretty dominant weapon on the battlefield; the use of units of gunners forced armies to abandon the use of heavily armoured cavalry and resulted in a shift away from aromour in general. The fact is that even by your reckoning handgunners being similar to musketeers from the sixty years war, they should be doing a lot more damage to anything charging directly at them.

    Simple physics dictates that the range of a gun, whose bullet carries far more energy than an arrow or bolt, will e far greater than that of any bow. As for accuracy; it stops being particularly relevant when the weapon is fired in massive volleys instead of being used in one on one combat. Accounts of the fighting for Boulougne by Henry VIII, especially those on the french side, noted on just how small the reach of the english weapons was compared to the French Arquebuses.

    Simply put; guns, even during the time of the sixty years war, were potent enough to prompt a general shift away from the use of armour even for cavalry, which could still move fast in comparison to infantry, enough for the erstwhile kings of the battlefield to decline into a supporting role.

    Handgunners, as they are, while good against large single entities, do not work well against infantry; to the extent that the supremely lazy tactic of charging unshielded chaos warriors through the fire of a unit of handgunners becomes a good tactic because they retain decent combat effectiveness by the time they're done charging and reach the gun line with their numbers largely unfazed. Furthermore, the performance of handgunners has relatively little to set them apart from other AP units such as Glade Guard, that provide similar AP damage, with better damage distribution across the enemy unit, better range and indirect fire capability.

    As for my statement as to what "we know"; I was being generous in that I assumed that the reader already knows the lore related to the unit in question: to quote the relevant passage: "State troops are paid as full time professional soldiers...forming a standing army...spend their days drilling and training..." (refer 8th edition army book for the Empire, pg 38). And yes, handgunners are included in state troops and therefore also professional soldiers.

    And kindly refrain from ad hominems in the future.
  • MukipMukip Registered Users Posts: 596
    The Sixty Years War was over a hundred years after the end of the Thirty Years war. :|

    Simple physics would dictate that a cannonball should ruin a giant's day. Yet as it is, it takes ~20 cannonball hits to kill a giant.
  • PocmanPocman Registered Users Posts: 3,682
    Guns are not underperforming against infantry.
  • WunderKatzeWunderKatze Registered Users Posts: 225
    edited June 2018
    I really don't find handgunners (nor thunderers) under preforming against infantry. If you want to talk realistically than sure, I find all missile units to be underpreforming, but in the context of this game no.

    Post patch handgunners can really do work, you just have to realize that most things you are going to shoot at in the first minute of the game are going to have shields.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276
    Mukip said:

    The Sixty Years War was over a hundred years after the end of the Thirty Years war. :|

    Simple physics would dictate that a cannonball should ruin a giant's day. Yet as it is, it takes ~20 cannonball hits to kill a giant.

    Must've typed the wrong thing; thirty years war was what I meant. Empire seems similar to a European army before or around the reforms of Gustavus Adolphus. Its weaponry also includes rifles and repeater weapons, which would be further in the future.

    I think that handgunners lack something to truly set them apart from other units in terms of the damage that they do; they're pretty comparable to AP glade guard (a cheaper unit, I might add) in terms of their pure AP damage, but need to expose themselves and can't sit behind a line to fire off their shots. Pretty poor treatment for a weapon that made armour obsolete, in my opinion.

    Their performance against infantry suffers because of their flat trajectories, which mean that their fire can't cover the bulk of the enemy unit like an indirect fire unit can, and you need to actively protect them while keeping their lines of sight open.

    They need something to really set them apart; I'm alright with the low range and rate of fire, along with the need to maintain a constant line of sight, but the unit needs some advantage in return for these liabilities. While performance against monsters is ok, the unit doesn't really stand out when facing non single entity (ie normal) units which it should be good against, such as chaos warriors.

    Guns need to be better against non single entities in general. One way I can think of doing this is shifting the AP to non AP damage ratio further in favour of AP so that the unit at least stands out from cheaper and more versatile AP archer units like glade guard in its defined role. Really stand out on its own merits instead of being eclipsed by other units.
  • PocmanPocman Registered Users Posts: 3,682
    cool_lad said:

    Mukip said:

    The Sixty Years War was over a hundred years after the end of the Thirty Years war. :|

    Simple physics would dictate that a cannonball should ruin a giant's day. Yet as it is, it takes ~20 cannonball hits to kill a giant.

    Must've typed the wrong thing; thirty years war was what I meant. Empire seems similar to a European army before or around the reforms of Gustavus Adolphus. Its weaponry also includes rifles and repeater weapons, which would be further in the future.

    I think that handgunners lack something to truly set them apart from other units in terms of the damage that they do; they're pretty comparable to AP glade guard (a cheaper unit, I might add) in terms of their pure AP damage, but need to expose themselves and can't sit behind a line to fire off their shots. Pretty poor treatment for a weapon that made armour obsolete, in my opinion.

    Their performance against infantry suffers because of their flat trajectories, which mean that their fire can't cover the bulk of the enemy unit like an indirect fire unit can, and you need to actively protect them while keeping their lines of sight open.

    They need something to really set them apart; I'm alright with the low range and rate of fire, along with the need to maintain a constant line of sight, but the unit needs some advantage in return for these liabilities. While performance against monsters is ok, the unit doesn't really stand out when facing non single entity (ie normal) units which it should be good against, such as chaos warriors.

    Guns need to be better against non single entities in general. One way I can think of doing this is shifting the AP to non AP damage ratio further in favour of AP so that the unit at least stands out from cheaper and more versatile AP archer units like glade guard in its defined role. Really stand out on its own merits instead of being eclipsed by other units.
    They deal significant more damage per volley than glade guards, which are, btw, more expensive.

    And you repeat how archers are more versatile.... which isn't really true. The only advantage of archers is the possibility of firing over infantry against other infantry. Against any other target, guns are much better.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276
    Pocman said:

    cool_lad said:

    Mukip said:

    The Sixty Years War was over a hundred years after the end of the Thirty Years war. :|

    Simple physics would dictate that a cannonball should ruin a giant's day. Yet as it is, it takes ~20 cannonball hits to kill a giant.

    Must've typed the wrong thing; thirty years war was what I meant. Empire seems similar to a European army before or around the reforms of Gustavus Adolphus. Its weaponry also includes rifles and repeater weapons, which would be further in the future.

    I think that handgunners lack something to truly set them apart from other units in terms of the damage that they do; they're pretty comparable to AP glade guard (a cheaper unit, I might add) in terms of their pure AP damage, but need to expose themselves and can't sit behind a line to fire off their shots. Pretty poor treatment for a weapon that made armour obsolete, in my opinion.

    Their performance against infantry suffers because of their flat trajectories, which mean that their fire can't cover the bulk of the enemy unit like an indirect fire unit can, and you need to actively protect them while keeping their lines of sight open.

    They need something to really set them apart; I'm alright with the low range and rate of fire, along with the need to maintain a constant line of sight, but the unit needs some advantage in return for these liabilities. While performance against monsters is ok, the unit doesn't really stand out when facing non single entity (ie normal) units which it should be good against, such as chaos warriors.

    Guns need to be better against non single entities in general. One way I can think of doing this is shifting the AP to non AP damage ratio further in favour of AP so that the unit at least stands out from cheaper and more versatile AP archer units like glade guard in its defined role. Really stand out on its own merits instead of being eclipsed by other units.
    They deal significant more damage per volley than glade guards, which are, btw, more expensive.

    And you repeat how archers are more versatile.... which isn't really true. The only advantage of archers is the possibility of firing over infantry against other infantry. Against any other target, guns are much better.
    I just retested glade guard and Handgunners vs Chaos Warriors GW; the difference in the number of kills that glade guard get over the course of the CW-GW charging to them vs those of handgunners isn't even funny. Add to this the fact that Glade Guard can simply retreat behind a defensive line and keep firing over the heads of their own soldiers (and their supporting melee capabilities on top) whereas the Handgunners can't afford to break line of sight and therefore remain much more vulnerable to a melee that they can't really afford.
  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Registered Users Posts: 1,935
    edited June 2018
    Mukip said:

    Medieval armies sometimes fielded small units of marksmen, but they were the exception to the rule that muskets were rather inaccurate.

    The Empire is not based off the medieval times lol It's based off the 17th century Holy Roman Empire. Which was an era that fought with pikes and guns, and it was far from an "exception" haha

    The Medieval era ended at the start of the 16th century if you are considering the time period the "high medieval era" and not the "Renaissance" The latter means that the medieval era ended at the start of the 14th century.




    Faith, Steel and Gunpowder Bows
  • MukipMukip Registered Users Posts: 596
    Yeah, my bad. It was the early modern period. Still, the point stands.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276
    It's pretty shocking just how underwhelming handgunners are when compared to other AP units like glade guard. Not to mention that these other units get better range, indirect fire and other bonuses on top of that.

    If nothing else, handgunners (and guns in general) need to be much better at dealing AP damage, if only to compensate for the host of liabilities that they have when compared to a unit like Glade Guard.
  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Registered Users Posts: 1,935
    Mukip said:

    Yeah, my bad. It was the early modern period. Still, the point stands.

    No, the point doesn't stand at all, because the point depends on a different era.

    The 16th century is a time where fronts where made of pikes and guns, where heavy cavalry was out classed by light cav with pistols, where mobile artillery was introduced. This is the era of the father of modern combat, Carl Gustov. What ever inaccuracy there is in these rifle, is gone when you have a regiment of them shooting at you in volleys.
    Faith, Steel and Gunpowder Bows
  • MukipMukip Registered Users Posts: 596
    edited June 2018
    The point that muskets were inaccurate doesn't depend on any era, but it was especially true of the early firearms used in the 16th century. The effects of musket volleys at range were very inconsistent during this period, just massing tons of gunners together didn't necessarily accomplish much.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276
    Mukip said:

    The point that muskets were inaccurate doesn't depend on any era, but it was especially true of the early firearms used in the 16th century.

    The inaccuracy of those firearms was precisely why they were fired in massed volleys. However too much is made of this inaccuracy, which would be more relevant in a one on one fight or in marksman roles than in massed volleys.

    Massed gunfire was powerful enough to completely outperform bows and crossbows at this point; so much so that English monarchs as early as Henry VIII found gunners to be much superior to their highly trained longbowmen and offered double pay to those willing to use guns instead of longbows and hiring mercenary gunners.

    French accounts of fighting around this time note just how badly outclassed English longbows were by gunners; and these were some really early firearms such as arquebuses, which were quite inaccurate at the best of times. By the time the thirty years war rolled around, bows were simply outclassed and quite pointless; being completely outclassed by the firearms of the time.

    As for the in game unit, I'd suggest you test their performance against that of AP glade guard (I used charging Chaos Warriors GW as a test target that charged straight at the unit) in order to get an idea of just how criminally underpowered gunners are even in ranged AP roles.
  • MukipMukip Registered Users Posts: 596
    Neither bows nor arquebus were determinative of the outcome of most battles, artillery and melee was. Muskets were usually part of a mixed formation with pikes and they served a tactical purpose of deterring cavalry and adding punch against infantry, but "massed volleys" had inconsistent results and gradually led to early muskets being used at very short range due to their otherwise low damage output. Much shorter range than what Handgunners have in TW2.

    Glade Guard are a fantasy unit of a hyper-marksmanship fictional race shooting magical arrows. They also cost more than Handgunners and are part of a faction that is meant to be the masters of shooting.

    If Glade Guard were part of a faction like Empire, which has 300 gold spearmen and demigryph knights, then they would be overpowered. WE can have a unit like Glade Guard with Starfire shafts because their best cavalry have 40 armour and their cheapest infantry are 475 gold.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 27,137
    Can you please stop spamming on this?

    What's next? "Let's Talk About The Missing Sheen on Gunbpowder Musket Balls", where you will once again demand that gunpowder units be buffed until they are as OP as they were in FotS?

  • BlissBliss Registered Users Posts: 548
    Maybe something should not be done to the damage dealt, but to the LD. Like, firing at close range on a target give them a LD debuff (high enough to cancel the LD buff from charge), so a low LD unit charging in handgunner would flee before reaching them.
  • Wyvern2Wyvern2 Registered Users Posts: 1,596
    cool_lad said:

    Mukip said:

    The point that muskets were inaccurate doesn't depend on any era, but it was especially true of the early firearms used in the 16th century.

    The inaccuracy of those firearms was precisely why they were fired in massed volleys. However too much is made of this inaccuracy, which would be more relevant in a one on one fight or in marksman roles than in massed volleys.

    Massed gunfire was powerful enough to completely outperform bows and crossbows at this point; so much so that English monarchs as early as Henry VIII found gunners to be much superior to their highly trained longbowmen and offered double pay to those willing to use guns instead of longbows and hiring mercenary gunners.

    French accounts of fighting around this time note just how badly outclassed English longbows were by gunners; and these were some really early firearms such as arquebuses, which were quite inaccurate at the best of times. By the time the thirty years war rolled around, bows were simply outclassed and quite pointless; being completely outclassed by the firearms of the time.

    As for the in game unit, I'd suggest you test their performance against that of AP glade guard (I used charging Chaos Warriors GW as a test target that charged straight at the unit) in order to get an idea of just how criminally underpowered gunners are even in ranged AP roles.
    Bows had two disadvantages against firearms, armor penetration(especially at short range), and training time. In turn they had significantly superior rate of fire(even if we go by functional rather than theoretical, the ROF of a longbow is somewhere around 3+ times that of a rudimentary arquebus, in theory bows have an even greater edge in ROF), and significantly better accuracy out to greater range.

    On the topic of Henry VIII, much of the discussion in his time was centered around mixing the two weapons, to gain the benefits of stopping power from handguns and covering fire from longbows. Although certainly the Longbow was falling behind, especially with improvements to armor(it was already inadequate to deal with some armor in the mid 1300's, much less by the mid 1400's or 1500's), it still had the significant advantage of ROF. The problem was that all infantry was being used in volley fire, and thanks to the longbows garbage armor penetration, it had to be fired at short range to achieve much effect anyway.

    That said, I would consider the somewhat limited reports of the time to be suspect at best. Many were biased in one way or another(and this is true of the pro-Longbow crowd too) and there's always a great tendency to exaggerate. It's already bad enough when dealing with well known histories that have lots of professional, objective, numerically accurate AAR's available like WW2, much less warfare from an era where most of the population was illiterate and documentation was, to put it kindly, haphazard.

    There's also been a good amount of testing done and muskets of the 15th-16th century seem to have struggled vs a lot of armor at any respectable range. The ballistic performance of a ball is not particularly good to begin with, and outside of near pointblank, its relatively unlikely a musket-ball would have penetrated platemail, and even then, it would have to be going through plate+whatever thick gambeson, surcoat etc the wearer also carried. While a longbow might not have had a functional advantage in range, a handguns functional advantage in killing power would also be more than a bit suspect. Obviously, theory is different than practice, but the same can be said of a longbow, which through sheer quantity should be hitting some weakness somewhere.

    Really, if anything, longbows died thanks to loss of trained personnel+dropping quality/quantity of longbows themselves. The handguns edge in training time was huge. A longbowman needed a lifetime of training, a handgunner basically got as good as he'd ever be in a few weeks.

    Ironically, as armor began to fall out of use in the 17th-18th century due to it being seen as too heavy/clumsy for the performance(especially as handguns became more and more powerful), the idea of the longbow once again began to resurface, with Wellington supposedly inquiring if it would be possible to raise units equipped in such a manner as late as the 19th century, though obviously at that point, such a resurrection was not really feasible.

    Either way, WH is not realistic, and as is, black powder units are more than adequate for the task at hand.
    Regularly publish Total War: Warhammer 2 content on my YT channel

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPI93p-X2T4YKD18O16bhPw
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276
    The simple fact is that the payoff for gunner units, which are a high risk unit, is quite inadequate, being more in line with that of glade guard (which is a low risk indirect fire unit).

    The higher risk that comes with direct fire units (lower range combined the need to constantly expose them to danger in order to maintain line of sight) should come with a commensurably high reward. This is in fact not the case as handgunners are outperformed in their niche role by the more versatile and longer ranged glade guard.

    Shifting the AP ratio (while keeping overall damage the same) in order to give gunners more AP would make them a legitimately high risk, high reward unit, which performs better against armour than a lower risk unit which can be used in more roles and can output its damage more reliably.
  • Wyvern2Wyvern2 Registered Users Posts: 1,596
    cool_lad said:

    The simple fact is that the payoff for gunner units, which are a high risk unit, is quite inadequate, being more in line with that of glade guard (which is a low risk indirect fire unit).

    The higher risk that comes with direct fire units (lower range combined the need to constantly expose them to danger in order to maintain line of sight) should come with a commensurably high reward. This is in fact not the case as handgunners are outperformed in their niche role by the more versatile and longer ranged glade guard.

    Shifting the AP ratio (while keeping overall damage the same) in order to give gunners more AP would make them a legitimately high risk, high reward unit, which performs better against armour than a lower risk unit which can be used in more roles and can output its damage more reliably.

    No. Theyre not particularly high risk, and their reward is quite adequate. They deliver great damage, they have wonderful projectile velocity(unlike bows, which can be juked by a lot of faster units) and their arcs arent really crippling. Just deploy them in a manner to shoot around your units and youre good to go. Plus, of the two black powder factions, dwarves are so short that they can be shot over in the vast majority of situations, and empire has more models to deliver bigger volleys, their handguns are cheap, and they have greater flexibility+defensive options to secure their investment.
    Regularly publish Total War: Warhammer 2 content on my YT channel

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPI93p-X2T4YKD18O16bhPw
Sign In or Register to comment.