Archery poll

[Saber Cherry]

Molog said:
Does everything have to be useful?

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!

[Oversway]

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

[FrankTrollman]

Saber Cherry: If something is never useful, it has no reason to exist, as it detracts from the game

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

[Ironhawk]

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.

[Alneyan]

Ironhawk said:
Since before a balance you would just never build slingers, ever.

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.

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. (If the foe can fully slaughter them before they have retreated that is)

[PDF]

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]

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.

[Cainehill]

Saber Cherry said:
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!

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.