47 replies to this topic

[{IP} Aridor]

Even modern crossbows don't outrange modern composite recurve bows. I have both. To get a crossbow to outrange a normal type bow, like a longbow, the cross piece would have to be the length of a longbow. Power and range are different. A crossbow is powerful because it can shoot a solid bolt of steel, whereas the normal arrow only has metal on the tip. So since force is mass times acceleration. F=ma. The large mass of the iron bolt plus the rapid acceleration of the crosspiece gives it lots of force right away, but as you get farther away from where you shot drag slows it down. Hence why it is used at close range. Now range is another matter and it requires harder physics. Range is based on launch angle, initial velocity, drag, and ballistic trajectory. Now the last one is the big kicker in range. A crossbow bolt has a bad trajectory. After it loses speed it tumbles, like a bullet. Now a crossbow is aimed straight on like a gun. This is what makes it easy to use. You just point and shoot. Now a longbow. As far as force goes it has less, because again, F=ma, and an arrow as less mass, but there is one part of this that we need to remember and that is acceleration, but we'll return to that in a second. Now the big issue here is the range of longbows. A longbow has a launch angle of whatever you need, this makes it harder to aim because you have to figure how it will fall (note that word "fall" it will be important later). So a longbow for max range can launch at 45degrees. Now you might say why can't you do that with a crossbow? The reason is that the crossbow bolt doesn't have a good ballistic path after it slows down. It tumbles and rolls through the air, taking it off course and increassing the drag a lot. Why doesn't a normal arrow do this? Because it has fletchings, or the feathers on the back, these are angled so the arrow spins, so it continues on a ballistic path. Even more subtle the arrow wiggles back and forth as it goes through the air. This stabilizes it in flight. This stops it from rolling and tumbling through the air like a bolt. You might say why don't you fletch the crossbow bolts? Well early on they didn't know how to get the feathers to stick on the iron. Later when they did they found that it didn't help much because the weight of the bolt was in the middle not the tip like an arrow. (In modern carbon fiber crossbows, the bolt is composite fiber with a steel tip. I can explain why they still hit with a lot of force, but that isn't relevant) The heavy tip of the arrow is what carries the arrow over the top of the arc when it is shot. Now remember when I said that there was more to the force of a longbow then the mass of the arrow? I said a word that I said was important, that word was fall. Now as an arrow comes into the target from the top of the arc it is gaining speed. It is gaining acceleration. This is because it is falling. Gravity pulls the arrow faster and faster the farther it falls. Plugging this into the equation f=ma we see that it still has large force because the "a" is getting bigger. Unlike the crossbow bolt that losses acceleration.This means that at close range a crossbow is far better for shooting a small number of heavily armored troops. Like all the good factions have. The longbow is better for a mass of units at far range, which the evil factions have. So in short the crossbow doesn't out range the longbow.

[Dalf32]

spectacular rant again but i jsut dont really think its taht practical in-game to cut the crossbow's range in half or whatever and to increase the range of the other bows. id love to hear a plan that you might have to make it work, otherwise this is really irrelevant.

[mike_]

Seems like a good idea to me. The only problem would be getting said crossbowmen into sufficient range with which to return fire to the opposing bowmen.
Though, in all honesty, they shouldn't be in a direct firefight anyway - in true battle, melee troops should charge their enemies while the ranged units fall behind and/or get in position with which to support their mates up front.

[{IP} Aridor]

Dalf you are thinking in a straight line. Think outside the box. Mike has the right direction. It will require players to change their tactics. In reality the crossbows didn't go one on one with longbows. They were used as a support unit. Unlike the longbows, which were used only by england, which are used as a main fighting force. Now in game if you make the accuracy low on the longbow then if a player builds lots of longbows they become very vulnerable to cav. It would end up like the battle of bannockburn. You just have to change how you think. In fact it becomes easier because if you make it realistic you can use real historical tactics. There is a counter to everything. Though I think in the interest of gameplay we can never go so real so that we have cav archers that can while moving. The only thing people would build would be cav archers, b/c they are op in the real world.

[Dalf32]

ok, i suppose this could be done. crossbowmen would do more damage and be more accurate, but at a much closer range (and would therefore be better against cavalry than longbowmen) while the longbowmen would have longer range but be less accurate. this would take some balancing and owuld definitely make isengard very unique (being the only faction that uses crossbows iirc).
alright, i could live with that implemented.
see, i can be persuaded

[{IP} Aridor]

It makes it more fun because you need different strategies and tactics for each faction.

[Dalf32]

well thats yet to be proven, but i think, at this point, we should put it in.

[robnkarla]

Well, all I have to say right now is that I'm working through all of the archer unit weapons. You can always reach me on MSN while I do this rob.n.karla@hotmail.com

Robert J.

Edit: To give you an idea of what I've been planning on for bombard et al, the private beta in April started to change how bombard works and ranges, vision, etc. Bombard was switched to a much longer range (about 2x as far, and the ranges of different units now vary a little more than previously). I'm coding these changes (accuracy, scatter distance, etc. as well) through all the archer hordes.

For crossbow, I'm going to work on them to see if I can get them a little stronger. I've even thought about maybe at level # or something, maybe they can get a very minor knockback But they should be closer range, powerful, with a slower reload time.

Also, I've thought about working with the bombard on siege weapons as well. Giving them a larger distance when bombarding compared to targeting.

Edited by robnkarla, 19 June 2008 - 07:47 AM.

[myster]

**long story**

Is it possible elven archers Could shoot their arrows in a straighter way then the human archers due to their inhuman strength wich would allow them too pull the arrow farther back in the bow?

[Vithar-133]

In my opinion, seeing as elves were far better in archery than Men were, I would thin that they would have the greatest accuracy.
Here's how I would break things down, by range:

Thrown Weapons: This mean Knives, Swords(unlikely), Axes, Spears. Extremely varying accuracy and range. Mostly dependent upon the thrower.

Crossbows: Ah, yes, now this is a true weapon. Larger Range than the thrown weapons, probably the most damaging of the ranged weapons. Extremely accurate

Orc Shortbows: Those insults to bowmakers used by goblins and spam orcs. Little better than a thrown weapon. Range may be a little better than the crossbow. Probably stinks like a dead zoo...Extremely inaccurate.

Human longbows: A powerful weapon, third to the crossbow. Greater range than the Orc bows and crossbows, lacking in damage. Relatively accurate.

Elven Longbows: The cream of the ranged weapon group. Greatest range, Great damage, only second to the crossbow. Extremely accurate...For a bow.

[Puppeteer]

Then why did the Longbowmen of Agincourt have to brace the torrent of the crossbow bolts, before having to run in a short distance to return fire for half a minute, before retreating again? From accounts of the era in that English period, and from archery instructors and know-it-alls, it appears that a common English battle tactic was to do somewhat shortened "hit-&-run". They would try to avoid the fire of the crossbow volley before they would reload, taking the best part of a minute. The Longbowmen would then be forced to run in to fire about 6 times before having to retreat, else they were too far in the range of the deadly piercing bolts. They did this not to get a better shot, but because they had to. Else the French crossbows might attempt it. This, if obviously correct, shows that the longbows had a shorter range than crossbows. I would say perhaps in counter-arguement, that this may be because at the time of Henry V's rule the longbow had not been fully perfected (the Welsh can't do everything ) and so it's maximum capabilities not realised. But, is true the same could be said of the crossbow because it had been only invented much more recently than the bow, and certain patterns and firing mechanisms can be itnerchangeable from bow to longbow, but not bow to crossbow.
It's a confusing matter; it seems by common sense that the longbow, by it's very entymology, that it should have the superior range, but I have heard from many archery instructors and from accounts of Crecy and Agincourt of the English tactics.

[{IP} Aridor]

BRAVO!! Well said, that is exactly how it should be. Now as far as cost and build time I think the ranking would be as follows.
Build time (fastest to slowest)
orc short bows-b/c it is simply a piece of wood and doesn't require training, hence why they stink.
thown weapons-b/c they can be made fast and it doesn't take long to learn how to throw something.
Crossbow-b/c they are rather quick to make and easy to learn.
Longbow(man) - b/c they are quicker to make than a xbow but require a lot more training.
Elves - b/c these are real works of art. They are built by masters.

Cost(cheapest to expensive)
orc - self explainitory
Man longbow - it is just wood
Crossbow - it uses a little more expensive parts
Elves - They are made out of only the best wood
Thrown - metal is harder to come by then wood (but these are for the dwarves so they would have great acess to metal so that could throw off the cost some.)

[robnkarla]

While in realism, many of the ideas outlined would be spot on, but there are things in term of gameplay that are examined that throws a wrench in the whole deal. Let's take Elves for Example.

There are basically 3 levels of archers within the elven faction (as it currently stands):

Basic: Lorien, Rivendell, & Mirkwood each have a basic archer unit
Elite: Lorien has Marchwardens adn Mirkwood have their archers
Toggle: Lorien, Rivendell, & Mirkwood have their toggle unit
Mounted: Lorien has a toggle mounted, and Mirkwood is strictly mounted

The goal is for each of the three types to fill a role (each faction filling a different variation on that role), so that they balance against the other factions without being overpowered as well as at any given time you might have a need for that role.

So what you have listed can be used as a guideline for these.

Basic - Roughly on par with the average man unit (anything more would be overpowered to have near elite valued units early game). Outclassing both throwing weapons and orc/goblin. Use - cheaper and more a part of the main army, with armor upgrades, etc.

Elite - These are the archers of the game. Highest Range, and with bombard = 2x range can easily bombard the farthest in the game. Their cost is more prohibitive, they are light armor and maybe move a little faster than their counterparts.

Toggle - They are the mid-range guys. They have range a little stronger than the basic, but not as strong as the elites. They're more cost prohibitive, so will not be run-of-the mill army, can be a versitle addition to your army.

Mounted - Their strength is their speed and cavalry enhancement. Gamplay wise, they are strong against cavalry units, have trample and are a half-way counter to enemy cavalry. Their range is lower, but their "armor/health" is stronger as well as speed.

So what you've outlined is well and good, and I've been using something similar as I've been working through all the bugs/changes to archer units, just adjusted to meet the different levels within the structure. In aggregate the different areas (throwing, crossbows, orcs, human, elves) are about what is outlined I hope. There will likely be changes as things are balanced, but I've doing what I can for some time to flesh out this area of gameplay.

Robert J.

[Vithar-133]

@ Puppeteer: this is a little OT, but With those particular accounts, you made no mention of the terrain. If the Crossbows are up on a hill, then they will have a range that is increased do to the laws of physics, largely the Second of Newton's laws.


Point: On Flat terrain, a crossbow might have a range of 100 to 200 yards.
Uphill, firing towards the crest, a crossbow may lose half it's distance.
Downhill, firing towards the valley, a crossbow might gain twenty yards, depending on make.

Point 2: On flat terrain, a longbow could shoot upwards of 300 yards.
Uphill, won't lose as much as the crossbow, depending on the height.
Downhill...just don't end up on the receiving end of a volley.

Also, those accounts might have failed to inform you of the weather conditions, as Both bows and crossbows would be ill affected by rain and wind.

Also, if I am correct, both Crecy and Agincourt were held by the french, and as such they would know the lay of the land as well as they probably would have been holding any forts or castles.


There's the lesson for the day.

Edited by Vithar Megilaglar, 20 June 2008 - 01:51 AM.

[mike_]

IIRC, the English longbowmen were for a large part of the battle stuck in a "mire of muck and filth" due to recent rains. Could be wrong, though.

[CIL]

No, I think you're right. I could easily Wiki it, though.

Edited by Crazy Intellectual Liberal, 20 June 2008 - 05:37 AM.

[Vithar-133]

If you are right mike, than they french crossbowmen would still have the advantage.

Edited by Vithar Megilaglar, 20 June 2008 - 02:10 PM.

[dojob]

While I mostly agree with AA IP'er about the archer roles, I don't think we need to factor in accuracy as that's just overcomplication.

The main thing I disagree with is that the weapons throwers shouldn't be the most expensive, but should cost what they do now or maybe if more, then only a little because of the crappiest range.

In terms of tactics and whatnot, diversity is good though and I agree with most of your other general roles for archer units; xbowmen should be like shotguns and would be among the most heavily armored (unupgraded) since they need to get close in order to shoot.

So as for classes, it should be like you and Rob mentioned; there should be:

-Crappy orc archers: horrendous stats all around but cheap and in big hordes. As for range, about the same as xbows or maybe a bit more

-Basic Archers: ok guys with decent range thats more than vision to make the use of units in front to kind of spot for them more important, would be pretty much like they are now and better with upgrades. I'm not gonna discuss whether they shoot via bombard or normal or whatever atm, maybe i'll get into that later.

-Xbows: as I described

-Ax/knife/sword throwers: Crappy range (a bit less than xbows, but enough that they can shoot from behind 1-2 hordes), very well-armored, very high damage

-Spear/javelin throwers: a lot like the other weapon throwers, but with crush revenge and are decent vs cavalry, especially mounted archers

-Mounted archers: (as Rob said, decent vs cavalry and maybe give them knockback against infantry to make them more viable for harassing them)

-Toggle Archers: slightly better than normal archers and swordsmen and better armor than basic archers, but rather costly

-Elite Archers: high stats all around, including cost


This seems like a good case to side with realism as it would make things more deep and interesting, as long as they don't end up OP or UP.

Edited by dojob, 20 June 2008 - 03:46 PM.

[Vithar-133]

Orc archers' range should be no better, if not worse than the weapon throwers, because of their bow quality.

[dojob]

That's too horrendous imo, especially since iirc, orc archers cost the same as Dwarven ATs. They need to be able to use hit-and-run tactics in order to survive against a Dwarven or Angmarian onslaught of weapons throwers or else it i'll end up costing the Mordor player way too much to counter them.