Archery poll - Page 4

PDF · #31 April 21st, 2005, 10:36 AM

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

Sandman · #32 April 21st, 2005, 07:07 PM

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.

Endoperez · #33 April 21st, 2005, 07:19 PM

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

Saber Cherry · #34 April 22nd, 2005, 01:30 AM

I don't intend to make slings as effective as longbows or arbalests...

FrankTrollman · #35 April 24th, 2005, 01:21 PM

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

PDF · #36 April 24th, 2005, 06:22 PM

I can't quite understand how one can ask for "useless units" ...

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 !

Ironhawk · #37 April 25th, 2005, 05:08 PM

Quote:

FrankTrollman said:
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:

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.

Sandman · #38 April 26th, 2005, 02:41 PM

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.

BigDaddy · #39 April 26th, 2005, 03:37 PM

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.

BigDaddy · #40 April 26th, 2005, 03:47 PM

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!