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

Why do HE archers have 180 range?

cool_ladcool_lad Senior MemberIndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,278
They're supposed to be using a standard longbow, which had the same range on TT as a crossbow, and most certainly a lower range than the Asrai longbow. Additionally, longbows had no AP in the TT, while crossbows did have some.

So why is it that HE archers outrange both these units (a pretty massive advantage) while costing the same as crossbows and substantially cheaper than Glade Guard?
«1

Comments

  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Registered Users Posts: 1,950
    I believe this thread checks all the boxes required to become popular

    I think 180 range should be the standard for bows, not 160. The Skirmish game seems to play a lot better at 180 IMO.
    Faith, Steel and Gunpowder Bows
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,135
    I think HE archers should get -10 range. Which should come along with -25g for white lions.

    It’s makes no sanse from lore or balance perspective for he archers to outrange glade guard.
  • MarkroxMarkrox Registered Users Posts: 210
    Bows should all have the same range. Being a better archer is already modelled by having increased accuracy and having the ability to fire while moving. Powercreeping certain factions to fire further and further was a bad idea and makes no sense.

    If a unit is specifically mentioned to be using longbows, I could get behind giving them a minor nudge in range at the cost of rate of fire. Personal strength is a huge factor in how far you can fire an arrow, which should technically gives Orc arrer boyz around 200 range, which isn't a good idea. Keep the game uniform and sensible, and it will play better.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    Only thing is they don't really have better accuracy. At launch they had 150m cal range, but that was nerfed to 140m, which proportionally to the max range is similar to Peasant archers that has 120m cal area and 20m less max range.

    WE archers have weirder accuracy, they have short cal range (120 m) but much smaller cal area, so at shorter range they can snipe characters but at longer range they hit worse. Vs units I am not sure how much that matters though.

    Before the queen DLC I would have argued against -10m range but now it's an OK nerf since there are more alternatives with the complete roster.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • RiccardoCorradiniRiccardoCorradini Registered Users Posts: 658
    i think that being this a game gameplay and balance affect the game more than "logic" sometimes.

    there are some strange things looking at stats of the units beetwen factions,and range is one of the most "flat" of this value beetwen factions.

    look at Vcoast cannons:why do they have 10 range more than a dwarf cannon despite being the finest artillery weapon in the old world?
    or why a skaven slaves slinger should have more range than a goglin with a bow?
    or why a goblin(small size) whit a bow should have the same range of a Ungor with a bow(human size)?

    i think that range,as well as lots of other stats,is changed by gameplay decision and balance whether it makes sense or not...probbly CA choose to give WE a speed and mobility advantage and HE a range/discipline advantage..dunno

    i agree on the fact that most bow unit should have a very similar range with maybe a slight distintion beetwen elité top tier archers like WW ...but yeah most archers should have around 170 range but also "low tier" archers like Goblin,night goblin,ungors,Skeleton archers, should have a similar range(right now skeleton archers have 140 and goblin-ungor 115)
  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Registered Users Posts: 1,950


    look at Vcoast cannons:why do they have 10 range more than a dwarf cannon despite being the finest artillery weapon in the old world?
    or why a skaven slaves slinger should have more range than a goglin with a bow?
    or why a goblin(small size) whit a bow should have the same range of a Ungor with a bow(human size)?

    I think all those things should be fixed.

    It also doesn't make since that bows are a counter to guns ;)
    Faith, Steel and Gunpowder Bows
  • SarmatiannsSarmatianns Registered Users Posts: 4,765
    Not even all longbows in Warhammer world have the same range.lt also scales with difficulty, your own troops suffer less friendly fire on lower difficulty levels

    If I recall correctly, when it comes to friendly fire it goes:

    Easy - reduced artillery damage, almost no arrow friendly fire.
    Normal - full artillery damage, less arrow friendly fire
    Hard - full artillery damage, almost full arrow friendly fire
    Very hard - full artillery damage, full arrow friendly fire.

    This already penalizes more quality archers, because cheap archers with terrible accuracy can safely fire in a blob with little issues, while they should be doing almost same damage to their own troops as they do to enemy troops.

    I may be wrong, maybe I'll test this fully these days.

    If we're going on history, the range did not always correspond with just size of the bow. Draw technique, type of string, type of arrow, even skill had an effect.
    For instance, with traditional western draw style, you would pull the string roughly to your face/nose. Mediterranean archers used a different style so they would generally pull roughly up to their ears, while Mongol/steppe archers would pull waaaay behind their head.

    'western'


    asian/steppe archers


    In Warhammer lore, Wood Elf archers are so accurate that they can hit a moving knight to the head through the visor of his helmet from several hundred meters away.

  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Registered Users Posts: 1,950
    Making friendly fire a non-issue in WH is one of the dumbest decisions CA made going into WH.

    With all due respect.
    Faith, Steel and Gunpowder Bows
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,278
    I think that I really do need to point out that HE archers use the longbow; it's not some special longbow (such as the Asrai longbow), it's just a basic longbow, which had the same range as the crossbow but didn't hit as hard.
  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Registered Users Posts: 1,950
    For the record, it would be virtually impossible to draw a western war bow back to your shoulder. Eastern bows were generally design for cavalry which had to be lighter, allowing for techniques like the thumb/index draw.


    Also the bows being weaker than crossbows is a myth.
    Faith, Steel and Gunpowder Bows
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,278

    For the record, it would be virtually impossible to draw a western war bow back to your shoulder. Eastern bows were generally design for cavalry which had to be lighter, allowing for techniques like the thumb/index draw.


    Also the bows being weaker than crossbows is a myth.

    Really depends on the bow or crossbow in question. You can indeed draw an Indian longbow (which were made of either extremely sturdy Indian bamboo or solid steel) to the shoulder, and most recurves can be used in a similar fashion. I haven't actually used an English longbow, so I won't comment on that for now.

    As for crossbows; they could range in strength anywhere from the pea shooter like repeaters to steel arbalest, and while it is true that crossbows weren't necessarily more powerful than bows, they generally were since the torsion mechanism allowed the user to apply a lot more force to the bolt than they could with a simple bow. One advantage that isn't talked about as much is that crossbows were also more accurate and easier to aim since the projectile wasn't deformed by the weapon while leaving it.

    Bows tend to be overestimated in terms of their range and ease of use; learning how to shoot a bow consistently took (and still takes) a very long time (often months-years of training) and bows weren't all that powerful to begin with when compared to other weapons, especially against armour (illustrated at the Battle of Flodden, where Scottish pikemen just shrugged of volley after volley of longbow fire, in good order, while advancing), their ranges were also unimpressive, hence the need to fire them at a 45 degree angle to achieve the best possible ranges; even when other weapons could be fired at much shallower angles and with better results.

    Really, by the 1500s the only place the bow was actually a superior weapon was in guerrilla fights, where crossbowmen and gunners couldn't form up to unleash their volleys. Otherwise, English and French records around the time (relaiting to the fighting around Calais and Boulogne) seem to suggest that the longbow was well past it's prime and no longer a worthwhile weapon for set piece battles, where guns and crossbows had an advantage in both range and effectiveness (being much against armour).
  • PocmanPocman Registered Users Posts: 5,601

    Making friendly fire a non-issue in WH is one of the dumbest decisions CA made going into WH.

    With all due respect.

    According to my tests, friendly fire is still a huge isse in WH 2, to the point where archers firing into engaged enemies from behind their lines can be considered to be more of a threat to their own units than a useful help.

    I only tested it in battles against the AI, though.


    Regarding the original post, they have longer range because of gameplay reasons. In order to diferentiate the different archer units, not all similar ranged units have the same specs. And that makes a lot of sense.

    - HE: longest range, bad damage.
    - WE: long range, normal damage (although only 60 models)
    - Orc arrez boyz: bad range, extreme damage
    - Bretonnia: Normal range, bad damage, cost effective.
    - Crossbows: Normal range, normal damage.

    This variation is thematic and, imho, a good idea. Another thing is that, from time to time, certain units may need small stats adjustments. That is ok, but keeping those kinds of differences makes the game funnier.


    BTW, lorewise, it makes a lot of sense that a bow crafted by a HE or WE artisan would be much better than the one crafted by a bretonnian peasant.

  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Registered Users Posts: 1,950
    Pocman said:

    Making friendly fire a non-issue in WH is one of the dumbest decisions CA made going into WH.

    With all due respect.

    According to my tests, friendly fire is still a huge isse in WH 2, to the point where archers firing into engaged enemies from behind their lines can be considered to be more of a threat to their own units than a useful help.

    I only tested it in battles against the AI, though.

    in MP there is no real practical effect from it. I don't think I've ever seen someone hold fire because of the risk of friendly fire with the exception of artillery. I know cavalry charge friendly fire has been completely removed from the franchise.

    People should have to weigh what they are shooting at and what they are charging into, into their decision making.
    Faith, Steel and Gunpowder Bows
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,135
    Pocman said:

    Making friendly fire a non-issue in WH is one of the dumbest decisions CA made going into WH.

    With all due respect.

    According to my tests, friendly fire is still a huge isse in WH 2, to the point where archers firing into engaged enemies from behind their lines can be considered to be more of a threat to their own units than a useful help.

    I only tested it in battles against the AI, though.


    Regarding the original post, they have longer range because of gameplay reasons. In order to diferentiate the different archer units, not all similar ranged units have the same specs. And that makes a lot of sense.

    - HE: longest range, bad damage.
    - WE: long range, normal damage (although only 60 models)
    - Orc arrez boyz: bad range, extreme damage
    - Bretonnia: Normal range, bad damage, cost effective.
    - Crossbows: Normal range, normal damage.

    This variation is thematic and, imho, a good idea. Another thing is that, from time to time, certain units may need small stats adjustments. That is ok, but keeping those kinds of differences makes the game funnier.


    BTW, lorewise, it makes a lot of sense that a bow crafted by a HE or WE artisan would be much better than the one crafted by a bretonnian peasant.

    Give WE archers +8 models.

    On HE archer topic they should have 170 so deepwood scouts be a counter to them and so they dont outrange galde gaurd.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,278
    I think that the first thing we need to decide is what we want as the standard range for ranged units; is the base range for longbows and crossbows 180 or 160?

    Once that is decided, it would be a simple matter to translate the ranges of other weapons by taking that range as equal to 24" and proceeding from there.
  • Godefroy_de_BouillonGodefroy_de_Bouillon Registered Users Posts: 2,614
    Crossbows should not have same range as longbows. More AP less range.
  • MarkroxMarkrox Registered Users Posts: 210
    Green0 said:

    ^ it has already been decided. Superior HE and WE longbows of fine crafting should have 180 range; weapons of human crafting like Emp Crossbows or Bret Bowmen can stay at 160.

    Question. Why would an elf be able to fire further than a human. Is there an actual source / material you're referring to?
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,135
    No HE archers are just too good at 475 so they need a nerf, the best way to nerf them would be -10 range. It will make sense, plus it help WE have a range advantage here so opens up more ways to play this match-up, or at least they wotn have the range disadvantage.
  • CatholicAlcoholicCatholicAlcoholic Registered Users Posts: 160
    edited November 2018
    Markrox said:

    Green0 said:

    ^ it has already been decided. Superior HE and WE longbows of fine crafting should have 180 range; weapons of human crafting like Emp Crossbows or Bret Bowmen can stay at 160.

    Question. Why would an elf be able to fire further than a human. Is there an actual source / material you're referring to?
    Lore wise elves are described to be able to reach near perfection (skill wise) in everything what they do, so it makes that an elf who trained hundreds of years on a bow is more capable than human + his bow is of higher craftsman ship.

    However, lore shouldn't be the main reasoning behind this argument, but the question should be whether or not HE archers are overperforming because of their range and imo they don't.

    I think it makes more sense to buff the units like GG if they struggle against HE archers instead of having all of them on a less useful level.
  • PocmanPocman Registered Users Posts: 5,601

    No HE archers are just too good at 475 so they need a nerf, the best way to nerf them would be -10 range. It will make sense, plus it help WE have a range advantage here so opens up more ways to play this match-up, or at least they wotn have the range disadvantage.


    One of the points were WH1 and WH2 clearly were different is regarding archers. WH2 races archers were clearly better than the ones from WH1 factions. But since then, WH2 ranged units have been nerfed, and WH1 buffed. I think the difference is no longer significant.


    In understand why you want his change: it would be a way of fixing a pretty much broken MU. However, seems to me as too much of a nerf for a faction that may not be that good currently (HEs).
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,135
    Pocman said:

    No HE archers are just too good at 475 so they need a nerf, the best way to nerf them would be -10 range. It will make sense, plus it help WE have a range advantage here so opens up more ways to play this match-up, or at least they wotn have the range disadvantage.


    One of the points were WH1 and WH2 clearly were different is regarding archers. WH2 races archers were clearly better than the ones from WH1 factions. But since then, WH2 ranged units have been nerfed, and WH1 buffed. I think the difference is no longer significant.


    In understand why you want his change: it would be a way of fixing a pretty much broken MU. However, seems to me as too much of a nerf for a faction that may not be that good currently (HEs).
    HE are quite good currently though just not amazing, HE archers have been too good for their cost since realase but there was no grounds to nerf them until the DLC came-out, by HE archers i mean the unit called he archers not other he missile troops. Glade guard would still need -25g on top of this but thats a seperate thread, and yes i do agree on buffs to HE's in other areas such as white lions, phenix, swordmasters but HE archers are a unit that i feel is bit OP for their cost.
  • MarkroxMarkrox Registered Users Posts: 210
    Surely if GG have an issue ranged fighting archers with +10 ranged, buffing them to 180 will create the exact same problem for all the other archers who were given 160 range in WH1 and never changed.

    It's interesting there's nothing that specifically states elves firing further, just being generally better archers. Peasant bowmen are quoted in WH2's wiki as using longbows. Being better archers is already built into the unit's stats - better morale, health, combat stats and accuracy. Why are they shooting further?
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,135
    Also buffing Glade guard +10 range would just make them stronger vs sisters of avalorn and shadow warriors it would actually be too good of a change, with -10 range on HE archers, you could still outrange WE ones with shadow warriors in same way as DWS could do to HE archers.
  • Cukie251Cukie251 Registered Users Posts: 1,213
    IMO the drop of 10 range seems reasonable. They would still outrange all non-woodelf skirmishers. Maybe you could even buff the cost of light armor archers to compensate a bit.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    The biggest problem IMO is creating a range difference of 20 to waywatchers. If you also drop ww to 180 maybe it's all good. I don't think lsg can afford less range though.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • SarmatiannsSarmatianns Registered Users Posts: 4,765
    Markrox said:

    Green0 said:

    ^ it has already been decided. Superior HE and WE longbows of fine crafting should have 180 range; weapons of human crafting like Emp Crossbows or Bret Bowmen can stay at 160.

    Question. Why would an elf be able to fire further than a human. Is there an actual source / material you're referring to?
    Problem is, the game is already balanced around this.

    If we make all longbows have the same distance (which I believe it was on TT), you'd have different problems, like missile cavalry firing at same range.

    Hawk Riders and Glade Riders would need to fire the same distance and have AP ranged attacks.

Sign In or Register to comment.