Archery poll

[quantum_mechani]

Cainehill said:

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.

Ouch, that would explain why you haven't been around for blitzes...

[PvK]

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

PvK

[PvK]

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

[Saber Cherry]

Cainehill said:

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.

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.

Yep, I realized that a couple hours after posting the poll... 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?

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.

Fortunately, I didn't make that error The top post says:

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

... (middle stuff) ...

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.

So, that should at least exempt me from a bad methodology accusation

[Ironhawk]

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.

[Oversway]

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?

[Ironhawk]

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.

[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)