Bowmen and crossbowmen balance

[Lewin]

Since we decreased bowmen aiming time people have suggested that bowmen are now far better than crossbowmen. I've made a test map where bowmen and crossbowmen shoot at two different targets: Militia and swordfighters. All groups had 12 members. The results are interesting:

Average time to kill all members of the target group:
==Militia target==
Bowmen: 22, 21, 22, 27, 25, 24, 18, 22, 21, 25 AVERAGE = 22.7
Crossbowmen: 22, 21, 25, 23, 23, 25, 25, 24, 26, 26 AVERAGE = 24

==Swordfighter target==
Bowmen: 80, 96, 117, 106, 98, 128, 83, 80, 78, 66 AVERAGE = 93.2
Crossbowmen: 62, 75, 73, 109, 106, 87, 106, 76, 86, 62 AVERAGE = 84.2

So at a first glace it looks like the balance change had the desired affect. Crossbowmen are better against heavily armoured targets, bowmen are slightly better (or at least no worse) against weaker targets. However, it does look like the difference is too small given that crossbowmen are much more valuable (like all iron troops) so I think a small boost to crossbowmen (or nerf to archers) would be a good idea. But the results are good enough that I'm happy with it for this release, we can fine tune it for next release.

Of course this is a very limited test which doesn't take a lot of factorings into account, but I think it's still useful.

In the public release (r4179) crossbowmen are far better in every case, but I only measured 3 runs.

The test map is attached.

[dicsoupcan]

It is nice that you have tested this, but people are more concerned abuot the fact that bowmen are more flexible in most situations then crossbowmen. I will create a replay to show what i mean as soon as i find a testdummy.

[Bence791]

I think increasing xbows' aiming (not time, just the "skill" of aiming) could solve it, nerfing the bowmen wouldn't be a good thing imo. They would become useless again :c

[Lewin]

I agree with Bence, crossbowmen accuracy seems like a good thing to change.

dicso: Yes, bowmen are more manoeuvrable, but crossbowmen are more durable and if they are made more accurate then they can still be useful in such situations because they can safely absorb a few arrows and launch more accurate return fire. But I don't think it's a bad thing if bowmen are better at manoeuvrability and stand offs because that gives them a unique role. As long as crossbowmen are powerful enough that they are useful in other situations. I'll be interested to see the replay

[WollongongWolf]

[...]
but crossbowmen are more durable[...] because they can safely absorb a few arrows [...]

Just did a little test, 6 1on1 battles (face to face) between a xbow and a bow, (r5459) and 1 time the xbow got one-shot, so perhaps he's not that durable. For me at least that's were the problem of the xbows comes in.

If they could survive that first hit, I agree with you

Random idea probably mentioned before somewhere, increase missile speed? (with that also accuracy)

p.s. other results of that test: 4 bows got one shot and one battle lasted a couple of shots killing the bow, so xbows seem stronger (though the test is very small).

[dicsoupcan]

Well i do have a confusing conclusion.

It is possible that if you time it right the bows can step in, shoot and get out before they get hit. I however am bad at timing and lost quite some bowmen in the process. What bowmen also can do what xbows can't is step 2 tiles forward, step one back so all arrows miss, shoot once then get out of range without being hit since they shoot before the xbows reloaded. If the xbows step 2 tiles forward, step one tile back the bowmen are already shooting again, giving them no chance to get a free shot.

Also i tested the famous shoot and go back, bowmen can still do this very effecient, crossbows cannot do this very effecient. they did kill a lot by doing it, but only because of their raw power. When the bowmen step 1 tile back they are ready to shoot again, not all crossbowmen are ready to shoot when they step one tile back, but stepping 2 or 3 back will have all of them at the ready, this means bowmen can get more damage output on an offensive retreat (as in hits, not raw damage, but we all know more hits means more chances to injure/kill).

this was were some people complained about about flexibillity and bowmen advantages over crossbowmen. it may seem like not much but the differences in manouveurs really have an impact on the balance.

I hope this post will give you some insight in this and draw better conclusions.

ambushed.rar

[The Dark Lord]

All you need are 1-2 melee units, preferably cavalry, to take some hits while you move 1-3 tiles into the enemy's range, and let the onslaught begin.

Crossbowmen are still way more powerful than bowmen; but if archers can really fire and get away with it that might be problematic.

[Romek]

I still think that the best idea is just make xbows more manoeuvrable. It will fix all problems. I want to repeat again : decrasing aiming time for bows its not the main reason why peoples stopped make xbows. The real reason is because of blocked shot - move option for xbow. The only thing what you can do now with them is just stay in one place behind your melee - but if you will do it enemy will just put archers on front and shoot to you like to a ducks. There is no chance to beat archers by using xbows now. No matter what you will try to do every single trick with xbows will be worst then the same trick with bows.

[Esthlos]

In my opinion, Bowmen and Crossbowmen shouldn't be too similar, because then of course one will always be chosen over the other, regardless of the situation... there would be no (tactical) reason to prefer one or the other.

What I think may actually work is largely to increase Bowmen's range while decreasing their accuracy.

This should make them different:
-you'd train Bowmen to soften up large enemy groups, but they'd be very vulnerable to cavalry units (too fast, thus hard to hit) and you wouldn't ever want them to support your melee fighters (they'd hit and kill your own men too)
-you'd train Crossbowmen to support your melee fighters (high accuracy and power) and to generally destroy enemy troops, but they'd be vulnerable to melee fighters (they'd have less mobility than Bowmen, making them easier to catch) and to Bowmen's fire (shorter range)

As for razing buildings, Bowmen would be better in sieging form a safe spot, while Crossbowmen would be able to destroy buildings faster.

What do you think about this?

[Bence791]

What I think may actually work is largely to increase Bowmen's range while decreasing their accuracy.

Seriously... ?
No need to decrease their accuracy, no need to buff them either. We need to give some buff to xbows atm... With this change, archers would have clear advantage against huge groups of xbows in wide rows. They just step forward, 2 rows of them shoot, xbows can't do anything (well, they can step back, I mean they can't fight back) and they are just shot down. Even if you decrease their accuracy, with some mistargeting, they could still hit many units nearby..

@WollongongWolf

1 killed out of 6 with 1 shoot isn't something that is imba... Just think about it. A Bowman has 20% chance to kill the xbow with 1 arrow if he hits him. Actually it should be 1 of 5 on average

I still have the opinion of buffing xbows' accuracy could be the solution.

[Esthlos]

With this change, archers would have clear advantage against huge groups of xbows in wide rows. They just step forward, 2 rows of them shoot, xbows can't do anything (well, they can step back, I mean they can't fight back) and they are just shot down. Even if you decrease their accuracy, with some mistargeting, they could still hit many units nearby..

That's exactly the idea.

Crossbowmen vs Bowmen = Bowmen win

Crossbowmen + light melee troops vs Bowmen + light melee troops = Bowmen barely win, and only if they start shooting as soon as possible and the enemy hesitates to engage melee battle

Crossbowmen + iron melee troops vs Bowmen + iron melee troops = Crossbowmen win, simply because they can help the melee fighters while Bowmen can't, because they have a fair chance to hit and kill the allied soldiers instead of the enemy.

Bowmen and Crossbowmen both fill the same spot at the moment: they are ranged units that do a lot of damage in battles.
To make both viable, in my opinion they should fill different spots; my idea is to make Bowmen long ranged harassers and pokers, excellent for hit and run tactics and to soften up enemy troops but that would be extremely weak in full battles, while Crossbowmen would be ranged units that can crush your opponent after all-in engages, but that can be easily kited if not supported by other units, preferably Knights, that can catch and engage the enemy.

[Bence791]

Crossbowmen vs Bowmen = Bowmen win

...

[Esthlos]

Crossbowmen vs Bowmen = Bowmen win

...

Would you please read the whole post?

[dicsoupcan]

i do understand the idea, but it will not work.

If you give bowmen extra range the crossbowmen will have no chance in fighting bowmen, and the decreased accuracy does not matter much. That will only matter when bowmen shoot at the first row, but most people put them far enough so that they shoot on more then jsut the first row so if theymiss the target and hit another one it is most likely an enemy soldier. This will make bowmen far more superior over crossbowmen especially if you take the costs in addition (2 iron ore + 4 coal against 2 timber and 1 leather)

[Esthlos]

To make Bowmen and Crossbowen balanced but both worth training, they should be both good at doing their job but these jobs should be different.

Making Bowmen good vs Crossbowmen (thanks to the increased range) would make them a hard counter to Crossbowmen, while making them less precise would give them a poor synergy with other troops.

This would make in my opinion them both good: Crossbowmen would be the best choice to give ranged support to your melee fighters, thus giving a huge advantage in battles, and Bowmen would be the best choice to fight isolated Crossbowmen and to soften enemy ranks before battle, while being a very poor helper for melee fighters, because they'd hit both allies and enemies due to their poor precision.

Making them equal (or even making Crossbowmen only slightly stronger than Bowmen) would make Crossbowmen worthless, because they're more expensive and harder to train.
Making Crossbowmen a stronger version of Bowmen would either make it worthless to produce the firsts instead of the others (if the power difference is proportional to the cost difference) or make Bowmen worthless, because it'd be way better to rush Crossbowmen (if the power difference is higher than the cost difference).
In order to make both viable they have to both be good, just have different strong and weak points... both good, but good at doing different things.