Archery poll

[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.

[Endoperez]

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]

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

[FrankTrollman]

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]

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]

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.