ranged units not worth it in late game.

[VladK02]

Archers, crossbowmen, skirmishers, dogs.... None of them are worth it in late game vs orcs, vs heavily armored humans, and esp. vs undead.

Only exception is sniping necromancers. For that, you could have 1 archer. And even then, my 2-hander can plow through zombies/skeletons faster then they can get raised.

Bottom line: in late game nothing beats a line of 12 heavily armored tanks with a mix of 2-handers for dps and shields/hammers for tanking orc warriors.

EDIT - I think archery and crossbows need a rework, because they are underpowered. new perks are needed, which modify ammo for example - bodkin anti-armor points, which actually work vs orks, flaming arrows which cause panic, or ultra-heavy crossbow shots... Same with thrown stuff. Javelins plain useless, but we know romans used javelins to get rid of enemy shields. Sure would be nice vs orcs...

Skirmishers in general need more mobility. pathfinder+adrenaline is good, but when archer retreats, to keep up with him uses all your AP, and you got nothing left to shoot a javelin. Cant even throw a net to keep him down, and dogs are unreliable at best.

I think there should be more perks. Skirmish tree for mobility, more archery stuff.

[cool man]

personally i feel like archers are OK against orcs because they can kill orc young and berserkers quite fast without getting your frontline tired

[botlobby]

I agree that late game they are not so good. I keep one crossbow and one archer for picking off enemy ranged. The other 10 are some form of melee or bardiche. That said when you run into those bandit raider groups with 6 ranged units they always seem to assassinate one of my good men through focus firing so I worry that beefing them too much would make that even more annoying.

[Sir Clavius]

Just give us arquebus weapons in late game and we going to start to play the renaissance era...And battle brothers could envolve into small pike and shot formations :D But that could make game too much easy...

I always like to have 2 very good bowmans, because they are good to kill berzerkers, necromancers and damn gobos.

[cool man]

Originally posted by 33rdUlrich:

Just give us arquebus weapons in late game and we going to start to play the renaissance era...And battle brothers could envolve into small pike and shot formations :D But that could make game too much easy...

I always like to have 2 very good bowmans, because they are good to kill berzerkers, necromancers and damn gobos.

it would be interesting if there was a legendary arquebus with insane damage but takes 2 turns to reload and then fire

[botlobby]

Arquebus would be dope. :) Rare, expensive as hell (7-8,000) medium accuracy, perhaps impossible to shoot & reload in the same turn (unlike crossbow), better armor penetration than the other ranged. I'd probably have a lot of guys fire a single shot and then charge into melee.

[cool man]

Originally posted by EveryCrime:

Arquebus would be dope. :) Rare, expensive as hell (7-8,000) medium accuracy, perhaps impossible to shoot & reload in the same turn (unlike crossbow), better armor penetration than the other ranged. I'd probably have a lot of guys fire a single shot and then charge into melee.

maybe to balance it even more it would give a smoke cloud debuff to lower visibility by 1-2 after each shot and clears in 1 turn

[DerKrieger]

I can already tell the mods for this game are gonna be dope

[cool man]

Originally posted by DerKrieger:

I can already tell the mods for this game are gonna be dope

IF they add mod support

[Muscarine]

It takes very few perks investment to make a dedicated ranged unit, as opposed to dedicated melees who have to chose. I think the idea behind it is that you're supposed to go hybrid.
The most popular choice being Pike as secondary weapon since it has bonus hitchance (melee will not be great), is not fatigue intensive, and allows you to skip investing into melee defense.

The problem is not really underpowered ranged, it's the fact that RA 2Handers are absolute beasts, so mostly everything pales in comparison except maybe Duellists.
If Ranged wasn't good enough Gobelins wouldn't be such a pain.

I do agree Wardogs are in need of some kind of tweak since a while because as it stands they act like expensive homing projectiles with poor hitchance, the ability to pin down and low chance of recovery.

Skirmishers as you call them are awkward : throwing weapons do solid damage but it doesn't make much sense to use them if it means weakening your frontline. It usually goes on a melee character so it means it's hybrid the other way around, but it doesn't work really well.
You can still have polearm users throw weapons two but generally they start one tile behind meaning you lose 1 range on an already short range to start with.
They aren't bad though, just marginal compared to other choices.

[Pringles™]

Im all for those DLC gunpowder weapons and what is more likely to see daylight in the game: variable ammo types, such as bodkin points to penetrate armor, broadheads to cause bleeding and little extra damage, or even poisoned arrows to drain up AP.

HOWEVER, dont go with the stupid misconception of adding in fire arrows. These things didnt exist on a regular basis ever in history, because:
1) Arrows are hard to keep on fire once they are shot and exposed to wind pressure dousing the fires. Flammable liquids in medieval times were hard to make and even harder to stay lit after flying through air for several dozens, perhaps even hundreds of meters.
2) The bulky arrowheads that are lit on fire cause drag and slow down the projectiles, which results in less damage and punch from the arrows.
3) Once the "fire arrow" would hit a living target, it would just be like a candle sticking on your armor. It wouldnt make you burst to flames, cause you to scream in horror and agony, or do anything other than look flashy.
4) They would reveal the position of your archers, which removes any chance to surprise your enemy and get in free shots to unaware targets.
5) They have a very short duration during which they are still somewhat useful. Wood lit on fire gets crispy and structurally weak relatively fast. Arrow shafts are made of wood. Also they cannot be put back once lit, since... well, they are on fire, so either you light and instantly fire them, or they will burn your hands or burn so much that the shaft snaps. Or perhaps the shaft already has weakened enough, that when the arrow hits your orchis warrior's helmet, it simply.. snaps in half.
Our fire-archers are running from the batturfierd! Shamefur dispray!!!

[teravisor]

Originally posted by Puttiis:

1) Arrows are hard to keep on fire once they are shot and exposed to wind pressure dousing the fires. Flammable liquids in medieval times were hard to make and even harder to stay lit after flying through air for several dozens, perhaps even hundreds of meters.

Greek fire was used a lot in naval battles. Wooden ship burns quite nicely. Also in sieges to burn things inside castle.

Originally posted by Puttiis:

4) They would reveal the position of your archers, which removes any chance to surprise your enemy and get in free shots to unaware targets.

Range of archers is very very limited. Often you'd see them anyway unless they prepared ambush beforehand.

Rest of points are valid. Fire arrows weren't used against people; they were used against wooden siege towers, wooden buildings, wooden ships, etc.

[Wyrtt]

mostly to set off oiled traps as on its own nothing really burns that easily,
there is even special wood treatment with fire that makes it better. To set wood on fire it should be realy dry.
If you ever rtyed to build campfire you know that you need additional easily flamable stuff to cook wood untill it sets off.

Just fe fire arrows will do nothing. Thats why Greek fire is and oil bomb and not just stuff on fire,

[Pringles™]

Originally posted by teravisor:

Originally posted by Puttiis:

1) Arrows are hard to keep on fire once they are shot and exposed to wind pressure dousing the fires. Flammable liquids in medieval times were hard to make and even harder to stay lit after flying through air for several dozens, perhaps even hundreds of meters.

Greek fire was used a lot in naval battles. Wooden ship burns quite nicely. Also in sieges to burn things inside castle.

Originally posted by Puttiis:

4) They would reveal the position of your archers, which removes any chance to surprise your enemy and get in free shots to unaware targets.

Range of archers is very very limited. Often you'd see them anyway unless they prepared ambush beforehand.

Rest of points are valid. Fire arrows weren't used against people; they were used against wooden siege towers, wooden buildings, wooden ships, etc.

What are your sources?

Mere fire-arrows cannot set stable wood on fire. The heat generated by a lit arrowhead is not enough to lit it on fire. Instead, the arrows would need to hit softer, more fluffy material, such as quilts, sawdust, hay bales etc. Roof or insulation materials in the olden times. Sails on masts and such.
OR, when used during sieges, often combined with clay pots filled with oils, shot by catapults/trebuchets, or simply thrown from walls and siege towers, onto walls and siege towers themselves :D And then lit on fire with arrows. Which suck by themselves when lit on fire.
I can a link a very solid Lindybeige video touching this issue if there's any doubt :)

The range of an average warbow could be as good as 400m while still remaining dangerous. A skilled longbowman could be able to put off accurate shots at 150-250m. "In 1542, Henry VIII set a minimum practice range for adults using flight arrows of 220 yd (200 m); ranges below this had to be shot with heavy arrows."

Im familiar with Greek Fire. I know that it was a very one-sided invention never revealed to too many outside factions and interests, until it was inherited and saved by the Byzantines. And that the mixture was propelled by a cannon-like immobile machine, with what I can guess... liters of that liquid being spewn and lit on fire simultanously. Much more effective and flammable than what you can get to stick and stay on fire on a simple arrow :D

[Zlodey]

Dogs are still useful, just to add flanking bonus to anotehr orc and waste his turn, or force enemy archer into melee without breaking formation. till it would be nice if at least houndmaster had ability to carry more than one dog into battle.
Ranged are useful as well, because bandit marksmen can be lots of troulbe, concentrating fire and taking out our armored 2handers while you are busy deling with melee units, especialy when there are 5 or more. And even orc warrior can be nicely softened by a crossbow bolt.


PS Gunpowder wouldnt make sense. I know its a fantasy game, but all other equipment in the game suggests maybe 12th-13th century tech level.

[Pringles™]

Originally posted by Zlodey:

PS Gunpowder wouldnt make sense. I know its a fantasy game, but all other equipment in the game suggests maybe 12th-13th century tech level.

That's why I said it would be for an Asia-themed DLC. The empire of China had been using it at least since Romans came to power. Why not allow some mercenaries travel to the Battle Brothersia and bring some with them? We have clear deviations from mainstream medieval history anyways, so I dont see this as a direct offense to the timeline and the feel of the game.

They wouldnt have to be fancy muskets and bayonets and precision rifled barrels. Just imported boomsticks and firebombs from China and the surrounding countries :)

Vikings imported top-quality Damascus steel from India before Medieval times even got into full swing. I see no huge problem with some really expensive, rare gunpowder finding it's way into medieval Germany as "witch powder" or "boom dust" or whatever :)