All Activity

I mean gameplay-wise. An archer with less range but more damage would be very similar to a javelineer. As there is already Archer, Javelineer, Slinger and Crossbowman I don't think another ranged unit is helpful before these four units are distinct.

I agree they should move faster, we have played around with that, but it does get hard balance wise. I mean all range is faster than melee in base game right? when it comes to cs? The question is should an archer be faster than an xbow, jav etc... would all ranged, ie xbows, slingers and javs have no armor as well? I know some archers, cretans specifically had small shields, same with some javelineers, know as peltasts, are they then slower than an archer with more range less armor?

No clue, never read about their archers :P. Would need to find sources... They should. That's why I also gave them a large dodge defence.

I misread this, since before you said more damage and shorter range. You can't separate things like that. Some Asiatic recurved composite bows were way shorter than longbows, yet had longer maximum range (although what matters is effective range, but they didn't differ much on that). It's about the materials and complexity. They were indeed harder to build, but were necessary when going on horseback. Anyway, a fast ranged weapon with short range and less damage could be a repeating crossbow (the famous chu-ko-nu), supposedly invented at the time of the game, in the Warring States period, with the Han being involved. A slow ranged weapon with more range and damage would be the gastraphetes, but the game gives it a range of just 45m, which seems wrong to me. Then there's the Chinese crossbow, which maybe in the late Warring States period outranged their bows*, even when for the Han the game has the range for the Infantry Crossbowman as 45m, and for the Archer as 60m. I think this is wrong if we consider effective range (bolts lose less kinetic energy in flight than arrows). I haven't checked about other crossbows around that time, which weren't many, and probably weren't superior to the Chinese. Another interesting disadvantage of the crossbows not usually talked about is that ammunition was reused by the enemy, although you can't use arrows on crossbows (too much power) and bolts on bows (too short), but some cultures had a guide to use baby-arrows on bows that would allow them to also reuse bolts from the enemy. *Source: https://dn720004.ca.archive.org/0/items/science-and-civilisation-in-china-volume-5-chemistry-and-chemical-technology-par_20210927_1445/Science and Civilisation in China Volume 5%2C Chemistry and Chemical Technology Part 6%2C Military Technology Missiles and Sieges by Joseph Needham%2C Robin D. S. Yates (z-lib.org)_text.pdf, page 137. In other parts it's mentioned that the bows of the Huns and the Xiongnu couldn't outmatch the Chinese crossbows, although I haven't read enough to check if this means outrange (I'd guess effective range).

You haven't played with these bad boys, I see.

We need more maps with canyons and choke points, so it’s easier to find places to position archers and rain arrows into the enemy. Also, since archers don’t wear any armor, and are carrying only a bow and quiver, they should maybe move slightly faster than other CS.

Where would Kush and Maury fit in this? We have Maury as the fursthest range at moment in CWA

Hello everyone My friend, who plays this game with us online, has had an issue since the latest release (28). When she tries to log into the lobby she receives the error: "The server's certificate could not be verified or the TLS handshake did not complete successfully." Details: No new software (antivirus, firewall, etc.) was installed before the problem; the computer is considered clean. TLS encryption is enabled. Her username and other account details are unchanged. No settings were changed in the game or in Windows. Internet connection is stable with low ping. She connects via mobile data using a SIM card and modem. We were playing normally for weeks on this release and also on older releases before the issue started. Picture of error Please advise if there is a solution. We really enjoy the game and want to keep playing. Thank you!

They are some skirmish maps with hostile Gaia camps spawning units 20 meters near your starting base. They are quite annoying, and you should avoid these maps.

CS archers are indeed pretty bad. Archer civs are having a really bad time before they get access to better ranged units. Champion archers are good, but expensive. To use archers effectively, you need to create and maintain distance with the enemy. This can be taxing on APM and ultimately useless, as infantry archers are slow.

https://mod.io/g/0ad/m/delenda-est#description The above mod is for when you get bored of the vanilla game, and want to try something different. Otherwise, to know which mod is good, you need to play the base game first for a while and figure out what you like, or don't like about it.

Shameless self-promotion:

I feel like archers are close to being good. A few minor buffs here and there. We can look at a24 for ways to make them OP again lol.

Nah, they kinda suck atm. Except for some champion ones.

Indeed, I was talking for a given bow. And for example, slings lose less kinetic energy in flight. Same with crossbows, given that darts are heavier. But for short distance and high damage, it's basically javelineers (in all its variants like pilum, etc). And the Kestrophendone if you want to get fancy. I thought people were always complaining that archers were OP. They should be a support unit, melee should reign supreme (at least until gunpowder :P). But I'm all in for variety, and as I mentioned before, giving all those archers the same range doesn't seem the right decision to me (not even counting that things are the other way around). You should have, regarding range, Persian Archers > Cretan Archers > Other Greek Archers. Regarding damage, I've seen discussions if Cretan archers used anti-armor arrow points, but have to look into it again. I do care about history because there's basically one of it, while one could achieve in many ways a balanced gameplay.

does anyone know how hard it would be to write in something like chance to block and or dodge/avoid? I think it would be "simple" to add them as a resistance, but then it just means the absorb less dmg, instead of potentially missing the dmg all together.

Well, it's not to completely negate, but acts as a modifier. Thus, you have values of pierce (p), hack (h), crush (c), block (b), parry (a) and dodge (d), both for attack (A) and defense (D): pA, hA, cA, bA, aA, dA, pD, hD, cD, bD, aD, dD. For example, aA is how hard is to parry its attack, aD is how easily it parries attacks. The better for the unit the bigger the values are. As a proof of concept, a naive formula for the damage the attacker deals to a defender could be (pA/pD+hA/hD+cA/cD)(bA/bD)(aA/aD)(dA/dD), meaning that all damage, after being divided by each corresponding defender's resistance, is added up, and then multiplied by factors related to the probability (it's NOT directly a probability) of the attack being either blocked, parried or dodged (just adding them up is problematic). Here I'm showing the (rounded) results, with 10 taken as an average value, and other parameters like rate of fire, movement speed and range not yet taken into account: This means that the damage ratio for spearmen:cavalry is 3:1 (as wanted), for cavalry:archers is 6:4 (which makes sense, cavalry would get destroyed by archers if they don't close in, like in Agincourt), and for archers:spearmen is 2:5 (which makes sense, the advantage of archers being not this but keeping their distance). Remember that rate of fire, movement speed and range not yet taken into account, which would incline more the scales to what is wanted. Also, archers:archers is 4 times more destructive than cavalry:cavalry, which is twice as destructive as spearmen:spearmen, which makes sense considering how long these kind of engagements last. Would be nice to keep adding units.

The issue with building a system revolving on different archer types, is that for balancing, it would be necessary to give it to most civs. No matter what historical justifications one might find. Personally, I feel like the current system, with archers, slingers, and javelineers, isn't being used to its full potential.

I think because the bow was smaller, the draw string was tighter so it would create more force but didnt have the distance. I could totally be wrong and am willing to make any changes once I come across new evidence.

Well, no. A javelin throws javelins; a shortbow unit uses a bow and arrows. And my guess is a Javelineer would be slower than a shortbow archer bc higher carry weight?? Answering to both of you here: Nah I didn't even check this. I was just following the logic of what Thalatta said here: But probably misunderstood the logic and he was talking about the arrow deal more/less damage depending target distance... To be honest, I’m not very interested in realism or historical accuracy, and I don’t know much about it so I leave that to those who do. I’m more interested in gameplay. And I’d be willing to sacrifice historical accuracy to prioritize gameplay, variety, and so on. But I’m not trying to argue anything (just to be clear). In general, archers feel quite weak in the latest alphas and also lack variety, with the exception of some champion archers. So I guess my "proposal" would be that A shortbow could have higher dexterity and a faster attack speed (with less damage, based on what I now understand), while a longbow could be slower but have greater range and deal more damage.

Wouldn't that simply be a Javelineer? Also, why should a shortbow deal more damage from a realism perspective?

If I have understood that correctly, and to simplify it a bit, in addition to Resistances that reduces the damage by a certain percentage there is also a block / dodge mechanic that completely negates the damage of a melee attack / projectile. Would certainly give you more options to make one unit type effective against certain other units types. E.g. cavalry has high dodge but low block to make them effective against ranged units but "bad" against melee units.

Again we made some adjustments with ranges in CWA... Lead bullet slingers were known to out range archers.... greek archers didn't have the range of persian archers and other civs... but they were know for their shield (better resistance) and we gave them slight dmg buff. A lot of great info out there if you look for it!

Well, I just wanted to buff them a bit, maybe I went too far Regarding "short-range ranged unit with higher damage", wouldn't/shouldn't that be the javelineers? Longer (effective) range should be some slingers. I see that the Macedonians already have quite some specific units, but an interesting one is the Kestrophendone, which would enter late in the game, it's a heavy dart thrown with a sling, and it was really devastating (but apparently hard to make). Ranges are debated, but tests indicate shorter than a bow. Also, I just noticed that Rhodian Slingers have 45m range, while Cretan Archers have 60m range, I guess this comes from myths put forward by other games regarding Cretan archers... For the Persians, I see that Sogdian Archers and Immortals have also 60m range. Xenophon's Anabasis states: "For at present the enemy can shoot arrows and sling stones so far that neither our Cretan bowmen nor our javelin-men can reach them in reply" and "the barbarians were no longer able to do any harm by their skirmishing at long range; for the Rhodian slingers carried farther with their missiles than the Persians, farther even than the Persian bowmen", thus ranges were: Cretan archers < Persian slingers < Persian bowmen < Rhodian slingers. Cretan archers were good for the Greek world, but were outranged by other specialised range units. Also: "Now I am told that there are Rhodians in our army, that most of them understand the use of the sling, and that their missile carries no less than twice as far as those from the Persian slings. For the latter have only a short range because the stones that are used in them are as large as the hand can hold; the Rhodians, however, are versed also in the art of slinging leaden bullets. If, therefore, we should ascertain who among them possess slings, and should not only pay these people for their slings, but likewise pay anyone who is willing to plait new ones, and if, furthermore, we should devise some sort of exemption for the man who will volunteer to serve as a slinger at his appointed post, it may be that men will come forward who will be capable of helping us". This is interesting because Rhodians weren't even hired as slingers, they were hoplites, who happened to have slings and were extremely good at it.

Also in the game type setting wihtin the map selection panel (on the right there is Map | Player | Game type) you can chose a grace period ("ceasefire") for how long you will not be attacked. Finally, in addition to setting AI difficulty to Easy, Very Easy or Sandbox as Boudica suggested, you can also reduce Game Speed on the same Game Type panel (or alternatively from within game using the little clock icon on the left of the top right controls group.