All archery should be limited to 4 hexes, and archers should not fire through terrain; they should have an appropriate line of sight to their objects. Once their objects are in melee (contact facing an enemy army), no fire should be allowed into the combat, although there would be archery fire the same turn in which a friendly army is attacking an enemy army. Tell me what ya think because I understand archery as being far too strong because of terrain allowances. Now a wee bit more longbows please!

If all ranged units could only shoot 4 spaces, people would stop using ranged. Why is 4 a good number, and 7 or 8 isn't?

Line of sight is a good idea, in theory, but it'd be too hard to code, I imagine. Also, I don't see how it would add anything to the game. Ranged troops are good now, there's no need to fix them.

not only that but archers have historically been able to fire "volley" fire (less accurate) over objects such as troops or walls. Maybe if the LOS was clear we could get a +10% to attack skill since direct fire is more accurate.

Too hard to code if there's a fixed object inbetween? Come on! If the range is good, then what is the range of the zone of control? ZOC is one hex, essentially an army's reach. Archer fire shouldn't be too far beyond the reach of the army's zoc. Actually, there is an exception here based on the scales of the map, armies, ranges, and movement allowances. Archery is too strong because they are allowed to do extraordinary things. I first considered 3 hexes as the suggested limitation, but this might conflict with the rule semantics, such as movement and time. Volley fire is fine for an emplaced unit of archers while being adequately supplied with additional arrows. That might be a good reason to increase their initial melee capability if another army contacts them. There are other considerations though, like if the archer army had fired at another army prior to being contacted by the enemy melee army or had moved accessively. Also arched fire doesn't increase the effectiveness of archery fire, it decreases the effectiveness, both in range and casualties. I don't think that ranged troops will disappear because they were dropped in range; their additional fire at a lower range will still increase telemorphic casualty results. Why can an archery army arch fire over a castle wall, building, or mountaintop? Good question, so why not just include all arch fire no matter the terrain? The rules make the justifications at the moment, not the exception. Historically, archery fire wasn't indirect fire called in by some FO. Volley fire into a mass unit was very effective, if you had the proper weapon, and this fire was generally direct, i.e., the archers could see their targets. Why not 6, 7, or 8 as compared to the measily 4 hex range. Well uniformity for one, and less code for another. But, also, the players tend to escalate their movements and combats because of the excessive and fantastic ability of archery. The overall capabilities have to be changed if archery distances are changed, however, like catapult ranges. The evolution of game combat will show that archers will take a more direct role in army contacts, whereas now they can float persistently out of another army's reach.

Last Edited : Wednesday, 29 December 2004 - 18:41

Every game always has inconsistencies between time and distance (with the exception of simulations used by armed forces). It is simply one of those things that gets sacraficed to make the game playable and fun.

"...whereas now they can float persistently out of another army's reach".

This is incorrect. The only problem I have ever faced in reaching ranged units with my melee armies is if:
1) They are behind a wall.
2) They are behind big stacks of melee units.

Game mechanics are such that if I shoot with my ranged, I lose all my movement points (there are some exceptions - e.g., 40 marks shooting 5 scouts will still have movement left, though it has been decreased). When this happens, unless my opponent has only very recently moved AND used up all his/her movement points in doing so, then my ranged our now vulnerable to a swift strike (if I don't have intervening walls or melee units). I have a minimum 2 hour wait before I can even move my ranged units 1 hex (in a standerd 12 hour game).

While a 4 hex range could still be playable, often battles are fought in areas of closed terrain. Forcing the ranged to be in that close will make maneuvering in there all that much more difficult (not neccessarily a bad thing), and also virtually eliminates any element of suprise your ranged troops might otherwise get. Personally I love having the element of suprise when I bring several hundred ranged troops into range of an otherwise hotly contested battle.

Last Edited : Wednesday, 29 December 2004 - 16:09

Statistically speaking, all ranged will no longer beat all melee. THAT would be too strong, but it actually used to be like that

It wasn't very popular, but ranged and flying troops (demons - battles only) had their damage seriously watered down. The better army will normally employ a mix. And don't forget, you only get half points for a ranged kill

I'll admit, the balance probably isn't perfect. And lately, I do keep breaking out into tower wars...AGAIN... - but the days when you could roll over your opponent with a pure ballista army, or a pure archer army (as it was before that) are over. It's mix, or die

Ranged troops are constantly coming under fire for being too dang strong for some reason. You want to see ranged being too strong, you should have been around at the beginning of this version, then you wouldn't be whining!
Ranged are fine as they are, despite the fact I find those tower wars to be a little lame, but thats when you sneak in some cats.

As far as Fantasy goes for archery, the range might be unlimited depending on what bow you have found but, nonetheless, archery range seems to be excessive for the Medieval event, and you can be sure that the designers have some reason for this. To make the game presentable in its format, the figures have become enlarged; they're not in proportion to the map of the terrain. Thus the excessive range for larger figures, and the two scales, one figure and the other ground, are differentiated. As a professional interest, however, one should be cognizant of both historicity and the semantics of the game. The game dynamics are dependent on both the players, who are play testers, and the rules and how these are representative. For instance, the rules might require that to initiate the destruction of a building or a passageway, the battering ram must be adjacent to the object to be destroyed. This is the representative feature. Now to change the feature, say the battering ram should be two or three spaces from the object to be destroyed. Would you have your doubts about this representative feature in a beta test version? You should, or you think you have one long ram to reach your object. This is why the representation of archer fire distance appears so inordinate to me for the dynamics of the Medieval event.

Last Edited : Wednesday, 29 December 2004 - 21:46

The biggest problem with range-balance is movement.

Movement is the only thing you can compare the range to, as it defines how fast troops move, and thus, how far archers should be able to shoot in 1 turn.

A range of only 4 with movement of 10+ does not make sense.
Ranged troops would disappear as an attacking force and only be used to defend your melee troops.

Not only that, but enemy armies could easily move around without every landing inside your 4-range radius. With 10+ movement in 1 turn, its also very easy to rush archers for an easy kill and never get hit by ranged attacks.

Should it be this way? I dont know.
Should archers only be used as a melee combat backup? Only to be used once your melee troops have already engaged the enemy?

Thats a different topic I think...

ok....this is a bit different.....lets take an example, a normal longbow man, historically, can fire between 6 and 13 shoots per 1 min, and with a range of 300 meters or more, so a normal archer? around 200m shall we say? now is it just me or is that a big distance? and the terrain, like mountains and stuff, I think there just representations, as I doubt you could find a recourse building as large as a mountain. So I conclude that if this were to be based on real fact, that archers range is very good, and in fact they should probably be stronger.
I think, tho that the balance at the moment is very good and shouldn't be changed

why does everything has to be realistic? the game just has to be fun and giving arches a range of 4 would mean the would be taken out much easier and the game wouldn't be balanced anmore . that's all i've got to say

In one way Hanky has right its just a game, and don't need to be realistic, but in other i'm historian, i'm also involved in some recreation of medieval history and i think that some realism may only make our beloved game only beter and makes it more suitable for ppls which are interested in medieval, or just warfare history
BTW firing by obstacles was made by siege machines, not by archers, "volley" fire was used for some other reasons,
range, concentrate fire on smaller field, hitting both riders and horses

Last Edited : Thursday, 30 December 2004 - 08:09

I agree with Docent as I started my gaming with miniatures and Line Of Sight was very important. If someone is on the other side of a hill you might not know they are there, so how can you shoot at them?

Well,... there is a job called FOO (Forward Observation Officer) and it's his job to direct the ballistic fire of artillery, err... I meant archers. So he on his own sits on top of the hill and signals to the archers how to move their fire so they can hit the enemy.

By no means do I suggest to change archers in any way! This was just another piece of uselss info from me...

Last Edited : Thursday, 30 December 2004 - 14:57

or it could be that our archers are psychic?

Last Edited : Friday, 31 December 2004 - 06:42

I doubt that there were FOOs in the Middle ages, but maybe a rule that some unit must be able to see a target on the other side of the woods or hill would be nice. Make Scouts even more useful.

The guy in front saw something and said 'shoot behind that hill'. It's already fairly abstract, it's not as if each archer is picking his own target, is it?

Leave it alone. It's fine. Minor tweaks at most

Yeah i agree with ctdxxx let's leave this thing as it is now

FOO are rather not used in middle ages
and making archers not able to fire without LOS makes game more realistic

Adding fatigue would make it more realistic too. But would you like your archers to not be able to fire in consecutive turns...?

Of what I've seen of games, there ar enormally two forms to address this issue - one is a hard-core simulator, with all the 'bells and whistles', the realistic ****pits, physics models, and so on. The other sort, while it has -elements- of realism, gives way in favour of gameplay.

Question is, where are you drawing the line? And would you mind the already overloaded flash map put under more pressure?