Archers in combat

[fodder]

... it's not all that different from horses charging all the way off the map... which happened a while back.

[Indirik]

Also...what was their weapons range? I think they would have won if their range had been 4 rows.

Mixed infantry have a max range of three.

[egamma]

... it's not all that different from horses charging all the way off the map... which happened a while back.

"Bravely rode Sir Robin, Sir Robin ran away"

[MaleMaldives]

So...what settings were they on? aggressive/normal/defensive, block/line/skirmish? It would be really cool if setting them to skirmish actually did something like what you just saw.

They were sent to Defensive and Line, and yes range 3.

[Foundation]

"Bravely rode Sir Robin, Sir Robin ran away"

"Hey, I was... chasing other enemies!"

"What other enemies?"

"... what, you can't see?  Must be your eyes."

[songqu88@gmail.com]

As nobles it would be uncouth to turn back once one has made his mind to charge forth with great courage. The only way is forward!

[Silverfire]

I don't believe it is compeltely accurate to say that archers never fired into a melee that was already begun. Depending on how many troops were involved in a melee and how well trained the archers were, archers were able to target the back end of a unit of enemy troops and pick them off before they reached the engagement line, even if the front end of the troops in the unit are engaged unless they are very spread out, the entire unit wasn't always engaged at once.

Now of course while the full forces are fully engaged the archers usually wouldn't fire, but highly skilled archers could pick off individual targets from a large distance. I think allowing archers to fire into the back end of VERY LARGE melee should be allowed with reduced effectiveness for sure.

Perhaps also add an option for archers to retreat (without incurring casualties) once a melee is fully engaged. That way they can pull back before the fight reaches them and not lose soldiers. As it is archers aren't very effective unless on top of walls or by use of a very skilled commander.

[De-Legro]

I don't believe it is compeltely accurate to say that archers never fired into a melee that was already begun. Depending on how many troops were involved in a melee and how well trained the archers were, archers were able to target the back end of a unit of enemy troops and pick them off before they reached the engagement line, even if the front end of the troops in the unit are engaged unless they are very spread out, the entire unit wasn't always engaged at once.

Now of course while the full forces are fully engaged the archers usually wouldn't fire, but highly skilled archers could pick off individual targets from a large distance. I think allowing archers to fire into the back end of VERY LARGE melee should be allowed with reduced effectiveness for sure.

Perhaps also add an option for archers to retreat (without incurring casualties) once a melee is fully engaged. That way they can pull back before the fight reaches them and not lose soldiers. As it is archers aren't very effective unless on top of walls or by use of a very skilled commander.

One of the main problems, is that with a few exceptions like the Welsh archers, for much of the medieval period archers simply weren't well trained. That is why it was such a surprise when the English and Welsh longbow men destroyed the French knights, it was generally accepted that archers were of marginal use in a army until that time. Crossbow men changed this a bit, as it was much easier and quicker to train with the crossbow to a reasonable proficiency.

[Silverfire]

One of the main problems, is that with a few exceptions like the Welsh archers, for much of the medieval period archers simply weren't well trained. That is why it was such a surprise when the English and Welsh longbow men destroyed the French knights, it was generally accepted that archers were of marginal use in a army until that time. Crossbow men changed this a bit, as it was much easier and quicker to train with the crossbow to a reasonable proficiency.

Yes, so I mean I guess some consideration has to be given whether we want to consider ourselves in battlemaster at a point where archers can actually make such a difference or not. I think this should be an easy decision because we already have a training stat for our archers. Perhaps archers with training above 75% or 80% could have the ability to engage in this way while others wouldn't even have the option or idea.

It is just a thought.

[egamma]

Yes, so I mean I guess some consideration has to be given whether we want to consider ourselves in battlemaster at a point where archers can actually make such a difference or not. I think this should be an easy decision because we already have a training stat for our archers. Perhaps archers with training above 75% or 80% could have the ability to engage in this way while others wouldn't even have the option or idea.

It is just a thought.

+1 this. I think the training stat would be a great choice for this sort of thing.

[Bedwyr]

This is rendered moot (or granted, or what have you) with the recent changes to archer code.  Please keep an eye out for balance issues.  It looks like this should put archers and infantry back on a similar cost-effectiveness ratio, but then again it may not.