Cheap Crossbow
Cheap Crossbow
I see crossbowmen as something easier to train than archers.
Which of course is true in the game but their use is different from what you can see from the not so cheaper ones.
Is there any possibility cheap archers could be separated from the cheap crossbowman and have them take the anti-heavy category still?
Which of course is true in the game but their use is different from what you can see from the not so cheaper ones.
Is there any possibility cheap archers could be separated from the cheap crossbowman and have them take the anti-heavy category still?
Re: Cheap Crossbow
Well we already have the Arbalest and crossbowman upgrades, maybe they could recieve a weqpon effect upgrade? Like Piercing Bolts thatll add 1 ignore armor weapon effect like the Slingers. Cause Usually youll see Archers being outclassed by other archer types like longbows and faster firing bows like the Yumi bow and The Mongols horse archers and since the archers do upgrade into these crossbowmen why not just make them into the cheap anti heavy. I havent checked the numbers but for now I think this would be a better proposal than making a new 2turn crossbow man
I am Pat :>
I barely visit the forums, but when I do and u saw me reading your post. Expect a whole paragraph to be released about your topic. well except if I like your idea and the idea is perfect as it is, if so ill give u my support
I barely visit the forums, but when I do and u saw me reading your post. Expect a whole paragraph to be released about your topic. well except if I like your idea and the idea is perfect as it is, if so ill give u my support
Re: Cheap Crossbow
The way I'm seeing it. The balance would be that the normal archer upgrades would stay the same while the crossbows' range would just stay the same.
Yeah, longbows and yumi do outclass the normal so there's that but they do also have a higher cost.
Yeah, longbows and yumi do outclass the normal so there's that but they do also have a higher cost.
Re: Cheap Crossbow
Realistically there is no reason why would crossbow be deemed anti-armor.
Small crowsbows, that required not very much of skill and strength to use was pretty much equivalent to bows.
Increase in range and attack means, that a little stronger were used.
But much more importantly - balance side.
What could be possible stats to not make them OP, yet useful?
E.g. Slinger deals 4 damage to even heaviest armored, shielded units.
Anything, that tops that is probably OP.
As for using existing line without changes -why would we change main archer line to specialised one?
Small crowsbows, that required not very much of skill and strength to use was pretty much equivalent to bows.
Increase in range and attack means, that a little stronger were used.
But much more importantly - balance side.
What could be possible stats to not make them OP, yet useful?
E.g. Slinger deals 4 damage to even heaviest armored, shielded units.
Anything, that tops that is probably OP.
As for using existing line without changes -why would we change main archer line to specialised one?
Age of Strategy design leader
Re: Cheap Crossbow
The slinger you are talking about is with upgrades, right? Cause besides Balearic slingers. No one will do what you describe.
For the change in the existing line. Yeah, no need to change that but just them being archers instead of changing into crossbow.
I might be wrong but aren't some historical recurve bow as strong if not stronger than longbows? Maybe change them into that though as said. Same stats.
The change would be in the crossbow having its own line. Which yeah, isn't much true but in-game shenanigans, it does already that. I just want a cheaper pavise crossbowman or a cheaper unmounted crossbowman with the same utility.
For the change in the existing line. Yeah, no need to change that but just them being archers instead of changing into crossbow.
I might be wrong but aren't some historical recurve bow as strong if not stronger than longbows? Maybe change them into that though as said. Same stats.
The change would be in the crossbow having its own line. Which yeah, isn't much true but in-game shenanigans, it does already that. I just want a cheaper pavise crossbowman or a cheaper unmounted crossbowman with the same utility.
Re: Cheap Crossbow
There is a problem though.
Cheaper pavise would just have old archer bonuses + 40% vs heavy.
So it means with 5 power it's just 7 vs e.g. swordsmen (6 final damage as compared to archer current 5) and the same 7 vs foot knights (4 final damage) or shield knights (2 final damage).
Meanwhile 1st tier regular slinger has 2 attacks with 3 power and additional 1 damage ignoring armor each.
Bonuses won't apply on any of listed targets, so it deals:
6 final damage vs swordsmen, 4 vs any flesh and blood unit, no matter how armored.
It's because minimal hp unit can loose in attack is 1 so both attacks reduced to minimum still deals 2 hp.
Both weapon effects deal constant 1 hp.
Cheaper pavise would just have old archer bonuses + 40% vs heavy.
So it means with 5 power it's just 7 vs e.g. swordsmen (6 final damage as compared to archer current 5) and the same 7 vs foot knights (4 final damage) or shield knights (2 final damage).
Meanwhile 1st tier regular slinger has 2 attacks with 3 power and additional 1 damage ignoring armor each.
Bonuses won't apply on any of listed targets, so it deals:
6 final damage vs swordsmen, 4 vs any flesh and blood unit, no matter how armored.
It's because minimal hp unit can loose in attack is 1 so both attacks reduced to minimum still deals 2 hp.
Both weapon effects deal constant 1 hp.
Age of Strategy design leader
Re: Cheap Crossbow
Hmmm. How does it exactly deal 4 damage per any flesh and blood? The (active effects) written for slingers only damages flesh and blood by 1. It means 3 (original) damage can be ignored by armor. At least most.
It only deals 2 damage to 1st tier shoulder if two attacks are used.
If crossbow can play the role of a cheaper pavise. It would have I think 4 range base as balance and 5 for damage which indeed would be more damaging than archer though in smaller range.
For slinger to crossbow balance. Slinger is anti-light and medium while crossbow could be for the three but of course with the disadvantage of being a 1 turn attack unit.
It only deals 2 damage to 1st tier shoulder if two attacks are used.
If crossbow can play the role of a cheaper pavise. It would have I think 4 range base as balance and 5 for damage which indeed would be more damaging than archer though in smaller range.
For slinger to crossbow balance. Slinger is anti-light and medium while crossbow could be for the three but of course with the disadvantage of being a 1 turn attack unit.
Re: Cheap Crossbow
One question, arent Arbalests stronger than Windlass crossbows and other crossbows?
More importantly, what kind of crossbows does our Pavise Crossbowman/genoese, and Hospitaller Crossbowmen use?
Cause if Arbalests are stronger than somthing like a windlass crossbow that these heavy crossbowmen coulve used, we have to change the units representation ingame
Arent are archers more european based? Thats why they turned into crossbowmen. Recurve bows are more middle eastern right? I think itll be better to keep recurve bows as a diff unit maybe.
More importantly, what kind of crossbows does our Pavise Crossbowman/genoese, and Hospitaller Crossbowmen use?
Cause if Arbalests are stronger than somthing like a windlass crossbow that these heavy crossbowmen coulve used, we have to change the units representation ingame
DreJaDe wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:40 pm For the change in the existing line. Yeah, no need to change that but just them being archers instead of changing into crossbow.
I might be wrong but aren't some historical recurve bow as strong if not stronger than longbows? Maybe change them into that though as said. Same stats.
The change would be in the crossbow having its own line. Which yeah, isn't much true but in-game shenanigans, it does already that. I just want a cheaper pavise crossbowman or a cheaper unmounted crossbowman with the same utility.
Arent are archers more european based? Thats why they turned into crossbowmen. Recurve bows are more middle eastern right? I think itll be better to keep recurve bows as a diff unit maybe.
I am Pat :>
I barely visit the forums, but when I do and u saw me reading your post. Expect a whole paragraph to be released about your topic. well except if I like your idea and the idea is perfect as it is, if so ill give u my support
I barely visit the forums, but when I do and u saw me reading your post. Expect a whole paragraph to be released about your topic. well except if I like your idea and the idea is perfect as it is, if so ill give u my support
Re: Cheap Crossbow
If in not wrong. Eastern Europe used recurve bows. Like the Hungarian.
The Romans also that still have Greece as it's territory used recurve bows right?
The Romans also that still have Greece as it's territory used recurve bows right?
Re: Cheap Crossbow
Each slinger attack deals at least 1 damage (attack + attack*bonus damage rounded down - armor, but minimum 1) + 1 damage from weapon effect, which ignores armor.DreJaDe wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:14 pm Hmmm. How does it exactly deal 4 damage per any flesh and blood? The (active effects) written for slingers only damages flesh and blood by 1. It means 3 (original) damage can be ignored by armor. At least most.
It only deals 2 damage to 1st tier shoulder if two attacks are used.
If crossbow can play the role of a cheaper pavise. It would have I think 4 range base as balance and 5 for damage which indeed would be more damaging than archer though in smaller range.
For slinger to crossbow balance. Slinger is anti-light and medium while crossbow could be for the three but of course with the disadvantage of being a 1 turn attack unit.
So absolute minimum of damage if two attacks are used is 4.
And with this weapon effect it really changed roles to be cheap anti-armor.
Still quite capable vs totally unarmoured targets though.
And dealing the same damage vs medium infantry as archer.
Actually it may need to be nerfed.
But right now it better against very light and heavy armored units, the same vs medium, while quickly becoming worse compared to archer with buffs vs medium armored or light shielded.
We don't have to.SirPat wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:21 pm One question, arent Arbalests stronger than Windlass crossbows and other crossbows?
More importantly, what kind of crossbows does our Pavise Crossbowman/genoese, and Hospitaller Crossbowmen use?
Cause if Arbalests are stronger than somthing like a windlass crossbow that these heavy crossbowmen coulve used, we have to change the units representation ingame
DreJaDe wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:40 pm For the change in the existing line. Yeah, no need to change that but just them being archers instead of changing into crossbow.
I might be wrong but aren't some historical recurve bow as strong if not stronger than longbows? Maybe change them into that though as said. Same stats.
The change would be in the crossbow having its own line. Which yeah, isn't much true but in-game shenanigans, it does already that. I just want a cheaper pavise crossbowman or a cheaper unmounted crossbowman with the same utility.
Arent are archers more european based? Thats why they turned into crossbowmen. Recurve bows are more middle eastern right? I think itll be better to keep recurve bows as a diff unit maybe.
Unit is more than one person and its not really uniform in size, weapon types or even number of weapons.
And attack is reliable average damage dealt by whole unit.
And even if arbalest unit would really be fully equipped, just as genoese crossbowmen.
Take elite, trained mercenaries vs a bunch of common city people or villagers.
Even with better weapons they would pierce less armors, score less damaging hits, e.g. because of misses.
Just as armor stat doesn't have to indicate really better armors.
Only a reliable average decrease in damage taken - by any means.
Anyway - we should not concentrate on exact weapon types for stat representation.
Just because a culture knew about weapons didn't always mean, that they used it.
Early recurve bows was pretty weak against humidity, so in Mediterranean average battle it could be unusable.
Age of Strategy design leader
Re: Cheap Crossbow
And historically romans themselves didn't use much of any missile weapons.
They delegated it to auxilia, which didn't have any uniform weapons.
Just designated role.
They delegated it to auxilia, which didn't have any uniform weapons.
Just designated role.
Age of Strategy design leader
Re: Cheap Crossbow
Actually, no. It's still one, maximum damage 2 in lowest possible attack. I tested it.
Though I do concede with the idea of cheap crossbow.
Though I do concede with the idea of cheap crossbow.
Re: Cheap Crossbow
I
While floating message shows -1 it's actually taking 2hp each attack, so 4hp in turn.
Vs spartan, Heavy shield knight, foot knight, shielder.
As long as slinger actually has weapon effect it should stand true.
So coming back to separate cheap crossbow - it's not that I am against such unit.
I just don't want to bring unit with the same cost and usage as existing one (or actually weaker).
Especially under the same culture.
There needs to be an idea for stats, that will be useful for it's role , but not too strong - both on the start, as well as on endgame.
E.g. AoF human crossbowmen vs archers doesn't convince me at all, because usage is only balanced on endgame. Don't even starting with slingers, being even more bonuses dependant.
I tested multiple times on different armored units.
While floating message shows -1 it's actually taking 2hp each attack, so 4hp in turn.
Vs spartan, Heavy shield knight, foot knight, shielder.
As long as slinger actually has weapon effect it should stand true.
So coming back to separate cheap crossbow - it's not that I am against such unit.
I just don't want to bring unit with the same cost and usage as existing one (or actually weaker).
Especially under the same culture.
There needs to be an idea for stats, that will be useful for it's role , but not too strong - both on the start, as well as on endgame.
E.g. AoF human crossbowmen vs archers doesn't convince me at all, because usage is only balanced on endgame. Don't even starting with slingers, being even more bonuses dependant.
Age of Strategy design leader
- makazuwr32
- Posts: 7832
- Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:29 am
- Location: Moscow, Russia
Re: Cheap Crossbow
Actually aof crossbow vs archer is balanced fairly well through whole game right now.
But crossbowmen in aof are professionals, not militias armed with weak crossbows. And crossbows in aof are heavy ones.
Also in general crossbow is much harder to manufacture than bow so i see no reason for crossbowmen in aos to be cheap. Cheapness in aos comes from both how easy to train unit and how easy to prepare equipment for him.
Right. In aof also we have a universal excuse for everything that does not realistic — It's a kind of magic!
Aof does not have such priviledge.
But crossbowmen in aof are professionals, not militias armed with weak crossbows. And crossbows in aof are heavy ones.
Also in general crossbow is much harder to manufacture than bow so i see no reason for crossbowmen in aos to be cheap. Cheapness in aos comes from both how easy to train unit and how easy to prepare equipment for him.
Right. In aof also we have a universal excuse for everything that does not realistic — It's a kind of magic!
Aof does not have such priviledge.
AoF Dev Co-Leadermakazuwr32 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:54 amWhen you ask to change something argument why...
Put some numbers, compare to what other races have and so on...
© by Makazuwr32™.
Re: Cheap Crossbow
Yeah your right.makazuwr32 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:05 am Also in general crossbow is much harder to manufacture than bow so i see no reason for crossbowmen in aos to be cheap. Cheapness in aos comes from both how easy to train unit and how easy to prepare equipment for him.
I am Pat :>
I barely visit the forums, but when I do and u saw me reading your post. Expect a whole paragraph to be released about your topic. well except if I like your idea and the idea is perfect as it is, if so ill give u my support
I barely visit the forums, but when I do and u saw me reading your post. Expect a whole paragraph to be released about your topic. well except if I like your idea and the idea is perfect as it is, if so ill give u my support
Re: Cheap Crossbow
Maybe I am just a bad player in AoF, but having a game with no techs allowed - I'd never even train crossbowmen.
But last time I played there was no hoplites, so maybe it changed.
Even if not - its still OK, because AoF has much better pace of upgrades.
But such comparison for AoS would be bad.
But last time I played there was no hoplites, so maybe it changed.
Even if not - its still OK, because AoF has much better pace of upgrades.
But such comparison for AoS would be bad.
Age of Strategy design leader
- makazuwr32
- Posts: 7832
- Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:29 am
- Location: Moscow, Russia
Re: Cheap Crossbow
Well in no upgrades specifically and specifically human crossbowmen are not that good when you compare them with archers.
But for others it works better still. Orcs for example have ability to buff units and +12 attack for crossbowman is better than for archer when you face foot enemies since crossbow goblin has better bonuses.
But for others it works better still. Orcs for example have ability to buff units and +12 attack for crossbowman is better than for archer when you face foot enemies since crossbow goblin has better bonuses.
AoF Dev Co-Leadermakazuwr32 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:54 amWhen you ask to change something argument why...
Put some numbers, compare to what other races have and so on...
© by Makazuwr32™.
Re: Cheap Crossbow
That is also true.
+50% bonus is quite good.
But in AoS we don't have many buffs targetting ranged units - most are for melee only.
+50% bonus is quite good.
But in AoS we don't have many buffs targetting ranged units - most are for melee only.
Age of Strategy design leader