Maybe top tier ranged weapon should be nerfed a little.

[千仞万渊]

Yes, I mean the war bow, and it's unique version.

I know bow is two hand weapon so it should have high damage. But actually it's not too op, just lack interactivity, wholely fool operation, only thing you should do is to find a high ground and keep on pressing Nom1.

What conclude in this situation? Yes, it's that bow dont have weakness. Long range, high damage, low weight. Safe enough for enough long range from Xbow and enemy melee unit.

Enough damage for aimed shot also have 43% ignor armor, while xbow without mastery only have 50%.

Bow is supposed to do great threat to enemy ranged target and light armored unit, but less efficient to heavy armed unit. However it seems it'a doing both well, at least better than other ranged weapon.

Ok, I will compare it with other weapon and use figure to reveal it's op.

Heavy crossbow VS Warbow. In my point of view, T3 xbow is a well-balanced weapon. Moderate HP damage, around 10-20 to a 300 armor unit, while deal little damage to armor at the same time. While Xbow is powerful, it's restricted by many factors. Short range, whole turn to reload means you will need waste some turns to find cover or march on to find good position. As for bow? Yes it seems it cant do any threat to a knight or orc warrior at the first shot. But bow can make 2 shot a turn, that's to say it can deal great armor damage. Well, actually noone want to shot a orc warrior down. So use fearsome to scatter them is most effecient and horrible. Bow can only do little damage but fearsome only need 1hp damage. Then 2 turns, 4 shot to set a warrior to flee rather more than a dozen xbow bolt to kill a warrior.
Alao, xbow have nothing to do with berserker perk and kill frenzy perk, while bow entirely fit these 3 perk, as you dont have to move a single tile but can have lots of target within range. Just fool operation.

Warbow VS war brand.
I think war brand is a pretty poor weapon. It's good and flexible among melee weapon. But both 50-70 damagw weapon that can attack twice. bow even have higher ignore amror rate. Let alone melee weapon have problem with ZOC, while bow can attack any target it want within 8 tile, 8 tiles is almost the whole battle field. And same for more target to choose, bow is the most suitable for berserker and kill frenzy.

[Drathnar1]

Originally posted by 千仞万渊:

Yes, it's that bow dont have weakness.

Well it used to have a good number of weaknesses back in Early Access v0.6. Back then you couldn't shoot at an enemy unit 2 tiles away and ignore Cover from a friendly unit, which curtailed its use considerably, resulting in many players opting for hybrid builds for ranged combatants. So I suppose you could say its weakness was vs "targets already in melee". I understand that the devs changed this to promote the use of ranged weapons but I'm not sure I fully agree that the overall balance is better this way, seeing as we regularly get Marksmen complaints.
Warbanners employs a hit penalty when shooting at enemy units engaged in melee. The more friendly units adjacent to the target. the greater the hit penalty. I find such a system quite logical.

We also didn't have the Scatter mechanic back in v0.6, which essentially gives ranged combatants another roll, when firing into masses of enemies. I suppose there is some logic to it, but perhaps the penalty on the 2nd roll should be much greater (-25 instead of -10 or so) and not subject to the 5% base hit rate (in other words, could be 0%). As melee combatants don't get a 2nd roll at an adjacent enemy unit when they miss, I think its fair that the ranged Scatter mechanic should not have too much of an impact either.

Originally posted by 千仞万渊:

Enough damage for aimed shot also have 43% ignor armor, while xbow without mastery only have 50%.

Every crossbowman should have mastery, putting them at 70% ignore armor, so IMHO that comparison is a little unfair. Also Aimed Shot gets a raw +10% damage bonus so the ignore armor % is closer to 40%, not a far cry from the base 35% of War Bows employing Quick Shot.

Originally posted by 千仞万渊:

Long range, high damage, low weight.
Bow is supposed to do great threat to enemy ranged target and light armored unit, but less efficient to heavy armed unit. However it seems it'a doing both well, at least better than other ranged weapon.

Ok, I will compare it with other weapon and use figure to reveal it's op.

Heavy crossbow VS Warbow. In my point of view, T3 xbow is a well-balanced weapon. Moderate HP damage, around 10-20 to a 300 armor unit, while deal little damage to armor at the same time. While Xbow is powerful, it's restricted by many factors. Short range, whole turn to reload means you will need waste some turns to find cover or march on to find good position. As for bow? Yes it seems it cant do any threat to a knight or orc warrior at the first shot. But bow can make 2 shot a turn, that's to say it can deal great armor damage.

All this is true, but using 2 shots per turn also eats up a good bit more Fatigue and more ammo (a 2nd quiver may be needed on prolonged battles, which may limit having other options). More importantly, accuracy is significantly compromised when using Quick Shots at long range. Damage comparisons are only valid when hit chances are the same (or when using expected damage).

Originally posted by 千仞万渊:

Warbow VS war brand.

Warbrand is more of a T2 weapon (used by Brigand Raiders), Greatsword being T3. whereas Warbows are definitely T3 weapons, so the comparison is a little odd. Warbrands also do 50-75 damage, not 50-70.

[千仞万渊]

Sorry I cant quote what you say, cellpohone hard to type.

I'm not sure if it's OK to shoot over adjascent ally. Well, actually I wrote this post is mainly to lower bow's status in ranged weapon. I cant say whether ranged weaopon itself is having a right stauts in current weapon system.

1.Scatter mechanic, I think at least I have seen this thing in 0.7, not sure if it's promoted any earlier. I agree -10% is too little for a missed attack, but I cant say how much is OK, but I think that wont have any diversity between any other ranged weapon.

As for comparision between bow and Xbow. I guess we should put it into some real situations.
For example, in starting games, bow is much better than Xbow, for range superiority, which will determine whether enemey charge or not. And aimed shot have 43% ignore armor, I'm pretty sure it's 43%, aimed shot not only get 10% base damage bonus, but also 25% to damage ignore armor, for example warbow 70max damage, can inflict 43% of 70 = 30 HP damage, and the penetrating and armor damage is rolled seperatedly. While at the same time Xbow only have 50% penetrating. I dont know if there is any essence to use Xbow, maybe for it's free loaded shot only.
Another phase, before great late game, that means, not astronical stats, for example 70+ ranged attack, 15+ranged defence. I think it's the only period player wants to use Xbow, for it high direct damage, to counter some core foes like swordmaster, seargent and other thing alike.
Well, when entering great late game, when stats gets endless high, like 90+ranged attack, 30+ ranged defence. I think no one will choose to use Xbow anymore,one shot for Xbow is 19faigue, I dont think two shot for bow(24 fatigue) will make any deccisve difference. While bow is much better in range, in damage, in perk integrating, emmmmm, well, which perk fit Xbow, I dont konw, maybe xbow mastery.

[Teut]

If you want to balance XBow and Bow give the XBow a big hitchance bonus (and maybe a penalty for the Bow if you try to shoot an enemy engaged in melee with one of your Bros.)

It was - and still is - the big advantage of the XBow over the Bow.

I don't think everything has to be perfectly balance though. Compared to the Bow the XBow's rate of fire is just too slow, especially the Heavy XBow's.

[Nequis]

They are perfect as they are imo:

Xbow for lower skilled bros and to fight armored enemies

Bow for high skilled bros on naked enemies

Using a bow on bros that aren't minimum 60 ranged skill means you won't hit squat most of the time and just waste ammo,and even in the case of having a high skilled one it's useless vs shielded enemies,skeletons, heavily armored enemies,dodgy enemies etc.,literally it's useful against not even 50% of the possible encounters and falls off badly late game,nerfing it furthermore would mean just go for an additional melee frontline.

Also why would you want to reinvent the wheel? It's a bow,you put an arrow,you shoot,the end,you want to embark on an epic quest to retrieve a scroll to unlock a magic lock from a chest containing the sacred arrow that was blessed by an elven priestess 300 years ago and then perform a ritual just to be able to shoot said arrow?

[千仞万渊]

Originally posted by Teut:

If you want to balance XBow and Bow give the XBow a big hitchance bonus (and maybe a penalty for the Bow if you try to shoot an enemy engaged in melee with one of your Bros.)

It was - and still is - the big advantage of the XBow over the Bow.

I don't think everything has to be perfectly balance though. Compared to the Bow the XBow's rate of fire is just too slow, especially the Heavy XBow's.

Well, it seems Xbow performs kinda well currently, yes, slow, but lethal, like a sniper. One shot goblin, two shot sword master. Many players hate this weapon.

Balance is one thing, joy and diversity of playing is also the thing. I love to use Xbow but bow seems to be much superior that I sometime must give up xbow.

Well, generally, bow and crossbow both doing properly in its profesional field. But bow can also perform well against armed unit due to fearsome and killing frenzy perk. While other ranged weapon can gain little advantage from these few perk.

So, some of my friend and I share the opinion, if bow wont take effect with fearsome and killing frenzy. Things would be great. Then orc warrior even war lord wont hesitate to charge anymore, rather than some arrows to set then to flee with their armor only scratched.

Also maybe there need some nee perk for ranged weapon, or xbow and throwing weapon will always seems like un proficient weapon.

[千仞万渊]

Originally posted by Nequis:

They are perfect as they are imo:

Xbow for lower skilled bros and to fight armored enemies

Bow for high skilled bros on naked enemies

Using a bow on bros that aren't minimum 60 ranged skill means you won't hit squat most of the time and just waste ammo,and even in the case of having a high skilled one it's useless vs shielded enemies,skeletons, heavily armored enemies,dodgy enemies etc.,literally it's useful against not even 50% of the possible encounters and falls off badly late game,nerfing it furthermore would mean just go for an additional melee frontline.

Also why would you want to reinvent the wheel? It's a bow,you put an arrow,you shoot,the end,you want to embark on an epic quest to retrieve a scroll to unlock a magic lock from a chest containing the sacred arrow that was blessed by an elven priestess 300 years ago and then perform a ritual just to be able to shoot said arrow?

Hey Nequis, maybe I have to put forward the situation again. For less skilled boy like 60 ranged boy. I dont think I gonna pick mastery for him. So you use heavy xbow to do:

50-70 among which, 0-35 can ingnore amore. 35-49 to armor.
15% minus 15% for 6 tiles.

Does it has any advantage over war bow aimed shot？
55-77 among which 0-30can ignore armor. 33-45 to armor.
10% minis 12% for 6 tiles but can shoot 7tile at most.

I dont think so, 1 tile range is too much more important, it means you can use more high ground, be more safe, choose more fragile target.


You mentioned some foe to counter bows. For example, the skeleton. Not mean to offend, I dont know how do you cope with them, but the essential part to counter skeleton is to destroy its armor, although pierce damage will be reduced to skeleton, but that's only hp damage reduction, not armor damage. So actually 2 shot deal 60-90 to armor, even more effecient than pike, legionary have base 0 ranged defence, so do some decissive damage to their armor before engaged in melee will offer you great advantage, bow is even a must in the early, mid game to counter skeleton.
Maybe you havent though playing this way, but figure is honest.

[Drathnar1]

I won't quibble over the ignore armor for Aimed Shot as we are not comparing Aimed Shot against Shoot Bolt, rather Quick Shot (2 shots) vs Shoot Bolt.

If you ignore hit considerations and fatigue considerations, yes Bows are definitely better than Crossbows when up against targets with low armor. Against targets with moderate (raider with Worn Mail) and moderately high armor (leader with Reinforced Mail Hauberk), Bows still do pretty well by virtue of having 2 shots and enough vs armor damage.
From the table[imgur.com], a heavy crossbow will need about 2 turns to kill a Brigand Raider (75hps) and so will a warbow. Similarly, a heavy crossbow will need about 4 turns to kill a Brigand Leader (100hps) (3 is perhaps possible with Executioner) and so will a warbow.

However, I don't think taking away hit chances is fair though. At 6 hexes away, the difference between Quick Shot and Shoot Bolt is 20. Even at a high Ranged Skill of 90, shooting a shielded brigand (base def 10, shield 15), 6 hexes away with a Bow would only give 45% hit chance. With a Crossbow you would have 65% hit chance. Very much better.

I don't mind seeing Bows receive a slight vs armor nerf but I'd prefer seeing a ranged nerf across the board as I believe balance in v0.6 had its merits.

Originally posted by 千仞万渊:

Balance is one thing, joy and diversity of playing is also the thing. I love to use Xbow but bow seems to be much superior that I sometime must give up xbow.

Well, generally, bow and crossbow both doing properly in its profesional field. But bow can also perform well against armed unit due to fearsome and killing frenzy perk. While other ranged weapon can gain little advantage from these few perk.

I'm with Teut in that I also don't feel everything has to be perfectly balanced. I like some diversity too but I don't mind having Bows generally being the better and more flexible choice towards the late game, especially for dealing with enemy spellcasters and archers. I don't use all melee weapons equally either so I'm not sure why I should find bow vs crossbow particularly problematic.

In general, I think of perk interactions as a rather minor consideration in the grand scheme of things. Crossbows can also make use of Killing Frenzy when starting with loaded status, but admittedly it is a little more awkward in the rounds thereafter. Crossbows tend to have better chances of inflicting injuries on moderately armored units and can give a damage boost to characters with Executioner.

Originally posted by 千仞万渊:

For less skilled boy like 60 ranged boy. I dont think I gonna pick mastery for him.

I see the main advantage of crossbows as high ignore armor %. It has less range, less potential damage output per turn and is heavier. If you don't take mastery and don't try to leverage ignore armor, there would be little reason to use crossbows.

To sum up:
Shoot Bolt vs Quick Shot
Quick Shot has better damage output and keeps pace even against armored foes but suffers from low hit chances and uses more fatigue (2 shots)

Shoot Bolt vs Aimed Shot
Aimed Shot has significantly better range, comparable hit rates, comparable vs armor%, comparable fatigue drain, but suffers from less ignore armor and will fall behind vs armored foes.

[rodriguezCIA]

Originally posted by Drathnar1:

I see the main advantage of crossbows as high ignore armor %. It has less range, less potential damage output per turn and is heavier. If you don't take mastery and don't try to leverage ignore armor, there would be little reason to use crossbows.

To sum up:
Shoot Bolt vs Quick Shot
Quick Shot has better damage output and keeps pace even against armored foes but suffers from low hit chances and uses more fatigue (2 shots)

Shoot Bolt vs Aimed Shot
Aimed Shot has significantly better range, comparable hit rates, comparable vs armor%, comparable fatigue drain, but suffers from less ignore armor and will fall behind vs armored foes.

there is of course no point in comparing these two weapons (bow and crossbow) if you don't take into account all the possibilities (choice of weapons, perks, enemies), 千仞万渊.

to add to what Drathnar1 said:
- even if warbow and heavy crossbow will need on average same number of turns to kill a brigand raider or a brigand leader, crossbow higher penetration means headshots can one-shot a raider and two-shot a leader. that's the same reason people post "plz nerf arbalesters they just two-shot my 2h bro" topic
- good synergy with head hunter perk, crossbow can shot only once per turn but it leverages the one-shot/two-shot capacity
- good synergy with crippling strikes/executioner perks because of the high penetration, better one high hp damage shot than two low hp damage shots
- you have to take into account the spike impaler, properly used it divides by two the number of attacks of a brigand leader, a knight, an orc warlord, etc.
- crossbowmen can wear medium/heavy armors and still dump fatigue

the fact bows are more used than crossbows doesn't mean bows are superior to crossbows, it means crossbows are more specialised than bows. in terms of game design it's not a problem