Archery poll
 

Please read this post - but not the rest of the thread - before answering the poll

This is a poll about archery in Dominions II, to help guide the Recruitable Rebalance mod.

For reference:

g means 'gold'
ap means 'armor piercing'
sn means 'shield negating,' caused by the '#flail' command. Normally, missiles must roll versus shield defense to hit a unit.

The questions are usually phrased as, "Is unit x too weak, just right, or too strong?" This should be answered in relation to other possible uses of money and resources. In other words, if you think that the combat effectiveness of slingers feels just right, but that they are too expensive... or if they have the right cost and power, but eat too much food or don't have enough strat moves... please answer "too weak."

Also, please answer all questions based on default Dominions II, not based on modded units. And feel free to explain or qualify your responses in this thread - that's really more valuable than the poll results! Wombats and others posted some excellent historical data on various bows and crossbows in the Recruitable Rebalance thread that you may want to consult, but answering the poll based on gut instinct with no knowledge of anything but strategy games, RPGs, or fantasy novels is fine too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

If you are unsure about a question, please choose answer 2, which (unless I made a mistake) means you like the current value of the unit or weapon.

Re: Archery poll
 

There are imho some problems with missile units that lower their efficiency :
1. and most important you can use decoys . If you place your troops e.g. like that :
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
rear front
xxx x &lt;-- decoy
xxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxx
xxx x &lt;-- decoy
</pre><hr />
Then likely a few volleys are wasted on the decoys for no effect at all . With scripting of archers you can avoid this a bit but not completely . PD archers can't be scripted and will always waste their volleys on the decoys .

Then there is the next problem :
2. Archer protection and storm :
If you have no staff of storms some strong fliers like devils or fiends of darkness will slaughter your archers quickly . If you have a staff of storms then your archers are protected but less effective because of the storm .

So basically archers are weak imho , but there is the exeption wind guide + flaming arrows .
With these 2 buffs archers are quite powerful .

But to that there are other counters . The various kinds of archers are all low hp and low protection . If you use wind guide + flaming arrows you normally try to gather 50-100 archers . This leads to supplyproblems . You can cure that with vinebags etc. but this leads normally to a quite big army : 50-100 archers , 20-50 fodder troops at least and at least 1 wind guide and 1 flaming arrow caster .
This kind of army is a good target for flames from the sky , ghost riders , ashen angel etc. .
And the archers are quite bad in battles , any of the massive damage spells wipes them out quickly .
While knights etc. can survive earthquake , rain of stones , flame storm etc. the archers die extremely easy to it .

And last but not least they do massive friendly fire casualities http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif.

Re: Archery poll
 

The targetting algothrithms have gotten better through Dominions II, but decoys are still a major problem, and FF casualties happen often. And, as you say, food, fliers, and frailty are disadvantages, not to mention arrow fend. Still, some of these problems affect other units too, like battlemages and infantry.

Re: Archery poll
 

Yeah so i would say make the archers quite strong http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif .

Cause as it is any decent infantry like principes owns archers in combat without enchantments .
2 principes cost 30 gold , so do 3 archers .
The principes own them .
If you do 40 principes vs. 60 archers then you use decoys to your advantage and they own them even more http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif .

Balancing them is quite difficult though because otoh the longbow of accuracy is cool . It hits almost always .
Imho giving all archers +2 precision and +3 damage would be a good first try .
I think you suggested this already also yourself in the other thread :
Giving x-bows a rather short range like 20 but an extremely good precision would be worth a test also .
So new x-bows fire every 3 turns , have 20 range but 14 ap damage and at least 25 precision .
They were the ancient sniper rifles imho http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif .

Re: Archery poll
 

I figured everyone would be down on slingers but I find them useful. Not so much as deadly archers, but I think they serve a purpose and it is in line with their logic. I find that I can cheaply create a cloud of small rocks flying at an army. This is sufficient to rout many of the cheaper bulk units (yeah I know, you disdain using them also) and things like elephants or Call of the Wild. They also get archer benefits for patrolling. I think upping their damage would be illogical. Like many aspects of the game, their lack of use is not from lack of usefulness but more from lack of experimentation. IMHO


As for the decoys and friendly fire comments, I think if you use the page-down key and up-arrow key in a battle replay you will see that they are fairly realistic. If you stick a big statue up front, I will shoot it. If you put me behind your infantry, I will shoot them (setting to the side, or in front with a fire-retreat tactic, or having the target rear units avoids alot of friendly fire)

Gandalf Parker

Re: Archery poll
 

Are you really trying to say that there is any circumstance in where a person who understands how the game works would rather make 7 gold 3 resource militia instead of 10 gold 8 resource crossbowmen?

I think not.

When someone who understands the game has the misfortune of receiving militia they sent them to their slaughter as soon as reasonabily possible.

Your never ending platitude that "every unit has it's place" is tiresome. Some units are simply better than other on a cost basis given the costs and abilities in the game today.

Re: Archery poll
 

Being able to produce 3 slingers to one archer is something I do often. You dont find that 30 slings causes more route than 10 shortbows? Or that 30 slingers patrolling does more good than 10 archers?

Of course maps and settings can matter alot. I tend to play epic maps so I build many units in many places. On small maps, or high resources, slingers would probably be a waste.

Re: Archery poll
 

I voted 'I find them useful' for blowpipes, even though I don't actually use them. They are niche weapons, and don't really deserve to be given serious attention. They're fun to fight against, though, and add flavour the game.

Re: Archery poll
 

First a question because i never tested that :
Do the slingers benefit from flaming arrows also ?
It is only 15 slingers vs. 10 archers resourcewise and goldwise it is 40 slingers vs. 35 archers if you take the 8 gold 3 resource archers which exist rather as indy archers or as machaka archers .

Problem is that the shortbow has 30 range while a sling has only 20 range . The shortbows get this way 1 freeshot and very often the slingers with only 7 morale rout then from this first salvo already .

Unless you do extremely resourceheavy troops like knights not resources but gold is normally the limiting factor .

So Huzurdaddi is just correct . A plain shortbowman is better then a slinger and longbowmen or x-bowmen are defenitely better then slingers .

Longbowmen are only 6 resources also , x-bows from marignon 8 resources , then there are indy x-bows for 7 resorces if you are lucky and finally if you are uberlucky the hoburg x-bowmen for only 7 gold and 7 resources .
They are imho the best recruitable missile unit in the game http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Archery poll
 

Does everything have to be usefull?

Re: Archery poll
 

well Ive played games where resources were the deciding factor. It wasnt worth me saving gold to make bowmen somehwere else. I dont care as much about "best" as I do pros and cons.

If you nitpick the numbers to "best" then we will only have 6 units in the game. You might as well be playing chess.

Re: Archery poll
 

In SP yeah but i have to admit that i am even there kinda a powergamer . In MP most other ppl are also http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif .
But that's only personal taste . I made 3 quickfights in your nice minimap 35 machaka archers vs. 40 slingers and in one of the 3 fights , entertainingly the first one , the slingers won .
So thnx to the really good dice roll system though the slingers are a bit worse as shortbowmen they are not so useless that they are never worth being bought also http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif .
Especially by arco cause they are their only missile troop http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif . It is always a question of availibility too . 99% of the Man players will always buy longbowmen instead of slingers but some Arcoplayers will buy slingers until they find e.g. cheap indy x-bowmen or archers .

Which 6 units that would be ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I would say that at least 50 units are very useful http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Archery poll
 

Boron... Gandalf...

Slingers would be worth considering if their purchase price dropped by 2 gold per unit... otherwise they're rarely worth it based on morale and precision.


I rarely have seen the blowpipe dudes use their archery poison pipes even when able to... so I rarely get them except for those extreme/scary conditions. Also their precision would have to be more accurate for me to consider them seriously in a marching army.

Re: Archery poll
 

Yes! If something is never useful, it has no reason to exist, as it detracts from the game (like rotten sea-slug entrails at a salad bar). More importantly, if something was never historically useful, it would never have existed (or been remembered). Slings, shortbows, axes, and militia were not deployed for centuries because they were useless (that's a double-negative, meaning "they were deployed because they were useful") - so if a game makes them seem useless, something's wrong!

Re: Archery poll
 

More useful units leads to more variety, which I find enjoyable.

Re: Archery poll
 

Mmmf, even at -2 gold I wouldn't buy slingers if their weapons still are so much crap.
Same for blowpipes, they have a very limited usefulness for sneaky tactics, but are horribly weak, only 1 time out of 10 (100?) do they manage to use their pipe before routing ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Archery poll
 

For reference, what is the distance from one end of the battlefield to the other, in terms of range? What is the distance between two opposing units who are at the very front and center of their formation spaces?

Re: Archery poll
 

According to Liga's Manual addenda, the entire battlefield is 58x28 squares wide, that is 24x28 per army plus 10 neutral columns in between the opposing forces. However I did not count that myself...

Re: Archery poll
 

Except that Dominions doesn't model some of the things that made those things useful. For example : militia were used for ages because, "real" troops required training and equipment, while militia could simply be pulled from the farms when it wasn't planting or harvent time.

Similarly, axes and slings were used for ages because they were cheap and easy to make - slings could be made almost instantly from rags, while an axe required a piece of wood and an axe head, both of which could be turned out in good quantity by trained people in a single day. A sword, on the other hand, took days of work for a single weapon.

Finally - many of those were useful for centuries because there weren't demons, undead, demi-gods, and mages on the battle field, nor were there entire armies that were all heavily armored, making the sling and short bow almost totally useless. Look at Ulmish armies - if there had been entire armies wearing heavy plate mail in historic warfare, a long of tactics and weapons would have been useless.

Re: Archery poll
 

I think there are several flaws with the poll, but I've been working 12+ hour days so I may not be reading / thinking right. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

First : Asking whether units were underpowered / useful / overpowered, without mentioning whether people should be compared to normal, recruitable troops, or considering summoned creatures and whatnot. ( On the one paw, a person might think it was normal recruitable troops, but on the other paw, banefire archers were included in the poll. )

Second : All the questions about "what damage should X be :" were .... Well, lets just say that I didn't have time or energy to look up what their damages currently were, so simply picked choice #1 for each and every one of those. From a methodology POV, too many questions is a bad thing, especially when all questions need to be answered to see the results. Especially when giving any old answer for them gives the instant gratification of seeing the results. Bad wolf, no cherry. Bad Cherry, no wolf. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Archery poll
 

Ouch, that would explain why you haven't been around for blitzes... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Archery poll
 

I have too. Sometimes, 16-hour days, including weekends... for a week, anyway.

PvK

Re: Archery poll
 

Slingers were useful because they were missile units, and historically, missile units were rare. That is, not just people who could shoot a bow or sling, but groups of them who could be brought on a military campaign. Professional archers took years to learn their trade. It wasn't just "how many bows and arrows can be whip together and give to random conscripts?". So part of the problem with trying to match historical reality is that there are so many provinces that offer shortbow troops, and part of it is that they require _fewer_ gold and resources than other generic troops.

The rest of the issue is the typical one, that Dom2 makes summons and super-powerful spells really cheap for their effects, putting mere mortals into the "overpriced" category.

PvK

Re: Archery poll
 

Yep, I realized that a couple hours after posting the poll... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I meant "Compared to recruitable units," but as you say, I should not have included Banefire archers in that case. I wonder what people have been assuming?

Fortunately, I didn't make that error http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif The top post says:

So, that should at least exempt me from a bad methodology accusation http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Archery poll
 

I thought this was a good poll, SC. Was nice to just get a rough feel for everyone's opinion about the state of missle weapons.

My only comments so far:
Slingers aren't hampered so much by damage as short range. Their range is so short that you can't even (reliably) place them behind a screen of infantry and expect them to stay there and fire, like you can with all the archer units.

Arbalests need to have thier accuracy bumped WAY up. Cause in a normal battle you will get one, maybe two volleys off if you are lucky, so you cannot waste a single bullet. I realize this is not perfectly historically accurate but I feel its necessary given the dom2 rate of fire of the arbalest.

And I wasnt sure if anyone had responded to Boron: yes, slings are effected by flaming arrows. Any missle weapon (slings, arrows, javs, ballista bolts, probably boulders??) are all effected.

Re: Archery poll
 

Yes slings are just too short range! Same problem with c'tis poison slingers... great idea but most of the time only half of them get one shot off (and they all miss) before the opposing army slaughters them.

Maybe I need to try putting slingers (of any kind) above or below my main force and try fire rearmost or fire archers? Has this worked for anyone?

Re: Archery poll
 

Due to the range problem, I've given up using slingers as a field combat unit. I do recall recruiting them once as Arco in a particular game that favored the use of Flaming Arrows. Used them there as fort garrisons, since they had cheap strength/cost ratios and the wall of the fort would prevent them from running headlong into the enemy. They would just mob up against it for a while until the enemy got close enough and then pelt them like they were supposed to. It was ok.

My other (rare) use of slingers is as archer decoys. Since they are technically "archers" you can use them to absorb anything that would normally target your worthwhile missle units.

Edit: On a side note.. you know what might be a fun unit? Some kind of Seige Engine type thing. Size 6, 1 strat move, 0 tac move, 0/0 att/def, 50 hp maybe, some prot perhaps? maybe a kite shield for equipment to make it hard to kill with arrows. And all it would do is cast Flying Shards or something with range 15-20. So - not useful in the field due to the short range. But if you put it as far forward as possible during a siege it would be able to fire at the attackers/defenders over the wall.

Re: Archery poll
 

I'm going to disagree with this statement. It's entirely appropriate if some things are the worst thing. In fact, some things pretty much must be the worst thing unless everything is the same.

Slingers being kind of crappy doesn't make the game worse, it makes it better. Imagine if it was seriously a good idea to just build whatever any particular province happened to make... where would the strategy go?

As is, the fact that the special units are pretty special when compared to many other units means that there are provinces worth fighting for. And the fact that some units are pretty sucky makes other provinces hard to defend. And since some of those hard to reach places also happen to spawn in provinces known for magic site richness - the fact that they are hard to defend really matters a lot.

---

I am in favor of making the Arbalester really good, in the same way that the Longbowman is really good, because Ulm is getting kicked in the crotch on mages because its infantry is supposed to be good. So damnit, that infantry should be really good.

But independent infantry? Can anyone tell me a single good reason why all of that should be worth buying?

-Frank

Re: Archery poll
 

I think you are on a different page from SC, Frank. SC's goal (i believe) is simply to give every unit *some* value, not make them all the same value. So slingers would still be the worst of the archer-type units, but thier gp/res would be balanced according to thier actual value and standing in the ranking of archer-units.

In this way, you actually have more strategy, not less, as you suggested. Since before a balance you would just never build slingers, ever. But after a balancing, you might say to yourself "you know do to this, this, and that factor, slingers might be a cost effective choice here" and then build some.

Re: Archery poll
 

Well, slingers can be nice, outside a battle: if you need defenders fast, being able to recruit fifty slingers in a single turn isn't bad at all. Of course, slingers are hardly cost efficient here, but you were perhaps not expecting to be under siege, and need a couple of turns to get your counter up and running. I know a bunch of slingers helped me last for several turns in one game, long enough to allow my mages to research some destructive spells. In this particular example, my mages were slaughtered regardless, but that was more because of my weak tactics than anything else.

Likewise, I guess slingers can be useful if you need a sieging force, and you don't have the time/resources to get some Gate Cleavers (or something of the like). Slingers should also be able to patrol well, and I guess they can do some pillaging if needed, when using a scorched earth strategy - or even a "I have lost, but I will strive to make the victory of my foe as pointless as possible" (I have found this to be quite fun). Lastly, slingers are decent fodder troops for killer spells: if you don't have a dome up, slingers should help reduce the casualties if someone decides to cast some Fires from Afar (or maybe even discourage them from casting the spell, as your troops are too numerous).

So, my point was that slingers (and other light units) can be useful as it stands now, especially to take care of unexpected situations (not having had the time to research Domes with very hard research, being betrayed, losing the bulk of your army...). For such uses, the cheaper the unit is, the better; in some cases, the only thing you need could be a few regular units, so that your army won't rout as soon as the first commander is killed. In Yarnspinners, my sages and four axemen are all that remains of my armies, and I sure am glad those axemen were here to save my sages. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Don't get my wrong though: I am not saying slingers don't need a buff: I feel they are too expensive for their limited use in battle (triggering morale checks on the other side, or perhaps making your own troops going berserker by using friendly fire). My point was merely that light units can be good under certain circumstances - though you probably don't want to be in those circumstances, as it isn't exactly good news for you. And once you have no more use for the light units, it may be easier to kill them off. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif (If the foe can fully slaughter them before they have retreated that is)

Re: Archery poll
 

Well, I think we need all units to have a good balance between usefulness and cost.
Currently there are some rare moments where recruiting a bunch of slingers make sense, but frankly how often does this occur ? This means that in 99% of case slingers are a no-go, there's not much strategy involved...
Sure also, "buffed" slingers should not be made equal to crossbowmen, but there should be more often a choice to do, for example "10 crossbowmen or 25 slingers ?" Here lies strategy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Archery poll
 

I'm with the 'keep 'em useless' school of thought.

Nations with good technology SHOULD have an edge. Slings shouldn't even come close to being as effective as longbows or arbalests.

Re: Archery poll
 

What about shortbows? That's what SC has been doing, AFAIUnderstand. I think everyone agrees on with slingers having to be worse than arbalests.

Re: Archery poll
 

I don't intend to make slings as effective as longbows or arbalests... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Archery poll
 

In that case, they are fine as is.

Remember that even a unit you would never ever buy has strategic import in this game as long as it is local to some areas. It means that:
[*] Certain provinces are easy to capture, and easy for enemies to take back from you.
[*] Certain nations get inferior province defense. Coincidentally, some of these nations have the easiest time conquering neutrals in the first place.
[*] Your "good" army can't always be made on the front, sometimes it has to be made way in the back of your empire and then walked through swamps and crap.
[*] The ability to build your national troops in places you build a castle is important and good.

Now, it's a very easy argument that the current rules go too far on this, especially on the castle thing. But I really don't think this can/should be solved by making the slingers any less terrible than they are now.

The only changes I'd like to see are:
[*] I want the minimum resources to spend on a shortbowman to be 5 or 6, with the exception of the Villain. Those guys come from magic sites, and they should actually matter.
[*] Arbalesters fire every other round instead 1/3 rounds. They are marketted as a Crossbow upgrade, and right now they are a trade-off that costs more.

-Frank

Re: Archery poll
 

I can't quite understand how one can ask for "useless units" ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif
Sure slingers should be weaker than LBows or Arbalests, and maybe also than Sbows, but then they should be comparatively cheaper, and not have on top of that a ridiculously low morale ...
Else you should as well delete them and use the slot for something useful ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Archery poll
 

Except in the most extreme, extreme cases, I will never spend money on a "useless" unit, regardless of its location. It is better to save that money, and spend it on a useful, cost efficient units elsewhere. Every unit has to be balanced to be cost-effective - not powerful, mind you! - just cost-effective. The unit's cost must match its value, whatever the value/power that the unit happens to be.

When all the units are properly balanced, I can assure you that I will still build 95% of all my units in national forts. But there will now be realistic cases where I can rationalize spending money on some indy slingers in a heavy warzone or some light infantry to patrol or be chaff.

Re: Archery poll
 

Slings are stone age weapons, though. They can't and shouldn't be able to compete with high medieval stuff. And since slingers are humans, it's most unthematic to make them cost the same as lobo guards, in order to make them balanced.

Re: Archery poll
 

Sandman, you aren't really correct. Slings are a very ancient weapon, that were none the less very effective into the medieval time period against unarmored troop. As effective as any bow in fact (against unarmored units by range and damage done). But this mod isn't about making things true to reality, its about making units somewhat useful. So, either slingers need to be stronger or cheaper. I would say just increase their range.

Re: Archery poll
 

Saber Cherry,

It seems everyone has their own idea about how to balance archers/slingers. So, to make the responses more useful, it would be good to understand the spirit of your mod. Is it to make the units realistic, balanced per current cost, or balanced cost at current strength?

Tell us your vision, and we can help you achieve it!

Re: Archery poll
 

Basically...

1) Make units more balanced by adjusting their cost, stats, and weapon stats.
2) Changes should not decrease realism or thematicism, and should increase them when possible.

Nothing can be perfectly balanced in a game as complex as Dominions. But when something is near-useless (like slingers or light cavalry), unrealistically bad (much less effective than history indicates), and unthematically bad (races with national light cavalry or slingers ignore them), the intent is to improve or cheapen them, whichever makes more thematic sense. So for militia, it is cheapening them... for light cavalry, strengthening and cheapening them... and for slingers, probably an increase in accuracy and range is best, while remaining clearly inferior to (and cheaper than) archers, to avoid any fundamental changes. Since many of the real world dynamics are not modeled by Dominions - like the difference in momentum between sling and bow projectiles, which results in better chances of breaking bones and damaging armor for slings, greater resistance to drift caused by the wind, and greater additional damage when slung from high castle walls, and the difference in "supplies" allocated to elite versus conscripted units - these factor have to be rolled into the price, resource cost, weapon and unit stats.

So you can't really make units both realistic and balanced, as not enough systems are modeled, and perfect balance is impossible to estimate. But in any case where a change will move a unit more toward "balanced" or more toward "realistic," without disrupting game mechanics (like suddenly making slingers better than archers), I think it's a good change.

Re: Archery poll
 

SC,
I agree on your views http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
As for slingers they need a boost in Morale IMHO (from "awful" to just "not good" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif ). Sling damage at 9 would be ok if their range and prec were at least decent and the slingers didn't run before shooting http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif..

Supply : you can mod a unit to consume additional supplies, command is #supplybonus with a negative number to increase consumption. It could be a way to represent the higher standard of supplies (food but also housing, repairs...) needed by elite units? Just an idea, maybe bad ..