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

2»

Comments

  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    psychoak said:

    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.

    Arrows are spend in two minutes in this game. DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA! Way to high firing frequency, absolutely ridiculous and must be nerfed.
  • HelhoundHelhound Registered Users Posts: 5,346
    The firing rate isnt really all that high, if you consider whats coming their way. With a decent strategist at the helm they get just enough ammo to hit half during the initial skirmish and lose the other half during the actual fight.

    Plus if we lower the fire rate it has the added penalty of directly buffing Shock Cav. Shock Cav have only two weaknesses. Archers and idiot commanders. Lower the fire rate or make them less effective a killing force and one of your best tools for dealing with shock cav goes away. Leaving it so that the only time shock cav isnt the right answer is if you literally face check spears. As it sits now, archers can punish and push Shock Cav to make mistakes or back off.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001

    The firing rate isnt really all that high, if you consider whats coming their way. With a decent strategist at the helm they get just enough ammo to hit half during the initial skirmish and lose the other half during the actual fight.

    Plus if we lower the fire rate it has the added penalty of directly buffing Shock Cav. Shock Cav have only two weaknesses. Archers and idiot commanders. Lower the fire rate or make them less effective a killing force and one of your best tools for dealing with shock cav goes away. Leaving it so that the only time shock cav isnt the right answer is if you literally face check spears. As it sits now, archers can punish and push Shock Cav to make mistakes or back off.

    I'm always open for nerfing the hell out of cavalry too. Hate them since Warhammer made them and monsters so dominant. Being less like that and making infantry the star is always the best direction to take.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 4,247
    A militia-tier archer targeting a single militia-tier Ji infantry unit will usually devastate that unit and cause it to rout, but it will expend almost it's entire supply of ammunition in doing so. Against a shielded militia unit, the archer might take it down to half-health by using all of it's ammo.

    I think ranged infantry are perfectly fine. As others have pointed out, archers are where your main killing-power lay in this period. They're powerful, yes, but not over-powered. They're a danger that the player has to consider in battle, and plan for them accordingly. It's an interesting change of pace.

    The only ranged unit that definitely needs nerfing are the Defenders of Earth and their oil arrows. They're nuts.
  • HelhoundHelhound Registered Users Posts: 5,346

    The firing rate isnt really all that high, if you consider whats coming their way. With a decent strategist at the helm they get just enough ammo to hit half during the initial skirmish and lose the other half during the actual fight.

    Plus if we lower the fire rate it has the added penalty of directly buffing Shock Cav. Shock Cav have only two weaknesses. Archers and idiot commanders. Lower the fire rate or make them less effective a killing force and one of your best tools for dealing with shock cav goes away. Leaving it so that the only time shock cav isnt the right answer is if you literally face check spears. As it sits now, archers can punish and push Shock Cav to make mistakes or back off.

    I'm always open for nerfing the hell out of cavalry too. Hate them since Warhammer made them and monsters so dominant. Being less like that and making infantry the star is always the best direction to take.
    When Infantry is king it makes for slower, less dramatic fights. Which is good for some people. But if I've gotta convince thousands of players to play these battles 100s of times repeatedly with honestly little variance in between them once you get the rhythm down, which do you think I'll go with. 6-10 min fights with Hollywood Cavalry and 300esq arrow hailstorms. Or 26 min fights that devolve into units of infantry several hundred men in count slugging it out inch by inch.

    Sure the second option allows the player more movement and options, while the first is more RTS. But it takes much, much longer, leads to a huge reliance on autoresolve as you just outright refuse to spend a league of legends game amount of time on a city siege, and you'll drive off the more casual playerbase. And option one isn't less strategic just because it plays faster. It just leaves less room for error and massively rewards the split second decisions that net you that sweet backline cav sweep and clear. One isn't a lesser strategy system to the other, just a different kind. And which do you think will sell to a wider audience.

  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 23,584
    I personally think most of the archer units are fine as they are. I don't use trebuchets very much, nor cross-bows, but from I've experienced with them, for and against, they are not a problem.
    "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.

  • AdamYahyaAdamYahya Senior Member Kuala LumpurRegistered Users Posts: 3,318
    Regarding treb, I think I will mod it as a mid game unit. Probably recruitable from Strat gen level 5 and above. That is if I'm unable to make them siege unit only (probably need to do via scripting which I dont have much experience with).
  • Judaka_LTMJudaka_LTM Registered Users Posts: 107
    I've played quite a lot of multiplayer campaign and by far most players abuse calvary and not archers. Players wait for the AI to send their archers and then massacre them with their cavalry. They approach archers without fear of being shot, they devastate them in seconds and then rear charge the melee lines. The AI's archers never seem to do much as a result.

    Archers do rack up the kills when left alone but without reward the risk seems pointless, may as well just replace 6 archers that do no dmg with 3 cav units that will get hundreds of kills.
  • AxlswhkAxlswhk Registered Users Posts: 216
    Please do not nerf anything anymore.

    Romance mode general already massively nerf.

    Calvary massively nerf.

    Zhao Yun nerf beyond fun.

    And now people want archer nerf?

    What’s this nerf campaign all about?
  • vintagepurplevintagepurple Registered Users Posts: 817

    The firing rate isnt really all that high, if you consider whats coming their way. With a decent strategist at the helm they get just enough ammo to hit half during the initial skirmish and lose the other half during the actual fight.

    Plus if we lower the fire rate it has the added penalty of directly buffing Shock Cav. Shock Cav have only two weaknesses. Archers and idiot commanders. Lower the fire rate or make them less effective a killing force and one of your best tools for dealing with shock cav goes away. Leaving it so that the only time shock cav isnt the right answer is if you literally face check spears. As it sits now, archers can punish and push Shock Cav to make mistakes or back off.

    I'm always open for nerfing the hell out of cavalry too. Hate them since Warhammer made them and monsters so dominant. Being less like that and making infantry the star is always the best direction to take.
    Maybe if this was Rome 3, but Han armies should really not be relying on their infantry for killing power, flavour-wise.

    Warhammer is another can of worms since the armies are so different.
  • RO37RO37 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 527
    I mentioned this earlier in the chain but i'll repeat, Han armies were primarily crossbow and archer based srmies. They SHOULD be dominant on the battlefield.

    If all Total War historical titles played exactly the same as the infantry based Rome series rlor the cavalry centric Medieval, what's the point of doing different historical settings reskinning the armies.

    Trebuchet's need a nerf, but crossbows need to remain a powerfuk central force on the battlefield, given the setting.
Sign In or Register to comment.