monsters and swordfighting

[Shizzle]

Isn't that because archers focus on a single unit, whereas infantry hits are move divided over the opposing force?

[De-Legro]

A nobleman doesn't fight. He stands in the back row and "supervises". Occasionally a plucky enemy infantryman makes it to him, and gets put down by nobleman's superior swordsmanship skills. (Even 5% is pretty good odds against a peasant.) Then the nobleman complains that he got peasant blood on his plate-mail.

You allow peasants to take the battlefield? You have dishonoured the fallen. I ensure that only minor nobility make up my units, and will simply not engage peasants upon the field of honour.

[egamma]

You allow peasants to take the battlefield? You have dishonoured the fallen. I ensure that only minor nobility make up my units, and will simply not engage peasants upon the field of honour.

You've never once commanded archers?

[De-Legro]

You've never once commanded archers?

Archers? Yuck. The dishonorable scoundrels don't even close with the enemy so you can look him in the eye while you run him through. They should all be hanged.

[Chenier]

Anecdotally, I'd say yes.  I've seen more Heroes killed by archers, and my characters have gotten wounded more by archers than by melee.  But, that may just be my perception filter at work.

From my experiences, archers wound a lot more often. I believe I've seen more deaths to melee troops than to archers, though.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

I believe that overkill leads to higher chances of wounds. In that case, usually archers are less capable of overkill. It might just be me, but at least that's how it seemed in the battles where I saw heroes die.