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

Nerf Ranged Troops

Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior MemberPosts: 20,726Registered Users
Ranged troops are too strong in this game, especially burning shot and trebuchets which also makes Strategists way too prominent. So here are the suggestions to change that:

1.Burning arrows and explosive shot should be temporary buffs like in Shogun2 and maybe available in every battle twice at most

2.Lower the firing frequency of all ranged troops, excepting Repeating Crossbows (so there's actually a point to them). I have not played a single battle where my ranged troops didn't spend all their ammo in the first half of the battle which is highly dubious. -50% reload speed is a starting point

With those nerfs the Strategist might also not be such a dominant part of every army.

«1

Comments

  • Warlord_Lu_BuWarlord_Lu_Bu Posts: 1,998Registered Users
    I quite like how the archers are tbh... they are glass cannons after all, though get smashed by cavalry easily.
    "I am the punishment of Tengri, if you had not sinned, he would not have sent me against you." - Chenghis Khan Temujin
  • kweassa1kweassa1 Posts: 663Registered Users
    Most ranged units are fine as they are, with plenty of ways to counter them.

    The killing power in comparison with melee combat is also mostly spot on.


    In case of trebs, they just should be tied with siege battles only. I don't really consider these "ranged units" ... more like a 'bad habit.'
  • RewanRewan Senior Member Posts: 1,355Registered Users
    I think it's more about buffing melee units than nerfing ranged units.
  • kweassa1kweassa1 Posts: 663Registered Users
    edited July 1
    Why would the melee units need any buffs, and in what manner?

    Don't people remember what old TW fans used to complain about a decade ago?

    Melee battles in real-life were drawn-out fights in a test of unity and strength of formation, and most deaths occurred after one of the battle lines were smashed, formation broken, and routed. The complaints back then were the difference in unit tiers and time-to-kill was way too drastic, and didn't give enough time to really formalize tactical choices because the clash of battle lines barely even lasted a minute in a TW game -- which is why realism based modders used to buff infantry health, and nerfed TTK down. Stuff like Europa Barbarorum was highly praised because it allowed RTW1 battles to be fought out the way we do right now in 3K.

    ...a decade later, now people are complaining infantry don't kill fast enough and battle-lines are drawn out and takes long time to break ... which I find ridiculous.

    I urge people to go play stuff like RTW1 and MTW1 and see if they like infantry fights being decided within 30 secs of the fight, and any line instantly faltering the moment even 1 enemy unit flanks them.
  • kweassa1kweassa1 Posts: 663Registered Users
    (ps) One example...

    One of my favorite tactics, is if my side has superior numbers of infantry, is to deploy reserve troops behind the battle line, have the frontline troops fight for a while, and then retreat behind the reserve line to rest and recover.

    This isn't really a practical tactic within the constraints of a game, but it's just one of the things I like seeing happen, and also looks quite cool in cinematics -- as the frontal troops retreat and rear troops take over the role of a new frontline.

    Old TW games with higher infantry kill rates could NEVER support this maneuver without being heavily modded in infantry stats, because the kill rate was so drastic that the moment the frontal troops decide to pull back it would suffer too many deaths and just rout. This is currently easily possible in 3K, and you can actually rotate the troops in turns to fight -- because the battle of infantry lines last that long.

    If anything, the way the infantry are set up right now is much more realistic and tactically satisfying than what it used to be.
  • RewanRewan Senior Member Posts: 1,355Registered Users
    ... I meant they are really vulnerable to missiles but okay.
  • RO37RO37 Senior Member Posts: 527Registered Users
    I think the strength of ordinary missile units like archers and crossbowmen are fine. In fact, Han era armies were as much as 40-50% crossbowmen , so if anything the game UNDERSTATES the role of crossbows and archers in this era of combat. Han armies were massive clashes of crossbowmrn and cavalry, with infantry playing a minor supportive role.

    It's a different era and place than say Ancient Rome (where heavy infantry was king) or early medieval Europe (where heavy cab was king) and that's fine imo.

    Trebs are a different matter and are totally ahistorical as an antipersonnel weapon (they were exclusively siege weapons) so I'd like to see their utility in field battles eliminated or neefed
  • mitthrawnuruodomitthrawnuruodo Junior Member Posts: 1,661Registered Users
    Trebuchets need to be nerfed heavily against units, in this and in all Total War games, as we were discussing in the other thread.

    Archers not so much. I actually like the dramatic balancing in this game. But they do need to be more susceptible to their counters - shield, cavalry and heavy armor. To that end I would make three changes -
    1. Reduce their damage against shielded units.
    2. Reduce accuracy against fast moving targets (i.e. cavalry).
    3. More normal damage and less AP damage for the two basic archers (archers and archer militia).
  • kweassa1kweassa1 Posts: 663Registered Users
    Shielded infantry already have a 45~50% chance to block incoming projectiles, which is easily boosted to 100% with either the Sentinel or the Commander, giving them enough time to catch up to archers. Contrary to popular belief, the archers do not run faster than most infantry units, and can be run down by shielded melee infantry easily, unless the enemy pulls back archers very early. In any case archers can already be made pretty inept even without the use of cavalry.

    It's because newbies usually rely on passive battle tactics relying on the enemy to come to their formation... and just basically leave their infantry standing around exposed to prolonged archery fire, is why shielded units seem to take damage despite archery fire.

    Even when talking about cavalry, the lowest-tier melee cavalry has a 60% chance to block projectiles, and if the leader of the unit is a commander class, the chance is boosted up to 80% default. You can basically even charge a militia-tier melee cavalry into the highest-end archers and the cavalry will reach its target almost unfazed, unless it's stupid odds like sending a single unit against a group of 5~6 archer units.

    Asking for any stronger effect is simply asking for a tortoise-level defense by default, which is absurd, IMO.
  • RO37RO37 Senior Member Posts: 527Registered Users
    Huh, didn't realize just how good shielded cav were against missiles. I like to see quick hit and run tactics using cav but the power of crossbows made things very difficult with shock cav. Due to lower charge stats, I'd been using shock cav exclusively but mb I'll experiment with melee cav again.
  • Misaka_ComplexMisaka_Complex Posts: 1,494Registered Users
    1 non strategist generic hero > 1000 ranged troops.
  • RO37RO37 Senior Member Posts: 527Registered Users
    Chasing down a single missile unit seems like a **** use of a hero though. I almost always try to get 2 or more heroes to gang up on a enemy hero, because the morale loss of losing a commander almost always trumps everything else.

    Sending 2-3 cav units around the flanks to harass enemy missile units is one thing, committing a hero to such a move seems grossly out of proportion to the benefit gained.
  • Misaka_ComplexMisaka_Complex Posts: 1,494Registered Users
    edited July 1
    RO37 said:

    Chasing down a single missile unit seems like a **** use of a hero though. I almost always try to get 2 or more heroes to gang up on a enemy hero, because the morale loss of losing a commander almost always trumps everything else.

    Sending 2-3 cav units around the flanks to harass enemy missile units is one thing, committing a hero to such a move seems grossly out of proportion to the benefit gained.

    You can charge a strategist into archers (unless they are azure dragons) and he'll do just fine.
  • iriyasiriyas Posts: 59Registered Users
    kweassa1 said:

    Why would the melee units need any buffs, and in what manner?

    Don't people remember what old TW fans used to complain about a decade ago?

    Melee battles in real-life were drawn-out fights in a test of unity and strength of formation, and most deaths occurred after one of the battle lines were smashed, formation broken, and routed. The complaints back then were the difference in unit tiers and time-to-kill was way too drastic, and didn't give enough time to really formalize tactical choices because the clash of battle lines barely even lasted a minute in a TW game -- which is why realism based modders used to buff infantry health, and nerfed TTK down. Stuff like Europa Barbarorum was highly praised because it allowed RTW1 battles to be fought out the way we do right now in 3K.

    ...a decade later, now people are complaining infantry don't kill fast enough and battle-lines are drawn out and takes long time to break ... which I find ridiculous.

    I urge people to go play stuff like RTW1 and MTW1 and see if they like infantry fights being decided within 30 secs of the fight, and any line instantly faltering the moment even 1 enemy unit flanks them.

    really??? dont remeber MTW1 being like that at all
  • shattishatti Posts: 348Registered Users
    They should remove the exploding arrows. So ridiculous
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,726Registered Users
    Arrows and bolts always getting spend within seconds is not right. Firing frequency of ranged units is too high. Why even take the repeating crossbows when militia archers can fire just as fast?

  • RewanRewan Senior Member Posts: 1,355Registered Users
    Repeating Crossbows are a short range, debuffing unit.
    Militia Archers a regular archery troop.

    Why compare them ?
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,726Registered Users
    Rewan said:

    Repeating Crossbows are a short range, debuffing unit.
    Militia Archers a regular archery troop.

    Why compare them ?

    The point of repeating crossbows is that they can be fired faster. What's the point if every ranged unit can fire as fast? Why is ammo spend halfway through every battle? That's just stupid.

  • RewanRewan Senior Member Posts: 1,355Registered Users
    edited July 1
    The point of repeating crossbows is that they can be fired faster


    Except it's not ? (at least in the game)
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,726Registered Users
    edited July 1
    Rewan said:

    The point of repeating crossbows is that they can be fired faster


    Except it's not ? (at least in the game)
    Because that's CA's total balance failure.

    Ranged troops are too powerful and strategists too dominant a choice. Played the game enough now to confirm that.

  • Misaka_ComplexMisaka_Complex Posts: 1,494Registered Users
    Rewan said:

    The point of repeating crossbows is that they can be fired faster
    Except it's not ? (at least in the game)
    Yeah pretty much this, repeating crossbows in the game is just an inferior crossbow that gives a debuff.
  • iriyasiriyas Posts: 59Registered Users
    firing rates should start slow and increase as units gain experience
  • LestaTLestaT Senior Member Posts: 3,280Registered Users
    iriyas said:

    kweassa1 said:

    Why would the melee units need any buffs, and in what manner?

    Don't people remember what old TW fans used to complain about a decade ago?

    Melee battles in real-life were drawn-out fights in a test of unity and strength of formation, and most deaths occurred after one of the battle lines were smashed, formation broken, and routed. The complaints back then were the difference in unit tiers and time-to-kill was way too drastic, and didn't give enough time to really formalize tactical choices because the clash of battle lines barely even lasted a minute in a TW game -- which is why realism based modders used to buff infantry health, and nerfed TTK down. Stuff like Europa Barbarorum was highly praised because it allowed RTW1 battles to be fought out the way we do right now in 3K.

    ...a decade later, now people are complaining infantry don't kill fast enough and battle-lines are drawn out and takes long time to break ... which I find ridiculous.

    I urge people to go play stuff like RTW1 and MTW1 and see if they like infantry fights being decided within 30 secs of the fight, and any line instantly faltering the moment even 1 enemy unit flanks them.

    really??? dont remeber MTW1 being like that at all
    MTW is really like that RTW vanilla however is no.

    I remember having long battles in MTW unless using peasant troops.
  • WhiteHorseMemesWhiteHorseMemes Posts: 331Registered Users
    I sort of like the idea of making flaming shot with trebuchets an ability that strategists activate rather than a permanent boost to them. I don't know if that would fix trebuchets, but it might help.

    I'm not a fan of nerfing the flaming arrows. Towers are so irritating in this game. Fire arrows seem vitally important to be able to deal with them, and even then I feel they come with some tradeoffs. Archer militia aren't really as good as crossbowmen or other ranged units for example; there is definitely a tradeoff as far as crossbowmen's superior range vs. archers' ability to use flaming arrows and cheaper price. I could maybe see the value in restricting the flaming arrows to archers and not allowing militia to use them, in order to strengthen the value of both researching archers and upgrading your militia.
  • vintagepurplevintagepurple Posts: 708Registered Users
    Real repeating crossbows shot piddly little bolts, not full-sized ones, rendering it weak and inaccurate. It was a short ranged defensive harassment weapon like CA portrays it, not the machine gun crossbow that people seem to think it was.
  • markp27markp27 Posts: 1,298Registered Users
    We could replace the trebuchets with heavy yellow crossbows which were basically ballista. Would make more sense on the battlefield than trebuchets.
  • Levi_fowl27Levi_fowl27 Posts: 80Registered Users
    edited July 1
    I do not think ranged units need a nerf, for me they are ok.

    As for repeat crossbow, historically speaking they are very low accurate, high firing rate, inability to pass armor, small range, all of this is right.
    Repeat crossbow was used to protect checkpoints, such as a gate or aisle, where accuracy and range were unnecessary, and a high firing rate was preferable.
    Even if each small projectile were unable to cross enemy armor, being struck by hundreds of them in a short time drained much of the enemy's stamina, which is truly the true function of projectiles unable to pierce armor.
    Coupled with these conditions, his projectiles were almost always poisoned, usually with very powerful poisons, to ensure that even a scratch would be fatal.
    I honestly think that adding poisoned projectiles to the repeat crossbow is just the buff they need to become viable.


    About Counterweight Trebuchets.
    Yes they are historically wrong.
    Yes they are strong.
    Much of their "strength" comes from the inability of AI to deal with them.
    I do not think they need a nerf directly at them.
    Instead, as I and a few others have said, it would be best to change the army's movement speed in campaign mode according to the units you have. Example:
    • If you have a Trebuchet that is very slow, this has greatly decreased the speed of your army.
    • If you have only light cavalry, this greatly increases the speed of your army.

    Strategists, they do need a nerf.
    The bonus of military supplies they give alone makes the whole mechanics of military supplies useless.
    Mid/late game, you never worry about supplies anymore because of them.
    In addition, access to Formations are something unique to them, makes them even more mandatory in any army.

    It would be best if each type of hero had access to his own formations, and he was the only one who had access to all of them.

    And for him not to get weak, his presence would increase the effectiveness of the formations, improving the positives and diminishing the negatives.
  • WhiteHorseMemesWhiteHorseMemes Posts: 331Registered Users
    I think they should actually move the ability to use formations thing over to commanders, to make them more worthwhile to use.

    In the three kingdoms novel, I think it was King Duosi whose troops used a type of ranged weapon that could fire several bolts at once laced with poison. It was one of the Nanman in any case. So I think it would make sense to give the Nanman some kind of poison shooting ranged unit, in addition to all the other wacky stuff they have.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Posts: 2,463Registered Users
    I think archers and crossbows are fine. Repeating crossbows I haven't used yet, so can't comment on them.

    Regarding trebuchets, I think they should be moved to Rank 6 for Strategists, and perhaps become static emplacements in battle, losing their ability to reposition in battle.
  • psychoakpsychoak Posts: 2,338Registered Users
    Archers are actually weak. Because they have no ammo. :)

    English longbows went into battle with 60+ arrows, and could run them out in ten minutes if they didn't conserve them.
Sign In or Register to comment.