Concerning missile damage

**oberst_ag** · April 03, 2016, 10:16 AM

Personaly i find archer and missiles to strong making sure cav gets raped as soon as it shows up.

**Elitewolf** · April 04, 2016, 01:37 PM

Weakness of missile units isn't so much due to damage but more because of their low accuracy. In AoC and Rome 2 accuracy is used to decrease missile spread. In Attila and FotE all accuracy values are set to 0. This means most arrows will miss.

I'd love to see FotE adopt the AoC approach of having very high missile block and armor values but no missile armor value and decent accuracy scores for ranged units (5-30 or something for all ranged units)

**BreadBuax** · April 10, 2016, 05:20 AM

A very simple observation I've made:
Its that low damage(early) misslie units are pretty decent(even great) against early game barbaian/sands units due to their complete lack of armour units,they are espacially great against light cavalries.

Against armoured units they simply turned into b*llshit that doesn't do anything.
considering that you will be fighting low armour early game units for much of the campaign,it is not a grea idea to just increase misslie damage outright.

Conclusion:Cheap Missile great against no armour(that you'll fight for much of the game),worthless against armoured
Changes probably not required

**BreadBuax** · April 10, 2016, 05:34 AM

I might add that short bows and slingers been ineffective against heavy armour is authethic,for those you' ll need crossbows and recurve bows.

Another thing i notice is that foot bows seem to be alot worse than barbarian foot slingers against light units.
I know this is probably intended,but the difference is quite large and might warrant a baance look.

**Robomax** · April 21, 2016, 07:06 AM

That fact is that The Euro Bows were cheaper to make and did damage that's fact look it . The Composite recue bows were expensive to make they shot longer but the didn't do the damage because they didn't require as much pull poundage. 15-30lbs. Were as the Self-bows 60lbs.

**Robomax** · April 21, 2016, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by Robomax

That fact is that The Euro Bows were cheaper to make and did damage that's fact look it . The Composite recue bows were expensive to make they shot longer but the didn't do the damage because they didn't require as much pull poundage. 15-30lbs. Were as the Self-bows 60lbs.

The Hunnish Composite Recruve Bows did not do well in Europe because the weather. Composite bows sensitive to moisture.

**Robomax** · April 21, 2016, 04:54 PM

A boned tip arrow with enough Pull Draw would go through Leather Armor and even light chain if you hit it in a gap . There is no Plate or Heavy chain in the time of Attila.
Types of Armor
1. Padded
2. Leather
3. Leather and padded
4. Light chain (Cheaper . One size fits all theory)
5. The "broad ferrous" Which only the Romans had. Cause it was to expensive and had to be tailored made to the Solder who whore it. So even in Roman ranks only the Elite units would have this Armor most of the Cohorts and others unit wore light chain.

**Robomax** · April 21, 2016, 05:11 PM

I wish I new how to mod . I would change the Archery to the Type of bow use to its correct range and DMG against the type of Armor and shield type used.

**Robomax** · April 21, 2016, 06:00 PM

Just as a last note.
Composite Foot Archery's would be the Supreme range unit on the Battle Field. (That would include all Eastern and Steeped factions and ERE.) (Foot Archery's always do more DMG than there Horsemen counterpart also . This Mod has that Backwards) Composite bows do less DMG than there self-bow counterparts but have way more range.

Self-Bows: Barbarian Tribes would do More DMG and less range (Requires more Pull Draw increasing Thrust of the arrow) But way less range than its Composite Counter part. (They would start with wood tip(Only effective against no armor units) and have to Research and build to get Bone Tipped)

WRE: has a problem with Archery Historically . They Used Composite Bows but because of the weather in Europe were less effective defending their city's.(Most likely why Italic City's moved toward the Crossbow.

**Taneda Santôka** · April 22, 2016, 05:07 AM

Granted composite bows have a greater maximum range, but I doubt there is a major discrepancy in effective range.
If anything, I think archers should have a bonus vs cavalry, as an arrow's penetrating power is HUGELY influenced not by its speed, but its velocity, the arrow's speed and the target's speed, hence why charging cavalrymen were mowed down by archers as their charging speed multiplied the arrow's power.
And I've never pictured what you call the "barbarians" to use wooden or bone tipped arrows, those men had chainmail and plenty of iron tips have been found. I know for a fact vikings had iron tipped arrows, but I dont know anything about the invading germanic tribes, maybe you have sources.

**drillmaster** · April 24, 2016, 04:27 AM

Yeah bows are tearing apart early barbarian units. Which is fine. They are almost useless against mail which is also fine.
Huns do more damaga due to their composite bows and their skill which makes sense. Howerver what about crossbows? They ve been causing me a lot of trouble. They never fire even with a clear line.of sight and they only kill 8-10 guys per volley. They are also seriously outranged by everything apart from javelins. Am.i doing something wrong? How are you suposed to use these guys?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

**Elitewolf** · May 01, 2016, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Robomax

That fact is that The Euro Bows were cheaper to make and did damage that's fact look it . The Composite recue bows were expensive to make they shot longer but the didn't do the damage because they didn't require as much pull poundage. 15-30lbs. Were as the Self-bows 60lbs.

Originally Posted by Robomax

Just as a last note.
Composite Foot Archery's would be the Supreme range unit on the Battle Field. (That would include all Eastern and Steeped factions and ERE.) (Foot Archery's always do more DMG than there Horsemen counterpart also . This Mod has that Backwards) Composite bows do less DMG than there self-bow counterparts but have way more range.

Self-Bows: Barbarian Tribes would do More DMG and less range (Requires more Pull Draw increasing Thrust of the arrow) But way less range than its Composite Counter part. (They would start with wood tip(Only effective against no armor units) and have to Research and build to get Bone Tipped)

WRE: has a problem with Archery Historically . They Used Composite Bows but because of the weather in Europe were less effective defending their city's.(Most likely why Italic City's moved toward the Crossbow.

Uhhh... Source? A composite bow can be made to the same draw weight as a self bow. It just tends to be a bit more difficult to draw, as in you feel the weight more (personal opinion going from 56 inch to 51 inch recurve) Shorter bows can not be drawn as far as longer bows but this is negated by the composite bit (the horn and sinew serves to allow the wood to bend further. A korean 51 inch bow can for example be drawn to 32 inches while most selfbows and Scandinavian holmegaards maxx out at 28-30. English longbows can sometimes be drawn to 32 inches tho!) It will also usually outshoot a self bow, especially the self bows of old due to the weight of the limbs (composite bows can have very thin limbs, only a thumb wide which makes the limbs lighter allowing them to speed up more allowing them to impart more speed on the arrow) This does depend on the draw weight though: 70lbs is the point where a recurve bow will start hitting higher speeds than a well made self bow. It's at that point where the flexibility of the sinew and horn break even with the added weight to the limbs. Please do note I said well made: It requires narrowing down the self bow to the thickness of the thumb while keeping a good bow, which is something only a few bowyers can do.
A far more important factor which determines the range of a bow and it's effect is the draw weight. Draw weight isn't limited by the bow type: There's video's of english longbows of up to 200lbs but this isn't practical for sustained shooting, the highest hdraw weight historical longbow was found on the mary rose and it was 120 lbs or something like that, with most other longbows recovered from before that time period being much lighter) Composite warbows can also be made to high draw weights (although the highest I've seen for a traditionally made one is 120 lbs but this is still an extremely high weight) The major limit on draw weight is the skill of the archer. It takes training of muscles you usually don't use (the muscles of your back) to shoot. Most adults start off with 16-20 pounds when shooting, 24 at most. Doesn't matter how buff you are, you need to use muscles you don't usually use in ways you've never used them before. I've been shooting for 3 years now and moving up as fast as I could and I'm currently at 50lbs, starting off with 18. This is the most important reason why archery died: It takes a bloody long time to train an archer to use a good warbow, you pretty much have to start at childhood. Sure, a hunter with a 40-50 pound bow will do well against deer and unarmored men but he will lack the range and penetration of a dedicated war archer with a heavier bow. So I see no reason why a self bow should outrange or do more damage than a composite bow, there's no technical reason and I doubt whether the germans trained more than for example the huns or the Sassanids with their bows. It just wasn't in their culture as far as I know.

A final thing which might have made a difference is the use of a thumb ring. It allows you to draw back further (koreans draw up to their drawing hand shoulder) as the thumb is stronger than the finger. Overdrawing allows you to get more power out of the same bow: Draw a bow which is 40 lbs at 28 inches to 32 inches and it might be anywhere between 50 and 60 pounds depending on the type and make. Although not every bow will like this very much... Sassanids used thumb rings, there's a photo in Adam Swoboda's book of one.

Mounted archery does muddle the issue somewhat but as far as I know modern horse archers shoot up to 50 lbs. They don't go further because there is no need but I see no reason why they shouldn't be able, it just gets even harder to train up and to hit something. But the main muscles you use for drawing a bow is your back and you can still use that while riding.

Arrow penetration is simple physics: E=MV2 (Energy=Mass times (velocity squared)) In other words to increase arrow penetration and thus the damage you do you need to either up the mass of the arrow (which the English and Europeans did, as the heavy limbs of their bows weren't as badly affected by increased arrow weight) or you can up the velocity (which tends to work better with recurve bows) Upping the velocity is a lot more effective as any gains from this are squared. This is why you see odd things like shooting short darts as the Ottomans(Majra) and Koreans (pyonjeon) did during the heydays of archery, using a half-circle of bamboo or something to hold the dart in place. This is a bit of an optimum curve though because too light and you won't have the mass to do damage and you will be affected more by air and wind resistance.

tl;dr: Composite recurve bows and self bows don't differ all that much. They both launch arrows at the enemy with one doing so at faster velocities while the other accept heavier arrows better, all of which can differ depending on the exact type and the bowyer. The most important factor determining bow penetration and range (which are closely related) is draw weight which is in turn determined by training. So all in all I'd argue the culture is what makes the archer. Type of bow DOES matter, but the difference between a fancy cretan recurve and a shoddy suebi piece of wood with string with the same draw weight isn't as big as the difference between two similar bows when one is 40 lbs and the other 60 lbs, more so when the 60 lbs guy is pulling it a few inches further
In other words (to use an example from Rome 2) I'd argue a Cretan from antiquity isn't necessarily a better archer with a better bow than a gallic hunter, it's the fact he's been doing it all his life with the express purpose of shooting people for money, allowing him to shoot heavier bows which makes him better.

Source: Me shooting a traditional korean hornbow of 50 lbs. Also all the research I did while buying this bow. Do note that a lot of this is based on my own experience with bows and research into the history of recurved bows (got intereseted after reading "the art of shooting a short reflexed bow with a thumb ring" by Adam Swoboda) I don't actually know all that much about the bows from the times of Attila except that I once shot a hunnish bow and I liked it. This is intended more as a general summary of the physics and stuff of archery. Also all draw weights mentioned are at 28 inches unless specified otherwise as draw weight isn't a fixed value unless you fix the draw length
Final note: I refer a lot to Korean archery as that is the only country where archery, specifically with recurved bows really survived in it's original form.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

**geala** · May 03, 2016, 03:11 AM

I concur with a lot what Elitewolf said. However bows and crossbows are low velocity and low energy weapons. For such weapons heaviers projectiles are usually the better way to increase penetration. The reason is that there is a kind of physical law that in the low velocity area heavier projectiles transfer increases in speed better than lighter ones. Because of this and the restricted speed limit for muscle powered weapons we see usually heavy arrows as war arrows. A strong self bow of the Mary Rose design (16th c. AD) seems to have been between 120 and 180 lbs, using arrows of about 100 g weight, resulting in energies of about 140 to 160 Joules. That's presumably a lot more than ancient bows delivered but strong Sassanid and Hunnish composite bows would perhaps be also over 100 Joules energy. That is very much for a bow (although ridiculously low for a firearm) and beyond reach of most modern archers.

The decisive factor for penetration is not energy but energy per square. That can be a huge difference. A projectile of the same material and weight will penetrate the better the smaller the area of contact is. So small and sharp is better than big and sharp or small and dull (bodgins were never designed against plate f.e.). That's the reason why we see the No. 16 arrow tip so often in the 15th c. AD.

There is one fact for sure all afficionados of archery power have to take into account. Never in the whole time of their use bows and crossbows were able to dominate the battlefield and make close combat second rate or irrelevant. Battles were usually won in close combat. Shields and armor were part of the reasons. So no pre-16th c. game should make projectiles too strong. Arrows are no bullets. In FotE missiles are already a bit too strong sometimes in my opinion but the balance is mostly ok.

**Taneda Santôka** · May 03, 2016, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by Elitewolf

Arrow penetration is simple physics: E=MV2 (Energy=Mass times (velocity squared)) In other words to increase arrow penetration and thus the damage you do you need to either up the mass of the arrow (which the English and Europeans did, as the heavy limbs of their bows weren't as badly affected by increased arrow weight) or you can up the velocity (which tends to work better with recurve bows)

Hence why bows should have a bonus VS cavalry, as the horseman's speed factors in the arrow's velocity. SO cavalry's speed is added to the speed of the arrow SQUARED, which is a massive increase, compared to a standing or walking footman.
The same thing applies for mounted archers, the speed of the shooter factors, squared, in the arrow's velocity.

**Elitewolf** · May 03, 2016, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Taneda Santôka

Hence why bows should have a bonus VS cavalry, as the horseman's speed factors in the arrow's velocity. SO cavalry's speed is added to the speed of the arrow SQUARED, which is a massive increase, compared to a standing or walking footman.
The same thing applies for mounted archers, the speed of the shooter factors, squared, in the arrow's velocity.

This would be a bit odd though. A rider running into an arrow would be hit 'harder' as the relative speed difference is much greater (speed of arrow and speed of horseman are added) but if a horseman runs away and is shot in the back a arrow should do less damage as the relative difference is a lot smaller (as now the speed of the horseman is subtracted from the speed of the arrow to determine the relative velocity) and a horseman standing still or moving at a 90 degree angle would have no difference. This is something mount and blade does very well. But archers would get a bonus versus cav in all 4 cases which is weird, as it only should be in 1 of the 4 cases (rider heading straight into arrow) I don't think it possible to balance within the constraints of the game mechanics.

A better way to balance it would be to give cav shields with less missile block chance than the equivelant infantry shield because they have to cover a lot bigger area with the same sized shield.

**Fraxinicus** · May 07, 2016, 12:08 AM

Personally, I find archers to be alright, but I do wish they had a bit more killing power against infantry. Basically, a single arrow to an unarmored man should put him out of the fight - in game terms, kill him. But it doesn't seem like that's the case.

To implement this, I guess arrow damage would have to be greatly increased, but so too would the ability of proper armor to negate it. Not sure exactly how that would be done in game terms, or if it's feasible from a gameplay/balance perspective, though.

**Draewn** · May 07, 2016, 01:09 AM

Originally Posted by Fraxinicus

Personally, I find archers to be alright, but I do wish they had a bit more killing power against infantry. Basically, a single arrow to an unarmored man should put him out of the fight - in game terms, kill him. But it doesn't seem like that's the case.

To implement this, I guess arrow damage would have to be greatly increased, but so too would the ability of proper armor to negate it. Not sure exactly how that would be done in game terms, or if it's feasible from a gameplay/balance perspective, though.

Well, a sword cut, cudgel upside the head, or solid spear thrust would ruin your whole week as well, but most mods still use the HP system. The main reason for that is abstraction - the stuff happening leading up to the arrow hitting a guy and the damage being calculated isn't all realistic in the slightest. If you take the result that comes out of it too literally, the result you get isn't actually more realistic - part of the process is, but the overall equation still produces unrealistic results. There are always going to be real world factors the game just cannot handle, and the sharp differentiation between "stopped" and "not stopped" is one of them - a sling stone at speed would really mess you up, but it might easily bounce from a well made shield. A heavy javelin is going to pierce a shield better than a light one, but either will maim you badly if they hit flesh. The realism turtles go all the way down, and so you have to pick a place to stop, and then tune for the results you want. Usually, that leaves mods overrating the survivability of unarmored and unshielded men to injuries, because their main methods of avoiding those injuries aren't available to them in the game. I don't know about you, but if I was press-ganged into carrying a javelin into battle, I'd be on the floor and praying when the other guys started hurling theirs, not to mention I'd probably throw mine from further than I had confidence in hitting from, and run the hell away immediately after to avoid any chance of that first scenario occurring. But in total war, everyone stands proud and tall even when the heat is on them, which suits fine for disciplined and armored heavy infantry, but less so for skirmishers - so you have to give the skirmishers a leg up on the other calculations, or they get nailed more than they really should.