stupid weapon balance

[†Diablo†]

stupid weapon balance,the guns often miss the target and make little damage, Bows do more damage and hit more often the target ... so stupid, And the enemy hits with his guns more often than my soldiers ... tha game makes no fun ...

[Lцсᶖаᶇ º¹]

Yeah, it'd make more sense if it was a american expedition into spain.

[Little Big Toe]

It could be argued that the arquebus at that time was unreliable and had very poor accuracy because of the smooth bore and aiming sights. However it was good against armoured enemy if it could hit. Whereas the bow was better in both range and accuracy.

As for the enemy hitting more often, it's probably a decision by the developers to even out the incredibly bad AI tactics compared to a human.

[Nachash]

He's right, where's my sniper rifle?

[runequester]

Firearms of the era were notoriously inaccurate. The game handles it alright.

[Lusandar]

Actually, bows do 10 less damage than guns but are more accurate at range. Guns are actually the best weapons in the game when combined with a hunter's point blank. You can one hit all but the most armored foes with it by getting right next to the target or you can try your luck with quickshot which will again, kill almost all targets as long as both bullets hit. Quickshot isn't particularly good at first but once you get to a lieutenant hunter with 96% base accuracy, it's definitely worth trying if point blank isn't an option for a turn. The hunter is the one that gets the most out of increasing his rank and should be your 2nd priority to rank up after the first rank of the doctor (so he can heal every turn).

[FAVelour]

Yeah the guns were way too innacurate, even a Lietuenant hunter can still miss at point blank range. Plus they didn't have their main real life advantage vs the natives: making them flee in terror.

Also I wish they had differentiated polearms by letting you attack with them from 2 spaces away.

[Mr. Lambert]

It would be a lot less infuriating if the range weapon accuracy % numbers they give for the shots were right. They clearly aren't. I tracked 20 shots with 83% accuracy, of which I hit 5 times. There's no way the actual chance was 83% with a 25% hit rate over 20 observations.

[bvguthrie]

Originally posted by Mr. Lambert:

It would be a lot less infuriating if the range weapon accuracy % numbers they give for the shots were right. They clearly aren't. I tracked 20 shots with 83% accuracy, of which I hit 5 times. There's no way the actual chance was 83% with a 25% hit rate over 20 observations.

That's odd. I nearly always hit with an 83% chance.

[Jonas]

Would you say that you hit... 83% of the time? ;)

[Tom]

I missed my 90% point blank shot I needed last night. Reminded me of the couple hundred hours of XCOM I've put in. ;)

That 10% chance really sucked, but I have plenty of doctors and meds so a few days on the road and viola. ;)

[Zenith]

I know this is necro'ing a dead thread but seriously. . . What the ♥♥♥♥ were the developers thinking in regards to hit chance with ranged weapons? I'm thinking about just restarting with only melee troops. If the hit percentages weren't outright, blatant lies I'd consider using ranged weapons but consistently the % to hit is almost always wrong. I just missed NINE TIMES IN A ROW. with percentages ranging from 40% to 80%. The law of averages would make ONE of those hit.

But nope.

Really terrible design on weapon balance devs. Hope your next game is better, as I'm unsure if I even want to give it a shot. (See what I did there?)

[oli.schmid]

Originally posted by Zee:

If the hit percentages weren't outright, blatant lies I'd consider using ranged weapons but consistently the % to hit is almost always wrong. I just missed NINE TIMES IN A ROW. with percentages ranging from 40% to 80%. The law of averages would make ONE of those hit.

But nope.

Statistically, that's actually to be expected. Let's say you had an average hit chance of 50% which also gives you an average miss chance of 50%. The chance to miss 9 times in a row would be 0.5 to the power of 9 = 0.001953 or roughly 0.2%.
Let's also assume that an average player gets into 20 battles long enough in the course of their playthrough. So 20 battles where the 0.2% can proc. The chance for a single player to experience this 9-row of bad luck is: 1 - (0.98 to the power of 20) = 0,3324 or roughly 33%.

So every third player will have a battle with 9 such misses in a row.