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

Archers work wrong in this game and it is bad for both balance and immersion.

13»

Comments

  • lucibuis#6195lucibuis#6195 Registered Users Posts: 7,168
    Ichon said:

    lucibuis said:


    They are not overpowered, they are hard countered by cavalry while the battle of agincourt shows mounts are very susceptible to archers

    Agincourt the archers were protected atop a long muddy slope with planted stakes and in forests to the sides while the French cavalry did not take the time to don their horses armour fully and charged with only about 2/3s of the cavalry deployed to suppress the English archers as the French cavalry had wisely elected NOT to charge the top of the ridge with the English archers safe behind trenches and stakes.

    The English knew they had to force a battle and observing the the French cavalry, thinking they had time on their side had mostly dismounted and were milling around, some joining campfires to get warm, some taking their horses to water, and many removing the horses armor to rub them down, ran down off the top of the ridge and forward a couple of hundred yards, planted their stakes and let loose on the nearest French cavalry who promptly mounted and charged in disarray.

    The English archers in the forsests to the side appear to have done most of the damage according to the chronicles we do have which report the horses were grieviously wounded on their unarmoured flanks and many threw their riders and ran way back down the slope trampling over the oncoming French men-at-arms.

    Very few French cavalry were actually killed, most of the French losses came among the vanguard men-at-arms who were trapped between the English and the 2nd line of French men-at-arms who advanced behind them and pressed them tightly.
    That's similar to how archers are used in this game, especially the ones that don't have fire whilst moving. But here no matter ho you try to protect the archers, they can be reached easily by cavalry and chariots magically galloping through the woods, with mounts completely immune to the debilitating effect of arrows on animal morale.

    So yes archers in this game have some abstractions that favor them, but there are also lots of abstractions that neuter them. Overall, they are in the right spot.
    Ariel only, no fads allowed.

  • bli-nk#6314bli-nk#6314 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,980
    edited March 2022
    lucibuis said:



    So yes archers in this game have some abstractions that favor them, but there are also lots of abstractions that neuter them. Overall, they are in the right spot.

    Which abstractions neuter archers?

    They can fire over walls and other obstacles that they theoretically should not be able to see, rgw rear ranks can see just as well as the front ranks allowing compact formations rather than spreading out in a long thin line, archers fire at the same rate even when fatigued, arrows do the same amount of damage at maximum and minimum range, the accuracy of arrows is really high- partly to compensate for the speed of battles but vs moving targets it is a bit ridiculous, and lastly, many ranged units are very cheap for the amount of DPS they can put out which is weird because in most historical pay records the pay for a solider that can use ranged weapons was almost always higher than a soldier who only fought in melee (excepting cavalry).
    Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society.” Mark Twain
  • amon_chakai#8270amon_chakai#8270 Registered Users Posts: 232
    Volund covered this issue years ago. In summary, it's been done before so why can't it be done again....?

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=GEvYxZfwrQg
  • Asamu#6386Asamu#6386 Registered Users Posts: 1,572
    edited March 2022

    Volund covered this issue years ago. In summary, it's been done before so why can't it be done again....?

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=GEvYxZfwrQg

    The reason for some of the animation things that he brings up is probably that the art assets are taking up a larger portion of the budget now compared to animations due to the greater detail of unit models (for things like skipping reload or rank fire animations). This is particularly an issue for the warhammer games due to the numerous skeletons of different units that need to be created and worked with.

    The other issue is the much more corporate nature of game companies now compared to the past. The first TW games were more dedicated towards the experience, and there was probably a lot less pressure on the devs to create the game within a specific timeframe than now; they were made to be representative of something realistic, where the games now are putting less emphasis on quality and more on making money; they don't need the same relative quality in order to sell. The shareholders don't care about quality if people are willing to buy the games, and people are. They also aren't willing to invest much into fixing issues, because there are costs attached and relatively little profit.

    The improved graphics of modern TW games also put a higher burden on graphics cards, meaning lingering effects like smoke and more animations playing at any given time have a more significant impact on performance than they would have in older games.

    Sound effects and projectile velocities/arcs are another matter though. That could fairly easily have been fixed. They could just copy over the sound files from one of the old games and use them in place of the newer ones, and projectile velocities, gravity, and firing arcs are easily modifiable numbers in a table.
  • Itharus#3127Itharus#3127 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,483

    talonn said:

    Yea. I also prefer how archers worked in Shogun 2

    Two things I would change there:
    1. No one should be able to shoot at a target they can't see. This enabled a cheese where a single bow unit could take an undefended castle by peppering the Samurai Retainers with close-accuracy, from the ground-level. Rome 2 introduced the battle map fog-of-war feature, probably the last time Total War actually innovated(everything else about that game was a massive leap into a cul-de-sac, which is why the game systems have hardly changed since and 'new mechanics' are basically: Randomly-Selected Noun > currency/progress-bar > outcome unrelated to the noun. Or CA brings back features they never explained why they removed, but their marketing geniuses pretend are new.
    2. Bows should not have greater range than matchlocks, except from a much higher elevation. With the TW3 Engine introduced in Empire(2009) though, CA did away with elevation permitting arrows to travel further probably because most ranged weapons in Empire were guns. Instead the elevation bonus was a buff to the unit's Accuracy stat relative to the target. That sort of makes sense, for guns, where elevation wouldn't practically increase accuracy beyond granting a clearer line-of-sight, but that gives a shooter more information about the distance and movement of the target, meaning they can make more use of their accuracy than shooting across a plane allows.
    Repeated testing though has exposed that bows in Shogun 2 are weak compared with matchlocks in like-for-like conditions. Matchlocks simply kill more most of the time. Why do I think they need a longer range then? Because accuracy drops-off at range; people should be engaging their brains and intuiting what should happen and the game design reward this by making what happens conform to the knowable realistic scenario. Nothing should happen just because 'a designer says so' and that includes nebulous and disingenuous terms like 'balance'. Sacrifices have to be made for the sake of gameplay, but that does not mean 'a designer says so' because it shouldn't be the default; there had better be a very good reason to steer away from what practical reality would say happens. Yes, even in a fantasy setting, as anyone who actually cares about that genre of fiction will already know.

    In my ideal Shogun 2 update, it might be necessary to also give bows more strength to reflect how lethal they actually are at closer ranges, how heavy their collective weight clangs against armour and slows down an advance, how volleys compensate for loss of accuracy at distance and how that distance is increased by elevation. They could even have their own effective firing-drills; something I once suggested for Wood Elves, in place of the brain-dead 'fix' for their arrows being fired straight into trees; giving missiles no-clip for the first seconds of flight so they phased through trees like magic. This was the best CA could come up with after having almost three years to think about it.

    Had they not gutted the gun functionality of the TW3 Engine and making 'guns' in Warhammer work like every other missile weapon, they could have had Wood Elf missile units using the same function to only fire when they have a direct-path to a target with no object or map geometry in-between, shooting through the gaps in the trees.

    CA don't do ideas any more. I don't know what they actually do.

    You do realize bows had longer effective ranges than early guns, right? Those things got really inaccurate really fast.

    And what do you mean shoot what you can't see? Do you mean indirect fire at an area? Bows can do that if at the right ranges. ARCHery, after all. Do you mean shooting up at a guy on a wall from below? In the game they are standing, and can hence be shot as part of them is above the edge of the wall. They'd have to add a crouching animation to break LOS.
  • mightygloin#2446mightygloin#2446 Karaz-a-KarakRegistered Users Posts: 6,123
    Itharus said:

    talonn said:

    Yea. I also prefer how archers worked in Shogun 2

    Two things I would change there:
    1. No one should be able to shoot at a target they can't see. This enabled a cheese where a single bow unit could take an undefended castle by peppering the Samurai Retainers with close-accuracy, from the ground-level. Rome 2 introduced the battle map fog-of-war feature, probably the last time Total War actually innovated(everything else about that game was a massive leap into a cul-de-sac, which is why the game systems have hardly changed since and 'new mechanics' are basically: Randomly-Selected Noun > currency/progress-bar > outcome unrelated to the noun. Or CA brings back features they never explained why they removed, but their marketing geniuses pretend are new.
    2. Bows should not have greater range than matchlocks, except from a much higher elevation. With the TW3 Engine introduced in Empire(2009) though, CA did away with elevation permitting arrows to travel further probably because most ranged weapons in Empire were guns. Instead the elevation bonus was a buff to the unit's Accuracy stat relative to the target. That sort of makes sense, for guns, where elevation wouldn't practically increase accuracy beyond granting a clearer line-of-sight, but that gives a shooter more information about the distance and movement of the target, meaning they can make more use of their accuracy than shooting across a plane allows.
    Repeated testing though has exposed that bows in Shogun 2 are weak compared with matchlocks in like-for-like conditions. Matchlocks simply kill more most of the time. Why do I think they need a longer range then? Because accuracy drops-off at range; people should be engaging their brains and intuiting what should happen and the game design reward this by making what happens conform to the knowable realistic scenario. Nothing should happen just because 'a designer says so' and that includes nebulous and disingenuous terms like 'balance'. Sacrifices have to be made for the sake of gameplay, but that does not mean 'a designer says so' because it shouldn't be the default; there had better be a very good reason to steer away from what practical reality would say happens. Yes, even in a fantasy setting, as anyone who actually cares about that genre of fiction will already know.

    In my ideal Shogun 2 update, it might be necessary to also give bows more strength to reflect how lethal they actually are at closer ranges, how heavy their collective weight clangs against armour and slows down an advance, how volleys compensate for loss of accuracy at distance and how that distance is increased by elevation. They could even have their own effective firing-drills; something I once suggested for Wood Elves, in place of the brain-dead 'fix' for their arrows being fired straight into trees; giving missiles no-clip for the first seconds of flight so they phased through trees like magic. This was the best CA could come up with after having almost three years to think about it.

    Had they not gutted the gun functionality of the TW3 Engine and making 'guns' in Warhammer work like every other missile weapon, they could have had Wood Elf missile units using the same function to only fire when they have a direct-path to a target with no object or map geometry in-between, shooting through the gaps in the trees.

    CA don't do ideas any more. I don't know what they actually do.

    You do realize bows had longer effective ranges than early guns, right? Those things got really inaccurate really fast.

    And what do you mean shoot what you can't see? Do you mean indirect fire at an area? Bows can do that if at the right ranges. ARCHery, after all. Do you mean shooting up at a guy on a wall from below? In the game they are standing, and can hence be shot as part of them is above the edge of the wall. They'd have to add a crouching animation to break LOS.
    Like shooting at targets behind a wall or a hill. You can do so now with laser guided satellite tech level accuracy without anyone actually seeing the target. That is ultra dumb in a game that is labelled as strategy.

    Also bows normally have a bit more range than guns in TT.
  • Data5#9904Data5#9904 Registered Users Posts: 529
    To make archers not shoot high is easy, to balance the stats with those limitations is hard. Without rebalance you basically should take handgunners instead of crossbows every time.

    Made it so archers and crossbows could only fire in the arch shown here.

  • ArecBalrin#2350ArecBalrin#2350 Registered Users Posts: 2,935
    Itharus said:

    talonn said:

    Yea. I also prefer how archers worked in Shogun 2

    Two things I would change there:
    1. No one should be able to shoot at a target they can't see. This enabled a cheese where a single bow unit could take an undefended castle by peppering the Samurai Retainers with close-accuracy, from the ground-level. Rome 2 introduced the battle map fog-of-war feature, probably the last time Total War actually innovated(everything else about that game was a massive leap into a cul-de-sac, which is why the game systems have hardly changed since and 'new mechanics' are basically: Randomly-Selected Noun > currency/progress-bar > outcome unrelated to the noun. Or CA brings back features they never explained why they removed, but their marketing geniuses pretend are new.
    2. Bows should not have greater range than matchlocks, except from a much higher elevation. With the TW3 Engine introduced in Empire(2009) though, CA did away with elevation permitting arrows to travel further probably because most ranged weapons in Empire were guns. Instead the elevation bonus was a buff to the unit's Accuracy stat relative to the target. That sort of makes sense, for guns, where elevation wouldn't practically increase accuracy beyond granting a clearer line-of-sight, but that gives a shooter more information about the distance and movement of the target, meaning they can make more use of their accuracy than shooting across a plane allows.
    Repeated testing though has exposed that bows in Shogun 2 are weak compared with matchlocks in like-for-like conditions. Matchlocks simply kill more most of the time. Why do I think they need a longer range then? Because accuracy drops-off at range; people should be engaging their brains and intuiting what should happen and the game design reward this by making what happens conform to the knowable realistic scenario. Nothing should happen just because 'a designer says so' and that includes nebulous and disingenuous terms like 'balance'. Sacrifices have to be made for the sake of gameplay, but that does not mean 'a designer says so' because it shouldn't be the default; there had better be a very good reason to steer away from what practical reality would say happens. Yes, even in a fantasy setting, as anyone who actually cares about that genre of fiction will already know.

    In my ideal Shogun 2 update, it might be necessary to also give bows more strength to reflect how lethal they actually are at closer ranges, how heavy their collective weight clangs against armour and slows down an advance, how volleys compensate for loss of accuracy at distance and how that distance is increased by elevation. They could even have their own effective firing-drills; something I once suggested for Wood Elves, in place of the brain-dead 'fix' for their arrows being fired straight into trees; giving missiles no-clip for the first seconds of flight so they phased through trees like magic. This was the best CA could come up with after having almost three years to think about it.

    Had they not gutted the gun functionality of the TW3 Engine and making 'guns' in Warhammer work like every other missile weapon, they could have had Wood Elf missile units using the same function to only fire when they have a direct-path to a target with no object or map geometry in-between, shooting through the gaps in the trees.

    CA don't do ideas any more. I don't know what they actually do.

    You do realize bows had longer effective ranges than early guns, right? Those things got really inaccurate really fast.

    And what do you mean shoot what you can't see? Do you mean indirect fire at an area? Bows can do that if at the right ranges. ARCHery, after all. Do you mean shooting up at a guy on a wall from below? In the game they are standing, and can hence be shot as part of them is above the edge of the wall. They'd have to add a crouching animation to break LOS.
    Yes I do realise that; it's in the post you quote-replied. Just as the thing I described is in the game(Shogun 2), which you appear to be confusing with a totally different scenario from a different Total War game. The Samurai Retainers are not standing on a wall, guarding it. They are being shot at with a lot of accuracy, by bow units who would not be able to see them.

    Why do I bother?
Sign In or Register to comment.