> Arbelests simply do the most damage per combat round, as I have shown, so it's
> not up for debate.
CUnknown, you are an arrogant prick, but that's not the problem - after all, so
am I. The problem is that you are wrong, and by touting your misconceptions, and
generating as much noise as everyone else together, you may deceive people into
thinking that the community is more divided on this subject than it actually is.
You have not shown [censored]. First of all, your numerical analysis is totally
worthless for every single reason under the sun. I cannot even accuse you of
being deliberately obtuse, because your bad assumptions swing both ways - some
lend power to your argument, some fail to address the arbalest's strengths.
No, you are simply ignorant. And you analysis sucks. I am repeating myself,
and typing slowly, because I know you do not get things right away.
First your analysis reduces everything to a worthless DPR value. According to
you the damage per round of a short bow firing at a protection 10 unit is 0.
When you cannot deal negative damage, and your average is 0, all your values are
zero. And all this time I have been building short bow archers...
Second your analysis shows that you have no understanding of how damage is
computed. You are grossly underestimating crossbows and arbalests. I'll
enlighten you, no worries. Read on.
Third, disregarding precision, range, rate of fire, presence of shields, and
army orders is lame. The assumption that your opponent's as bad as you are
is also unjustified.
And last, production capacity and marching speed does matter. The high resource
cost and low strategy movement devalues arbalests. Real players fight real
battles, and in real battles, you use only what you manage to bring to the field.
OK, I'm almost done with insulting CUnknown...
CUnknown, I once crushed your Ulm with the race you believed was weakest,
in 15 turns, without blessing or tramplers. I am ready to do it again,
with any Dominions II land race. If you intend to answer this post, please
do it by proving my math wrong, or by picking up my challenge. I'm tired
of non-substantiated nonsense.
Now, I'm done. The rest will be worth reading, I promise!
Lets remember how damage is computed. Once a hit has occured, both the damage
dealt and the armour value get two open ended dice added to them. The average
value for such a roll is 8.5 (I will not back up my math here. Anyone who doubts
it will have to bathe in my vitriol in a different post)
Thus when firing at a protection 10 unit, damage 10 short bows will fail to
do damage about half the time. 18.5 vs 18.5 - it's a wash. Now consider a
damage 10 crossbow. The average case is 18.5 armour-piercing (AP) damage versus
13.5 armour. Five points of damage are dealt when the rolls match.
Next I'll throw some numbers at you. I will consider five armour levels, and
examine how four different weapons affect them. I will be tracking kills,
no damage hits, and the average damage for all remaining hits.
Armour levels: 0 (none), 10 (light), 15 (heavy), 17 (elite), 20 (black plate)
Weapons: short bow, longbow, crossbow, arbalest
The targeted enemies are assumed to have 10 hit points.
First case: Unarmoured targets. Remember, we are tracking only hits
short bow (10) ---- Kills: 46.0% -- No damage: 6.7% --- Hits: 47.3%(6.79)
longbow (13) ------ Kills: 68.4% -- No damage: 3.2% --- Hits: 28.4%(7.09)
crossbow (10AP) - Kills: 46.0% -- No damage: 6.7% --- Hits: 47.3%(6.77)
arbalest (14AP) --- Kills: 74.4% -- No damage: 2.5% --- Hits: 23.1%(7.12)
Once we adjust for rate of fire, it becomes clear that against unarmoured targets
arbalests are simply abysmal - about three times worse kill rate than longbows,
and nearly twice as bad as short bows.
Second case: Lightly armoured targets (armour 10)
short bow (10) ---- Kills: _5.2% -- No damage: 54.0% --- Hits:40.8%(4.07)
longbow (13) ------ Kills: 10.6% -- No damage: 31.6% --- Hits:57.8%(4.67)
crossbow (10AP) - Kills: 16.8% -- No damage: 20.7% --- Hits:62.5%(5.31)
arbalest (14AP) --- Kills: 38.5% -- No damage: _8.4% --- Hits:53.1%(6.59)
After adjusting for rate of fire, the arbalest kill rate is slightly better
than that of the longbow. But if we combine the kills and hits that did damage,
the arbalest is twice as bad. And the latter is what determines whether most
enemies will break. Furthermore, when you have three times the hits, and the
average hit is 4-5 points of damage, the kills add up. Thus, longbows and
regular crossbows soundly beat the arbalest in this case.
Third case: Heavily armoured targets (armour 15)
short bow (10) ---- Kills: _1.5% Misses: 83.2% Hits: 15.2%(3.80)
longbow (13) ------ Kills: _3.2% Misses: 68.4% Hits: 28.4%(3.93)
crossbow (10AP) - Kills: 10.7% Misses: 31.6% Hits: 57.6%(4.17)
arbalest (14AP) --- Kills: 25.6% Misses: 13.4% Hits: 61.0%(5.52)
Finally, the crossbows start to shine. Even adjusted for rate of fire, the
bows cannot compare. But the regular crossbow still has a much better combined
total for kills and hits than the arbalest.
Fourth case: Knights, elite infantry (armour 17)
short bow (10) ---- Kills: _0.9% No damage: 89.3% Hits: _9.8%(3.73)
longbow (13) ------ Kills: _1.9% No damage: 79.2% Hits: 18.9%(3.85)
crossbow (10AP) - Kills: _8.4% No damage: 38.5% Hits: 53.0%(3.92)
arbalest (14AP) --- Kills: 20.7% No damage: 16.8% Hits: 62.6%(5.18)
After adjusting for rate of fire, the crossbow's combined total is still higher
than the arbalest's. The arbalest may be better in this case, as even when the
crossbow does wound, the damage is lowish, and even multiple hits will not result
in many kills. But it's close. 4.2% kills vs 6.9 and 26.5% wounds vs 20.9%.
Fifth case: Black plate of Ulm (armour 20)
short bow (10) ---- Kills: _0.4% Misses: 94.8% Hits: _4.8%(3.67)
longbow (13) ------ Kills: _0.9% Misses: 89.3% Hits: _9.8%(3.73)
crossbow (10AP) - Kills: _5.2% Misses: 54.0% Hits: 40.8%(4.08)
arbalest (14AP) --- Kills: 13.4% Misses: 25.6% Hits: 61.0%(4.98)
No argument here. The arbalest has no equal for shooting (in the back) those who
wear Umlish armour. The crossbows may inflict a few wounds, but only the
arbalest will get rid of those pesky Black Plate infantry.
So far we have established that even when we oversimplify the analysis, the
arbalest may be better than the crossbow only against armour 17 and higher.
But everything else plays against the arbalest.
Its higher range results in a badly aimed first salvo, and by the time they have
reloaded, the enemy is either in melee with other Ulmish troops, or engaging
the crossbowmen themselves.
The high resource costs mean that one cannot produce many arbalests in the first
few turns, and that gold gathers unused until more castles can be built. Once
those go up, the low strategic move prevents the crossbowmen from being where
they are needed.
When "Flaming Arrows" comes around, arbalests benefit the least from it, due to
their abysmal rate of fire.
And of course, if your opponent is worth anything, he will draw the enemy fire
with low resource troops with shields. Pythium and Ermor's Velites, Tien Chi's
footmen, Machaka's warriors, etc, etc, etc... all of these are cheap and are
best dispersed with a higher rate of fire which the arbalests lacks. The
arbalest's high damage is perfectly unnecessary here. Once again, its only
purpose is to kill friendlies.
And now, if any retard comes and tells me that the arbalests are the best ranged
weapons and that it's not subject to discussion...
Petar\'s \"Range Weapons\" flamebait
Hybrid Mode
