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?

2»

Comments

  • saellsaell Registered Users Posts: 481
    Green0 said:

    -10 drop is unacceptable. Compare them to Crossbowmen afterwards, Crossbowmen get +33% AP, +5 armor for only -10 range. It’s a nobrainer which is better at 475g, 170 range at 3AP and 15 armor or 160 range at 4AP and 20 armor.

    Compare to Bret Bowmen, at 170 range you’d pay +10 range a massive $75 gold with other minor benefits like HP and LD.

    Totally unacceptable for HE archers to become one of the worst ranged units in the game and get a nerf for nothing in return.

    Lol worst archer unit in game pls look at skeletton archers at same prise with just 1 ap and -40 range. Seriously there are worse archer units then he ones
  • MukipMukip Registered Users Posts: 693
    It doesn't help when the resident fanboy is calling HE archers one of the worst units in the game :D, but I disagree about the range reduction.

    It should be remembered that the cheapest HE infantry unit Spearmen are 500 gold and lose to infantry cheaper than themselves such as Bleakswords, Empire Swordsmen and Clanrats. They also have no anti-large cav beyond a RoR and limited and niche armour-piercing ranged options. Not to say that HE aren't strong, but in conclusion Ulthuan is a land of contrasts.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    Well well, as far as I am concerned this discussion has little to do with Glade guards, they are just used as an argument. The question is more whether HE archers should be allowed to shoot back at DWS and WW. Right now DWS have the same range and WW have 10 meters advantage. While DWS and WW have 360, HE archers are tightly packed and maneuver slower to get a volley off, but when they do they have the volume of fire. It is already hard to get value from HE archers vs a good WE player imo, so personally I only find them useful for entering late and add damage to WW that are already busy with something else, like DPs or SWs. In that role I guess 170m also works, just a bit worse.

    What I really think it's after is to make it easier to pick apart a HE archer/LSG skill-box using DWS/WW. I am not sure what is desirable here... but we could discuss this I think.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    Green0 said:

    HE archers are tightly packed and maneuver slower to get a volley off, but when they do they have the volume of fire. It is already hard to get value from HE archers vs a good WE player imo, so personally I only find them useful for entering late and add damage to WW that are already busy with something else, like DPs or SWs. In that role I guess 170m also works, just a bit worse.

    What I really think it's after is to make it easier to pick apart a HE archer/LSG skill-box using DWS/WW. I am not sure what is desirable here... but we could discuss this I think.

    yes this is also how I'm reading it. So 0 reason to nerf HE archers only to fix 1/14 matchups, especially since WE overall still have the advantage due to 360 fire + move and shoot. WE need help vs DP but HE archers are not overperforming otherwise vs the remaining factions.

    Regarding Emp Crossbowmen, if OP wants them to get 180 range they should also get move or fire rule they had in TT.
    In principle I think it is fine to rebalance vs a single broken matchup as long as it improves the quality of that matchup without breaking anything else.

    HE vs WE I find a bit on the unhealthy side because of how strong DPs are in this MU, but I don't think the vanilla archers are that big of a deal tbh. I wouldn't say that HE archers break this MU, so I am a little confused.

    The thing is also that the matchup is rather even, but extremely limited in viable builds on the WE side... so it's hard. I think WW would need nerfs and several other counters to DPs would need some buffs to get some variation going. Only buffing other things would leave WW a bit overpowered imo, so it's a razors edge....
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,278
    Green0 said:

    HE archers are tightly packed and maneuver slower to get a volley off, but when they do they have the volume of fire. It is already hard to get value from HE archers vs a good WE player imo, so personally I only find them useful for entering late and add damage to WW that are already busy with something else, like DPs or SWs. In that role I guess 170m also works, just a bit worse.

    What I really think it's after is to make it easier to pick apart a HE archer/LSG skill-box using DWS/WW. I am not sure what is desirable here... but we could discuss this I think.

    yes this is also how I'm reading it. So 0 reason to nerf HE archers only to fix 1/14 matchups, especially since WE overall still have the advantage due to 360 fire + move and shoot. WE need help vs DP but HE archers are not overperforming otherwise vs the remaining factions.

    Regarding Emp Crossbowmen, if OP wants them to get 180 range they should also get move or fire rule they had in TT.
    Just to clarify, move or fire allowed units to both move and fire in the same turn? In which case wouldn't move and fire be fire whilst moving while move or fire be the lack of that ability. If it isn't, a slight reduction in reload times or cost would more than make up for it.

    Sure, I'd be happy to see that given to HE archers in return for being brought down to 160 range (or preferably, Crossbows and Glade Guard brought up to 180); especially since they shouldn't be outranging WE archers or crossbows to begin with. Crossbows should also likely hit harder while HE archers should be more accurate (though I think they already are more accurate) and cost more since they were 10 points as opposed to 9 for crossbowmen and 12 for Glade Guard. I'm willing to concede the cost, but then the performance of HE archers would necessarily have to be commensurately lower.

    Rather than range reductions, I think that what is needed is an increase to the default range, **** 30" at 180 instead of 160 and rethinking ranges from there. Game 1 factions in general haven't really caught up to game 2 factions in terms of the power of their units, particularly their ranged units.

    To be clear, i'm not against CA changing the TT balancing to better suit the game, they know their game quite well and the TT had problems of it's own; they're doing a pretty good job in this regard. However, I think that in the process, HE archers have been a little too overtuned vis a vis their contemporaries, and the more I look at them, the more I'm forced to concede that they really shouldn't be as good as they are, especially since the HE are a more melee and monster (or rather, elite units of all stripes) oriented faction to begin with, while the other factions in question are supposed to be more oriented towards ranged. HE had pretty good ranged support in the TT, but they weren't the best at it by a long shot, both thematically and in terms of actual performance.
  • Cukie251Cukie251 Registered Users Posts: 1,213
    edited November 2018
    Well @cool_lad (I'm not goint to bother quoting that whole thing). HE archers should stay a bit above their comparables in terms of range. They er on the expensive end and lack the damage of something like an empire crossbowman. Not all ranges should be equal. They should outrange crossbows, brets, gobbos, and dwarfs because they lack in other aspects (Empire has damage, dwarfs have armor/shield, brets/orcs are cheap).

    If we need to debate anything its how much that range advantage should be.

    On the other hand, HE and WE should have the same range. IMO WE are THE archer faction. I'm not sure on the intracacies of the matchup though, so I'll just defer to lotus's opinion on that.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,278
    To be clear, I'm not a TT purist, I think that CA should forge their own path when it comes to balancing while being thematically true to each faction. the minutiae of balancing should be adjusted as the devs see fit, based around the theme of each faction.

    I always saw the HE and Empire as sort of the inverse of each other in some ways.

    HE were a faction that seemed based on the ideal of a medieval army. They had decent basic units, spearmen to hold the line and decent archers to support them, however, the bread and butter of HE were their elites and monsters; it was the elites that would bring you victory while the basic units remained in a supporting role. Their archers were pretty decent, but they weren't there to win your battles, that was a job for the elites.

    Empire was sort of the opposite. They were based on the idea of a gunpowder army. To this end, while they had decent elites it was their state troop/basic units were really capable of punching above their weight when used right (a good example of this were detachments, which allowed regiments of state troops to seriously go up in power when defending against charges). This was supported by good artillery and exotic weapons.

    WE were a faction based around guerrilla tactics; an army that's extremely mobile and slippery, relying on hit and run tactics to whittle their enemy down. They however traded away most of their staying power for that capability, which meant that once cornered or forced into a stand up fight, they would quickly die due to said lack of staying power. This is an army that was by definition annoying to deal with and frustrating to face for many; just go and see how stroppy old soldiers get about guerrilla fighters and hit and run attacks.

    These were the basic themes of factions, while balancing can and should in many cases change what the TT did; IMO what they really should stick to is the theme of the faction and base their changes on that.
  • ParmigianoParmigiano Registered Users Posts: 763
    Cukie251 said:

    Well @cool_lad (I'm not goint to bother quoting that whole thing). HE archers should stay a bit above their comparables in terms of range. They er on the expensive end and lack the damage of something like an empire crossbowman. Not all ranges should be equal. They should outrange crossbows, brets, gobbos, and dwarfs because they lack in other aspects (Empire has damage, dwarfs have armor/shield, brets/orcs are cheap).

    If we need to debate anything its how much that range advantage should be.

    On the other hand, HE and WE should have the same range. IMO WE are THE archer faction. I'm not sure on the intracacies of the matchup though, so I'll just defer to lotus's opinion on that.

    Both should probably have 175. That would provide a big enough gap between archers and lothern seaguard, and a slight buff to glade guard which is probably needed, although I don't think the poison ones need a buff. Nor do the wood elves need a buff. They could reduce waywatchers to 185 at the same time.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 23,122
    A number of personal comment posts have been deleted. Discuss the thread topic and not someone with a differing opinion.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,102
    There is reason to nerf HE archers and the reason is they top good for 475, what needs to happen though is light armour arcgers get -25g also that way you have same range as WE while geeting more armour in missile duels.

    HE archers should not be a counter to waywatchers either, shadow warriors snd bolt thrower should.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,102
    edited November 2018
    Mukip said:

    It doesn't help when the resident fanboy is calling HE archers one of the worst units in the game :D, but I disagree about the range reduction.

    It should be remembered that the cheapest HE infantry unit Spearmen are 500 gold and lose to infantry cheaper than themselves such as Bleakswords, Empire Swordsmen and Clanrats. They also have no anti-large cav beyond a RoR and limited and niche armour-piercing ranged options. Not to say that HE aren't strong, but in conclusion Ulthuan is a land of contrasts.

    I do think that HE spearmen should get -25g though.

    Oh and i have nothing against WW getting -10 range also.
  • HolySaintKnightHolySaintKnight Registered Users Posts: 4,462

    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.

    Also HE archers have faster fire rate in tt but reduced range than glade guard. So yes HE archers need to have their range reduced but their attack speed increased, I recall their attack speed was reduced since release cause it was considered very strong but their problem was their range.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,102

    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.

    Also HE archers have faster fire rate in tt but reduced range than glade guard. So yes HE archers need to have their range reduced but their attack speed increased, I recall their attack speed was reduced since release cause it was considered very strong but their problem was their range.
    Faster rate of fire on table top....How exactly? If you mean fire in 2 ranks thats not faster rate of fire.
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 12,246
    HE archers are fine imo
    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.
  • HolySaintKnightHolySaintKnight Registered Users Posts: 4,462

    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.

    Also HE archers have faster fire rate in tt but reduced range than glade guard. So yes HE archers need to have their range reduced but their attack speed increased, I recall their attack speed was reduced since release cause it was considered very strong but their problem was their range.
    Faster rate of fire on table top....How exactly? If you mean fire in 2 ranks thats not faster rate of fire.
    This.
Sign In or Register to comment.