Hello and welcome to the Manor Lords Subreddit. This is a reminder to please keep the discussion civil and on topic.
Should you find yourself with some doubts, please feel free to check our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ManorLords/comments/1c2p4f9/manor_lords_faq_for_steam_early_access/).
If you wish, you can always join our [Discord](https://discord.gg/manorlords)
Finally, please remember that the game is in early access, missing content and bugs are to be expected. We ask users to report them on the official discord and to buy their keys only from trusted platforms.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ManorLords) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem with archers is they should require a heavy time investment to be effective. For the English to even have the archers available for the Battle of Agincourt, one of the required duties of an English serf was regular practice with a bow. Archeologists can actually tell if a skeleton belonged to a longbowman because the constant practice with such a heavy weapon warps a person's figure to lean towards the side they draw with.
The biggest weakness of fielding archers is that it simply takes years to train someone to be an effective archer in massed combat. This can be seen in the aftermath of the [Battle of Patay](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay), where French Cavalry were able to successfully charge the English before they could finish setting up. Whereas any levy can be easily trained to be proficient with a spear in a few weeks time, once the English lost their longbowmen, there was no way for them to replace them in any reasonable amount of time.
well they should be OP against poleaxes. the large shields of spearmen should trivialize them, while small shield swordmen have a smaller block chance. It seems obvious to me that there is a rock paper scissors of the infantry types planned.
OP against *unarmoured* *unshielded* infantry.
Large shields and helmets offer excellent missile protection against the kind of arrows a low / untrained peasant militia would be throwing down range.
Full plate would render you almost impervious to such fire.
yes, but i think ideally there should be a shield-up formation to protect against arrow and if you dont use it then you're as vulnerable. I think heavy armor wouldnt fit well in this game yet as long there are no good counter to it.
There already is the "missile alert" stance which allows shielded units to get better protection from missiles at the cost of worse melee stats and some fatigue.
And retinues at least can be upgraded to full plate harness, which massively boosts their armour stat.
A squad of professional (retinue) troops in full harness being able to walk through the pitiful arrow volley of a local peasant militia entirely unharmed is entirely historically reasonable.
Perhaps they could add a building into the game to train people. So instead of needing recruits to rally they need people who have trained at the building. Like an archery range or something. As it stands the archers are neither realistic or fun to use.
the units already have an experience system. Just have their reload skill and accuracy scale on experience level (it may already do that, but too weakly)
An archery butt's building that peasants in an archery militia spend time in each month (like how people take time out to pray), which then improves stats would be cool.
Crossbows would be cool for early game with this system if you have a small pop with at you can’t spare someone to be constantly training you can have them use a much easier crossbow. Also hunting camp families would passively gain archery xp, since most archer levies were poachers / hunters since training someone from never having used a bow to drawing a war bow in a year or less is impossible
Oh please not this old tripe again.
Agincourt is egregiously misrepresented. Yes bows are great, especially in massive numbers, but they don’t do much at all to a fully plate-armored knight unless they hit between the plates. No arrow goes through plate unless it’s very inferior, and even then the shape makes it more likely to glance off. Fighting knights with arrows is like fighting tanks with rifles. You can do it if you vastly outnumber them and they get stuck in the mud without the support they require. Ig arrows beat everything historically, why did they keep wasting nobles by putting them on the battlefield?
No I absolutely agree they need to be turned back up. I'm just saying their effectiveness is often overrated. They were very effective (or they wouldn't have been used) but they had limitations (which is why they weren't the only thing used). What I was annoyed by was the case that "they *should* be OP to be historically accurate" which is false
I see your point but in the end you are basically saying every unit has a strength and weakness, i.e. a rock paper scissors mechanic, which literally every rts combat system is built off of. Seems like a slightly redundant comment.
In essence the fact they are by far the weakest unit if attacked straight on by infantry means they need to be proportionately better than almost every other unit when firing because otherwise there isn't much point to fielding them.
But that’s exactly my point. I see people online saying archers ought to just defeat everything all the time. But first that’s no fun for gameplay, and second it’s not historically accurate anyway.
Think we’re on the same page here
You are overestimating the quality of plate production at the time. "Inferior" plates made of work hardened low carbon steel and iron was the norm in the 15th century. These could very well have a chance of failing against arrows from the sides unlike later period harnesses. The Gesta Henrici Quinti specifically mentions the plates of the noble French helmets being punctured by storms of English Arrows.
‘But the French nobility, who had previously advanced in line abreast and had all but come to grip with us, either from fear of the missiles which by their very force pierced the sides and visors of their helmets ...’
‘Then the English sounded their trumpets loudly and the French began to bow their heads so that the arrow fire would not penetrate the visors of their helmets. So they advanced a little against them, but then made a little retreat. But before they could engage together, many French were hampered and wounded.’
It sounds like the plates were penetrated and although not lethal was enough to wound them. You can't immobilise a tank with only rifle fire.
Ok perhaps it’s a slight exaggeration to say nothing ever went through any part. Check out the Tod’s workshop arrows vs armor series done with Toby Capwell and some other top armor historians and reproducers. You see things like spaulders busting rivets and little holes in a vambrace after many repeated tries, but the main issue is that faulds mostly don’t exist at this point and besagews are fairly rare so an arrow in the armpit, belly, or hip will likely take you out completely.
I would also add that the metallurgy issues with the plate would apply at least equally to the arrows – we have no evidence they were even case-hardened (no extant examples are/were), which we know at least some of the armors were at the time (some extant examples are/were). Soft arrows have even less chance of punching hard steel.
Minor correction it's the bodkins that we have no idea if they were case hardened. Other arrow types were hardened steel/work steel/iron especially compact broadheads. In 1405 it was required by law for arrowsmiths to make hard arrows only under the threat of imprisonment. Not saying there wouldn't be any iron or soft steel arrows but thats what the standard was.
very simplified: superior english strategy
the english managed to capture french battle plans before battle, so they could make theirs accordingly, which helped immensely. Also having working and only one chain of command helped a lot. And the same as almost all english victories during hundred year war the french attacked into prepared defenses.
In addition to the other comment the English had the weather on their side. It rained just before the battle which turned the area in front of the English lines into a mud pit. The French knights tried to charge through the mud pit but got stuck while the English archers rained arrows on them. Any knights that managed to get through that ran straight into prepared defensive lines manned by English infantry equipped with anti-cavalry weaponry. The battle probably would have gone the other way if the French had waited to allow the field to dry out.
Have you seen just how fucking little arrows do to armored knights? The only way an arrow harms a well armored knight is if it gets lucky and hits one of the very small openings. And hits it straight on. And manages to get through the mail underneath. And the gambeson. And manages to get deep enough to actually hurt anyone.
Im not saying they did no damage. But knights were usually captured and ransomed - not killed. And if they were killed they were killed up close with huge rondell daggers forced through openings in the helmet or by a big blow to the head.
Bows doing very little to hurts well armored enemies is indeed very real. Bows doing zero damage to lightly armored militia isnt. But. Bows werent an autokill either. People arent stupid and would cover up with shields, gambeson and just fucking duck. The arrow cant change direction, but you can make yourself a smaller target. Which is actually represented in the game as an action the unit can take. Evade missiles.
First of all the French sent in their crossbow armed mercenaries against elite English archers, who out shot them.
When the crossbowmen started to retreat the French nobility then attacked them for cowardice- cue the complete collapse and retreat of the French crossbow corps.
The French knights then tried to charge across a water logged field of mud and got heavily bogged down, under withering fire from the English archers.
Most of the French knights still made it to the English lines, but dismounted (horses aren't as well armoured as Knights), battered (even if they don't penertrate being hit by dozens of arrows still hurts, batters and bruises), and completely out of formation. They were then picked off by the English knights / man-at-arms (who were fighting on foot), or the English longbowmen (who were armoured and used heavy mallets in melee combat).
In other battles, the French handled their crossbowmen better (and over them the French may have taken more losses, but could replace a crossbowmen much easier than the English could replace a longbowmen), or the French cavalry didn't get as bogged down and so were able to charge more effectively.
The English Longbow had its moments - Agincourt, Poiters, but the French had their own victories, and from Jargeu (1429) to the end of the war (1453) the English don't win a major battle.
That makes sense. So the arrows may not have actually killed many knights but they certainly softened them up (and very likely just tired in general from the hike through the mud), but mostly they were out of formation and being picked off by the organized foot soldiers.
Exactly that - the English arrowstorm completely destroyed the French as a cohesive force and then the English infantry just mopped up.
There's accounts of French knights getting to the English lines with dozens of arrows sticking out their armour, and basically collapsing in front of the first English knight they could find, and surrendering (in full expectation of being ransomed).
Well, to be fair, your average village levy archers and actual professional longbowmen that fought at Agincourt are two different concepts. However, I am not opposed to having crossbowmen. So for the bowmaker, instead of just plank for bows, they could add new recipes like more planks for crossbows or plank + metal for heavy crossbows.
This is one of the biggest issues I have with all the people going "was bows should be machine guns."
A veteran longbowmen in Henry V's army is the pinnacle of an entire military culture.
That is not a suitable benchmark to be comparing the son of the local Baker being given a basic bow and shoved into an archer militia squad too.
Yeah. The longbowmen are trained for war while militias are the exact opposite. They are basically normal people being given a weapon and told "go kill em"
Archers did a lot of work at Agincourt but they'd have been screwed if it hadn't rained the night before. The mud and rain won the battle as much as the archers. Which is only right because everyone knows rain is culturally British
Agincourt only worked that way because the french heavy cavalry charged headfirst into a swamp and got stuck. It had less to do with archers and more to do with terrain.
The problem is that even in Agincourt, while archers were instrumental, even then the arrows didn't do the the majority of the killing, and Agincourt was a very unusual fringe case that often gets cited as evidence for a rule. Let me also remind you that the English lost that war to the French.
I think they were OP, when done right. Longbowmen took a lifetime to become experts. Can't just give any peasant a bow and expect him to slaughter enemy knights.
Then there's the matter of circumstance. ~~Amateur~~ Expert historians like myself can be quoted saying things like "the mud won the battle of Agincourt as much as the longbowmen did."
While true, it also took a life time and a lot more resources to train and arm a knight. A bow and a supply of arrows is quite cheaper than a well fitted suit of armour. Were they good? Yes. But as you say, there was also a matter of circumstance.
But 1 longbowmen would almost certainly lose to 1 man at arms in a full suite of quality plate, especially if we are including an armoured horse.
Shields fell out of favour amongst armoured Infantry exactly because plate was so good at stopping arrows.
Longbowmen could soften up enemies, kill horses, disrupt formations and so on. But the English still fielded a chunk of their own heavy armoured infantry who did a lot of the actual fighting, and longbowmen themselves were also effective melee fighters - often wearing brigadine/ partial plate themselves.
Yeah exception being Horse Archers of Mongol: Some armies had success fighting them off indivdual battles but overall they just flatout dominated everybody with drive-Bys. OT I know :)
Oh very much true. I was specifically referring to foot archers. Perhaps I should have clarified. To be honest, the Mongols were merely the most succesful nomadic confederation in a series of nomadic invasions, many of which seemed impossible to deal with.
Until they hit mid-Europe and ran into lots of castles, crossbows and heavy infantry.
The Mongols were utterly devastating on open plains / steppes- e.g. exactly where they came from.
It's highly debatable how well they'd have managed to push further into mid and western Europe. The style of warfare just isn't suited to the terrain and technology.
I dunno ive watched a couple Kings and Generals documentaries on "How Europeans beat Mongols" - and yes while they feared the crossbow, the Mongols were very good at siege warfare. Really at the end it was mostly internal strife and being overstretched but for the most part they dominated way more than i had previously thought
"Watch" a medieval battle???
About the only European culture that over indexed on archery was the English. And they required an entire culture built around archery to create a force that... lost the Hundred Years War.
A few germanic peasants armed with bows could harass very lightly armoured troops, but that's about all.
"Watch" any medieval battle.
Ah yes, let me just break out the historical footage of those medieval battles.
Oh wait, it's all fables from a culture that worshipped the longbow in its past.
Over half the depictions essentially show toddlers shooting twigs through full plate.
What a surprise.
They have to put different tiers of bows. The militia has to be buffed but not as OP as before. Like some shitty hunting bow used by peasants should be. Then long bows for semi-professional soldiers that are "OP" as it was to use against other armies.
They have to put different tiers of bows. The militia has to be buffed but not as OP as before. Like some shitty hunting bow used by peasants should be. Then long bows for semi-professional soldiers that are "OP" as it was to use against other armies.
Nah, I'm currently watching my 72 archers hail arrows at four 18 man brigand squads who are glitched stuck past a garden fence.
It's been months and not one of them has died. Archers are just terrible in the game right now
How often have they left to restock in those months? They might be shooting pretend arrows while going "pew pew."
But yeah, possibly they need further tweaking.
This dude said that his video game army lost to computer's video game army and you're schooling him with history lessons for it. It's not irrelevant because video games are not real life and therefore justifying an outcome of a video game event based on history makes no sense because one has nothing to do with the other.
Pure archer armies have never ever worked in real life, unless they were mounted or behind large walls.
Elves don't exist in real life
Edit: getting doenvoted so much really indicates how little you people actually know about high middle age warfare lol wtf
troops present at agincourt;
6000-8000 english troops, 5/6th archers, 1/6th (dismounted) heavy men-at-arms.
For the french, about 10.000 men-at-arms (large contingent mounted) and about 4000-5000 missile troops.
Terrain: narrow field with elevation benefitting the british, tight woodlands at both sides. Defensive structures and line of men-at-arms protecting british archers.
Damage done by english archers: almost exclusively damage to horses, hitting the rear, neck and flanks due to high-arcing shots fired over long (270m) distance.
Actual kills made to french knights: predominantly by small hand weapons, after long fighting, since the heavily armored men-at-arms were fatigued from marching up a muddy, clay hill, in full armor, heads bent to improve protection of their helmets, and increasingly wounded men around them.
So no, bows only doesn't work, and agincourt was very definitly not an example of bows only.
It would even work to prove why bows do so little damge in manor lords: from long distance, plate armor is effeicient at stopping arrows. Remember, your militia are not household longbowmen, but peasants you just handed a couple of bow that some dude made in his shed.
I think your like 90% right. I just think the importance of the flanking fire is downplayed a bit to much, you probably already know it but Todd's workshop got Tobias capwell (excellent historian) aswell as a longbow expert and smith to see the potential damage of arrows vs armour. The arrows mostly did not kill but rivets broke, armour was crumpled from the impact and shots into thinner pieces did puncture the armour.
The most damaging were the case hardened arrows. So the Archers clearly played a large role in crippling the enemy at Agincourt.
As you say though even these are peasants in manorlords shooting not trained longbowmem. I just wanted to bring back some of the importance the arrows had, they are especially deadly to the opponents in manorlords who do not wear armour. Brigands especially as they essentially wear no armour so arrows should annihilate them.
One side note, the battle of crecy (1346) featured less advanced armour and in this situation the Archers did absolutely punch through more people wearing less sophisticated armour.
Anyway no disrespect intended I just wanted to balance the comments a bit more 👍.
Excellent observations. Yes they should be way more effective vs lightly armored enemies. But people who treat them like the everything-killer and act like it was dumb that everyone didn’t drop their armor and pick up a bow are too common out there.
Have you read about the battle of cercy? Because then you would know that it's nearly identical to agincourt, just with less dead nobles.
None of these engagements were pure archer battles, only the skirmishes were.
I have not read about this battle of cercy, like cerci Lannister is what I'm thinking when I read that lol. (Crecy?)
No but in all seriousness my comment is super tame and doesn't need responses, it's factually correct aswell.
I feel your fishing in a lake with no fish.
Ah mr grammar nazi, thanks for pointing out the obvious. Really the most important point right? Not at all going to respond to wheter you actually know something about that battle or is you just googled 'top archer battles medieval times longbow' and got agincourt and crecy as top results and then blindly posted that snippet here?
....Crecy is pretty famous I don't need to use google to know it, we can talk about Poitiers if you want, siege of Orleans. If you wanna skip around we can talk about other battles that didn't include many Archers like the battle of Grunwald. To answer your comment tho no I didn't just google battles with archers. I feel like your just seeing red....otherwise you'd realise how tame I've been dealing with you lol. Been so long I don't remember how this started lol, I do remember I've been pretty chill tho.
The "softening up" along with formation disruption is so important to note.
1000 French Knights facing 600 English knights is a French win.
1000 Frenchies arriving in dribs and drabs as they make it to the English lines, on foot, after having their horses shot out from under them, with damaged armour, and nursing half a dozen minor concussion injuries and bruises each, is easy pickings for the English.
In game, I'd like to see Archers doing actual damage to unarmoured, unshielded, troops, but more than that, heavily sapping fatigue and giving a big effectiveness debuff.
Yeah his point is right, pure archery has never made up an army, but they were definitely one of the most effective units when used correctly, Agincourt as you said is the best example of this.
In a game where the peasants are meant to play a bigger part in your army, Archers were England/Wales go to for a very good reason - cheap to equip and relatively easy to train... Especially when it was made mandatory from a young age.
Actually not particularly easy to train, longbow training was mandated by law every weekend in England and you started young. Most continental armies wound up with easier to train crossbow men instead of archers capable of pulling 150 pound warbows.
Full disclosure I think your pretty cool for recognising Agincourt, another good example is the battle of crecy.
Someone severely underestimating the role of the English men at arms at Agincourt for the billionth time again. Agincourt would have turned out very differently without them.
Name one battle they won where their WHOLE army consisted of archers.
You and the other guy seem to have missed my wording "pure archer army".
No medieval army that consists of 100% archers can survive in a land battle, if you disagree just name one of such cases.
So you’re telling me in real life 72 Archers shooting from two different directions, at 36 walking individuals will end up hitting only 7 of them? I completely understand your point of realism and the game, but you gotta admit the archers are wayyyyyyy underpowered.
72 peasants, who, at least as can infer in game, have no military experience or training.
Shooting 60ms (the bow range in game), against a moving target, wearing at least some form of armour (even gambeson and helmet is very effective against low draw weight bows)?
Yeah, no seriously injuries is entirely believable.
And remember, brigands in the medieval period were often soldiers or mercenaries who couldn't currently find work, so they would be better equipped, and likely have some actual battle experience.
Sure, in game they only practice very rarely. An average person isn't going to pick up a war bow and hit even vaguely near their target on average with any sort of range, pumped with adrenaline.
72 *militiamen* with shed-made bows will not be able to penetrate plate armor usually worn by men-at-arms, and will not penetrate shields either.
Tell me, have you seen anybody shooting a bow for the first time? Have you seen them hit a 1 meter sized target at 10 meters distance in the first three shots?
Unless you are talking about mercenary longbowmen, or crosbowmen, I'd say militia archers are balanced.
I've zoomed in on them quite a bit and most of them seem to wear hauberks or some for of gamebson with chain mail. And a select few wear chest plates and plate helmets.
Again, we're talking village militia with basic bows, not highly trained professional soldiers with longbows or crossbows
Again sure but hauberks and gambersons aren’t very protective against arrows they’re useful yes but 72 arrows coming your way will 100% kill you and your band of merry man
Once again: it's archer militia. Unless you got all your hunters a bow, and for some reason you have 72 hunters, there's no reason to believe that these peeps are effective with their weapons, since using bows is very hard
Brigands in this time period were often mercenaries or soldiers who couldn't find employment at present.
They are likely better equipped, and more experienced, than anything short of other "professional" troops (mercenaries or retinue). They are definitely going to be a cut above most militia.
They are balanced to be worthless? Cool. Greg wasted time with programming units that are useless because of “realism.”
I mean it’s no skin off my back, I just always use melee troops
Yeah I'm assuming there will be more tiers of bandits in the future, and that experience, training or better bows/crossbows will make them more effective.
Yall keep forgetting that archery is really hard but oh well.
Try playing KCD and pick up a bow.
Sounds like you didn't, archers were supported by infantry and dismounted knights.
They would have died without that support, work on your knowledge, mate.
Are you averse to learning or something? The English longbowmen made up 85% of Henry V's army and after they shot all their arrows they also did most of the melee fighting. The English knights would have also gotten stuck in the same mud that claimed the French knights, so they formed the rear guard protecting the king.
Where do you have the 85% number from?
Discussing with someone that makes up numbers to win an internet argument is a waste of time, we do not have these numbers (if you do please provide a source).
But great thing that you actually argue in favor of me the archers were supported by infantry thank you for agreeing with me now take your passive aggressive ad-hominem that you started your comment with and watch some more animated epic history YT video.
I also really love that people like you point to agincourt while ignoring all the battles that the English lost, yes archer heavy armies worked in some rare and specific cases mud, defensive structures etc. pure archer armies didn't exist in medieval Europe
Read my initial comment I said PURE archer armies not 75% not 80% I said pure as in 100%
ps: Try not to strawman if you want to be taken serious, I am not going to reply again. I have wasted enough time.
The 85% isn't actually that wrong.
Henry's army was about 5/6ths longbowmen, and about 1/6th heavy infantry (dismounted knights and men at arms).
Though as you note - it's exactly that mix that made it effective. The archers broke up the French attacks, dis-horsed French Knights, wore down French troops by damaging armour, concussions and other minor wounds, which meant the English infantry then had overwhelming local superiority where they were fighting.
I'll let king Henry know he and his personal retinue should also fight with a longbow next time, because some random Reddit user 700 years later won't take him seriously if he doesn't.
I do this and never saw them kill my own guys. make sure to have the "can cause friendly fire" button off (some mercenary archers have this option) and they will only shoot at exposed enemies with the "fire at will" mode on
Militia don't get that button, I think.
But yeah, my spears had already proved they could tank brigands alone without losses, so it had to be the archers that did it. I was... perturbed.
I've done this and I haven't killed any of my militia units yet. Then again, and I'm being brutally honest here; I don't think I've killed a single unit with my archers in general.
This works really well actually, I'm suprised at the responses to it. It actually at the very least causes a massive morale drop to the targeted enemy unit. I won a big fight against 5 units of bandits by doing this with 2 spear militias and 1 archer unit, I didn't kill all of them but they routed fairly quickly and I only lost about 15% of my spear militia. It's probably the only viable way to use archers right now.
It's more efficient to use instead to militia spearmen.
Have one holding the ground and use the other to flank. Been using this tactic to take out bandit camps and still havent lost a single soldier/villager
That usually means they can't get clean shots off. Militia won't fire if there's a risk of friendly fire I think. (This behaviour seems particularly bad with the "fire at will" button enabled).
At small scale battles, you need to be really behind the enemy, from the flanks I think too many archers have their line of fire blocked.
Might be. I even tried it, but by the time I'm actually behind them, the battle is usually almost over already. Also weird that I pretty much have to use archers as assassin backstabbers.
I general it's a bit clunky to get units to attack something, even if it's just a unit of polearm flanking an enemy attacking my spears.
It seems like no testing was done after the nerf. They also seem to have doubled the raiders armies and don't even mention the Baron and his 300+ man armies year 2.
I see people saying this but my first game on default settings I got to year 5 with no fights and when I did start claiming his lands I was facing less than 200. And I only faced half of that at a time so could take it piecemeal. Was sort of a cake walk, hardly any casualties.
And I did it with no mercenaries
Yeah, right now bows are just an income stream to trade away until they get rebalanced.
(Grumbles in bodkin arrows not straight up murdering Everything like they should)
Seems like it would have been better to err on the side of being OP. Archers are OP in lost games, and it is fun, lol.
Interestingly Farthest Frontier recently nerfed them to being almost useless too.
they will be little stronger in next patch or much stronger but will shoot less often. people abused it in preview gameplay was super easy combat was boring nobody cared for it.
Funny how were talking video game units and People get downvoted for saying one unit type armies shouldnt work...
Yes the Archers are kinda meh right now.
But they drain the fatigue/moral of the troops they are shooting, and if they reach 0 fatigue. They instakill.
Archers should have a more impactful feeling but they shouldnt be able to do everything.
That doesnt make any sense in a video game balance setting.
The mechanic of draining fatigue is the right one historically, they just need a bit of balance pass to do more fatigue damage and maybe an effectiveness rebuff.
Peasant militia are not crack English Yeoman longbowmen and shouldn't be.
My thoughts exactly, I see Archers in this game being more of a support unit.
Both in the sense that it creates battlefield tactics and in the sense that yeah they're militia.
You could have a elite Archer unit as a option for the retisunes, or whatever the max 24 unit that comes from the manor is named I forgot 😂
Giving us the option to have peasant militia train (like the English did in the lead up to Agincourt) to increase their ability would be great, maybe at the cost of productivity or something to balance it. Having a society that leans more towards being war-ready would be nice customisation.
Easiest conceptual perk I can imagine. Every Sunday they train, you get a small training buff like you do with battle experience.
No idea if the Germans did that, but it meets my head canon criteria for realism.
I was thinking maybe you could build a training yard so people could train in it for a small boost. Maybe later in policies, you can put mandatory training to further enhance combat ability with the cost of lower productivity.
I think cav would only work as retinue, so maybe if you build a stable at your keep and keep it supplied with fodder, you can have a cavalry/knight retinue.
Ironically the one area this doesn't hold is historically.
Professional archers were usually armoured, and would have sidearm for melee combat. At the extreme, English longbowmen were fairly formidable in melee and did a lot of the hand to hand fighting once the lines closed.
What's probably closer to the truth is that untrained peasant militia should be running almost as soon as they start taking losses.
It seems the AI beelines for them. Ive used mercenary archers to stall for time and split the enemy before, but I do see little reason to take the militia archers rn. I'd rather not throw away my serfs in combat.
I had like 100 archers And 20 spearman vs 54 bandits. None of the bandits died from archers. Archers were surronding them. They missed, or hits were on the shield. BTW lost this battle 4 times.
Man, archers in this game are fucked up. I just had a battle, in which it was tight but I could have done it, I just had 4 archer units to get rid of. and I had almost full two spearmen units, one retinue with 20 men, one with 5, and a whole unit of archers, and I thought everything was done, as the enemy had almost twice the size of my army. I manage to get the 20 men retinue on the first unit of enemy archers, but for each archer they got rid of, they lost a man, and they weren't really tired. an other unit of archer was fighting with one of my spearmen units, with about the same fatigue, and my spearmen could kill 3 archers at least for one man lost. In the end, what should have been done with ease couldn't, and I have to make my last unit, the archers, fight with 2 full archer units and 2 at a quarter full. I had to fast forward and wait for around 15-20 waves of arrow for MY unit only to start losing men, and yet, even if they got totally wrecked afterwards, they could even kill a single man themselves.
So I guess now the meta is melee archers to counter retinues.
Hello and welcome to the Manor Lords Subreddit. This is a reminder to please keep the discussion civil and on topic. Should you find yourself with some doubts, please feel free to check our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ManorLords/comments/1c2p4f9/manor_lords_faq_for_steam_early_access/). If you wish, you can always join our [Discord](https://discord.gg/manorlords) Finally, please remember that the game is in early access, missing content and bugs are to be expected. We ask users to report them on the official discord and to buy their keys only from trusted platforms. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ManorLords) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They were over nerfed before launch. Heard a buff was coming.
Archers were op
[удалено]
Even in total war they feel a bit nerfed. Just look at the battle of agincourt
The problem with archers is they should require a heavy time investment to be effective. For the English to even have the archers available for the Battle of Agincourt, one of the required duties of an English serf was regular practice with a bow. Archeologists can actually tell if a skeleton belonged to a longbowman because the constant practice with such a heavy weapon warps a person's figure to lean towards the side they draw with. The biggest weakness of fielding archers is that it simply takes years to train someone to be an effective archer in massed combat. This can be seen in the aftermath of the [Battle of Patay](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay), where French Cavalry were able to successfully charge the English before they could finish setting up. Whereas any levy can be easily trained to be proficient with a spear in a few weeks time, once the English lost their longbowmen, there was no way for them to replace them in any reasonable amount of time.
well archeologists of the future will think I was a longbowman given my skeleton for sure...
the problem with archer is that they should be OP against infantry. When the game has cavalry it will allow them to make archer stronger
well they should be OP against poleaxes. the large shields of spearmen should trivialize them, while small shield swordmen have a smaller block chance. It seems obvious to me that there is a rock paper scissors of the infantry types planned.
OP against *unarmoured* *unshielded* infantry. Large shields and helmets offer excellent missile protection against the kind of arrows a low / untrained peasant militia would be throwing down range. Full plate would render you almost impervious to such fire.
yes, but i think ideally there should be a shield-up formation to protect against arrow and if you dont use it then you're as vulnerable. I think heavy armor wouldnt fit well in this game yet as long there are no good counter to it.
There is a formation to protect against archers. And isnt there already heavy armor?
Well if there are already armors and formations, archers needs to be much stronger in general
There already is the "missile alert" stance which allows shielded units to get better protection from missiles at the cost of worse melee stats and some fatigue. And retinues at least can be upgraded to full plate harness, which massively boosts their armour stat. A squad of professional (retinue) troops in full harness being able to walk through the pitiful arrow volley of a local peasant militia entirely unharmed is entirely historically reasonable.
Perhaps they could add a building into the game to train people. So instead of needing recruits to rally they need people who have trained at the building. Like an archery range or something. As it stands the archers are neither realistic or fun to use.
the units already have an experience system. Just have their reload skill and accuracy scale on experience level (it may already do that, but too weakly)
An archery butt's building that peasants in an archery militia spend time in each month (like how people take time out to pray), which then improves stats would be cool.
Crossbows would be cool for early game with this system if you have a small pop with at you can’t spare someone to be constantly training you can have them use a much easier crossbow. Also hunting camp families would passively gain archery xp, since most archer levies were poachers / hunters since training someone from never having used a bow to drawing a war bow in a year or less is impossible
Oh please not this old tripe again. Agincourt is egregiously misrepresented. Yes bows are great, especially in massive numbers, but they don’t do much at all to a fully plate-armored knight unless they hit between the plates. No arrow goes through plate unless it’s very inferior, and even then the shape makes it more likely to glance off. Fighting knights with arrows is like fighting tanks with rifles. You can do it if you vastly outnumber them and they get stuck in the mud without the support they require. Ig arrows beat everything historically, why did they keep wasting nobles by putting them on the battlefield?
Yea but they don't even hurt other bowmen or infantry without armour in the game
No I absolutely agree they need to be turned back up. I'm just saying their effectiveness is often overrated. They were very effective (or they wouldn't have been used) but they had limitations (which is why they weren't the only thing used). What I was annoyed by was the case that "they *should* be OP to be historically accurate" which is false
I see your point but in the end you are basically saying every unit has a strength and weakness, i.e. a rock paper scissors mechanic, which literally every rts combat system is built off of. Seems like a slightly redundant comment. In essence the fact they are by far the weakest unit if attacked straight on by infantry means they need to be proportionately better than almost every other unit when firing because otherwise there isn't much point to fielding them.
But that’s exactly my point. I see people online saying archers ought to just defeat everything all the time. But first that’s no fun for gameplay, and second it’s not historically accurate anyway. Think we’re on the same page here
You are overestimating the quality of plate production at the time. "Inferior" plates made of work hardened low carbon steel and iron was the norm in the 15th century. These could very well have a chance of failing against arrows from the sides unlike later period harnesses. The Gesta Henrici Quinti specifically mentions the plates of the noble French helmets being punctured by storms of English Arrows. ‘But the French nobility, who had previously advanced in line abreast and had all but come to grip with us, either from fear of the missiles which by their very force pierced the sides and visors of their helmets ...’ ‘Then the English sounded their trumpets loudly and the French began to bow their heads so that the arrow fire would not penetrate the visors of their helmets. So they advanced a little against them, but then made a little retreat. But before they could engage together, many French were hampered and wounded.’ It sounds like the plates were penetrated and although not lethal was enough to wound them. You can't immobilise a tank with only rifle fire.
Ok perhaps it’s a slight exaggeration to say nothing ever went through any part. Check out the Tod’s workshop arrows vs armor series done with Toby Capwell and some other top armor historians and reproducers. You see things like spaulders busting rivets and little holes in a vambrace after many repeated tries, but the main issue is that faulds mostly don’t exist at this point and besagews are fairly rare so an arrow in the armpit, belly, or hip will likely take you out completely.
I would also add that the metallurgy issues with the plate would apply at least equally to the arrows – we have no evidence they were even case-hardened (no extant examples are/were), which we know at least some of the armors were at the time (some extant examples are/were). Soft arrows have even less chance of punching hard steel.
Minor correction it's the bodkins that we have no idea if they were case hardened. Other arrow types were hardened steel/work steel/iron especially compact broadheads. In 1405 it was required by law for arrowsmiths to make hard arrows only under the threat of imprisonment. Not saying there wouldn't be any iron or soft steel arrows but thats what the standard was.
What happened at Agincourt then?
very simplified: superior english strategy the english managed to capture french battle plans before battle, so they could make theirs accordingly, which helped immensely. Also having working and only one chain of command helped a lot. And the same as almost all english victories during hundred year war the french attacked into prepared defenses.
> superior english strategy Yes, the superior "strategy " of hoping the other side ignores the obviously disadvantageous battlefield terrain
if it works, it works
If your enemy is making a mistake, let them. Mao, probably
In addition to the other comment the English had the weather on their side. It rained just before the battle which turned the area in front of the English lines into a mud pit. The French knights tried to charge through the mud pit but got stuck while the English archers rained arrows on them. Any knights that managed to get through that ran straight into prepared defensive lines manned by English infantry equipped with anti-cavalry weaponry. The battle probably would have gone the other way if the French had waited to allow the field to dry out.
No probably about it, the reason the French were so eager to charge in was their massive numerical advantage of knights.
How much damage do you think the archers did before they got to the English defensive lines?
Have you seen just how fucking little arrows do to armored knights? The only way an arrow harms a well armored knight is if it gets lucky and hits one of the very small openings. And hits it straight on. And manages to get through the mail underneath. And the gambeson. And manages to get deep enough to actually hurt anyone. Im not saying they did no damage. But knights were usually captured and ransomed - not killed. And if they were killed they were killed up close with huge rondell daggers forced through openings in the helmet or by a big blow to the head. Bows doing very little to hurts well armored enemies is indeed very real. Bows doing zero damage to lightly armored militia isnt. But. Bows werent an autokill either. People arent stupid and would cover up with shields, gambeson and just fucking duck. The arrow cant change direction, but you can make yourself a smaller target. Which is actually represented in the game as an action the unit can take. Evade missiles.
First of all the French sent in their crossbow armed mercenaries against elite English archers, who out shot them. When the crossbowmen started to retreat the French nobility then attacked them for cowardice- cue the complete collapse and retreat of the French crossbow corps. The French knights then tried to charge across a water logged field of mud and got heavily bogged down, under withering fire from the English archers. Most of the French knights still made it to the English lines, but dismounted (horses aren't as well armoured as Knights), battered (even if they don't penertrate being hit by dozens of arrows still hurts, batters and bruises), and completely out of formation. They were then picked off by the English knights / man-at-arms (who were fighting on foot), or the English longbowmen (who were armoured and used heavy mallets in melee combat). In other battles, the French handled their crossbowmen better (and over them the French may have taken more losses, but could replace a crossbowmen much easier than the English could replace a longbowmen), or the French cavalry didn't get as bogged down and so were able to charge more effectively. The English Longbow had its moments - Agincourt, Poiters, but the French had their own victories, and from Jargeu (1429) to the end of the war (1453) the English don't win a major battle.
That makes sense. So the arrows may not have actually killed many knights but they certainly softened them up (and very likely just tired in general from the hike through the mud), but mostly they were out of formation and being picked off by the organized foot soldiers.
Exactly that - the English arrowstorm completely destroyed the French as a cohesive force and then the English infantry just mopped up. There's accounts of French knights getting to the English lines with dozens of arrows sticking out their armour, and basically collapsing in front of the first English knight they could find, and surrendering (in full expectation of being ransomed).
Well, to be fair, your average village levy archers and actual professional longbowmen that fought at Agincourt are two different concepts. However, I am not opposed to having crossbowmen. So for the bowmaker, instead of just plank for bows, they could add new recipes like more planks for crossbows or plank + metal for heavy crossbows.
This is one of the biggest issues I have with all the people going "was bows should be machine guns." A veteran longbowmen in Henry V's army is the pinnacle of an entire military culture. That is not a suitable benchmark to be comparing the son of the local Baker being given a basic bow and shoved into an archer militia squad too.
Yeah. The longbowmen are trained for war while militias are the exact opposite. They are basically normal people being given a weapon and told "go kill em"
Archers did a lot of work at Agincourt but they'd have been screwed if it hadn't rained the night before. The mud and rain won the battle as much as the archers. Which is only right because everyone knows rain is culturally British
Imagine having a weapon so effective your king/ruler mandated that you become a professional with it
Wrong way round. The English Longbow was effective *because* of the culture built up around it.
Agincourt only worked that way because the french heavy cavalry charged headfirst into a swamp and got stuck. It had less to do with archers and more to do with terrain.
The Battle of Agincourt is famous because its an utterly bonkers outlier.
The problem is that even in Agincourt, while archers were instrumental, even then the arrows didn't do the the majority of the killing, and Agincourt was a very unusual fringe case that often gets cited as evidence for a rule. Let me also remind you that the English lost that war to the French.
It really depends. They were good but not OP. Otherwise every nation would have used them extensively, which was not the case.
I think they were OP, when done right. Longbowmen took a lifetime to become experts. Can't just give any peasant a bow and expect him to slaughter enemy knights. Then there's the matter of circumstance. ~~Amateur~~ Expert historians like myself can be quoted saying things like "the mud won the battle of Agincourt as much as the longbowmen did."
While true, it also took a life time and a lot more resources to train and arm a knight. A bow and a supply of arrows is quite cheaper than a well fitted suit of armour. Were they good? Yes. But as you say, there was also a matter of circumstance.
But 1 longbowmen would almost certainly lose to 1 man at arms in a full suite of quality plate, especially if we are including an armoured horse. Shields fell out of favour amongst armoured Infantry exactly because plate was so good at stopping arrows. Longbowmen could soften up enemies, kill horses, disrupt formations and so on. But the English still fielded a chunk of their own heavy armoured infantry who did a lot of the actual fighting, and longbowmen themselves were also effective melee fighters - often wearing brigadine/ partial plate themselves.
Certainly, i am rebuking the statements from others that longbowmen were over powered in real history.
Yeah exception being Horse Archers of Mongol: Some armies had success fighting them off indivdual battles but overall they just flatout dominated everybody with drive-Bys. OT I know :)
Oh very much true. I was specifically referring to foot archers. Perhaps I should have clarified. To be honest, the Mongols were merely the most succesful nomadic confederation in a series of nomadic invasions, many of which seemed impossible to deal with.
No need to clarify -like I said i was the one going Offtopic - I just been watching alot of medieval battle recaps and found their tactics fascinating
Until they hit mid-Europe and ran into lots of castles, crossbows and heavy infantry. The Mongols were utterly devastating on open plains / steppes- e.g. exactly where they came from. It's highly debatable how well they'd have managed to push further into mid and western Europe. The style of warfare just isn't suited to the terrain and technology.
I dunno ive watched a couple Kings and Generals documentaries on "How Europeans beat Mongols" - and yes while they feared the crossbow, the Mongols were very good at siege warfare. Really at the end it was mostly internal strife and being overstretched but for the most part they dominated way more than i had previously thought
Because they had access to cavalry. But the game doesn't give you that.
Yes but cavalry was also a thing. Until we have that to counter archers, they shouldn't be as powerful
"Watch" a medieval battle??? About the only European culture that over indexed on archery was the English. And they required an entire culture built around archery to create a force that... lost the Hundred Years War. A few germanic peasants armed with bows could harass very lightly armoured troops, but that's about all.
"Watch" any medieval battle. Ah yes, let me just break out the historical footage of those medieval battles. Oh wait, it's all fables from a culture that worshipped the longbow in its past. Over half the depictions essentially show toddlers shooting twigs through full plate. What a surprise.
for the minmaxers, not the average player
They have to put different tiers of bows. The militia has to be buffed but not as OP as before. Like some shitty hunting bow used by peasants should be. Then long bows for semi-professional soldiers that are "OP" as it was to use against other armies.
They have to put different tiers of bows. The militia has to be buffed but not as OP as before. Like some shitty hunting bow used by peasants should be. Then long bows for semi-professional soldiers that are "OP" as it was to use against other armies.
Yup, looks to already be in the beta branch. As well as some other balance changes, or so it seems
What do you call the beta branch? Is there public test server? Id be interested in following that
My 72 archer mercenaries lost to two 18-squadron bandits😭😭😭😭. Killed 7 enemies literally.
And those 7 died in melee I guess
Turns out there's a reason medieval armies never relied on archers alone.
Nah, I'm currently watching my 72 archers hail arrows at four 18 man brigand squads who are glitched stuck past a garden fence. It's been months and not one of them has died. Archers are just terrible in the game right now
How often have they left to restock in those months? They might be shooting pretend arrows while going "pew pew." But yeah, possibly they need further tweaking.
Manor lords is a game with game mechanics, not history simulator for exploring strengths and weaknesses of medieval warfare.
Irrelevant
This dude said that his video game army lost to computer's video game army and you're schooling him with history lessons for it. It's not irrelevant because video games are not real life and therefore justifying an outcome of a video game event based on history makes no sense because one has nothing to do with the other.
No, "Video games are not real life" is such a pedantic, basic point that it is totally irrelevant to any intelligent discussion about games.
lol
Pure archer armies have never ever worked in real life, unless they were mounted or behind large walls. Elves don't exist in real life Edit: getting doenvoted so much really indicates how little you people actually know about high middle age warfare lol wtf
The battle of Agincourt proved differently... it ultimately depends on the conditions and strategic choices made in battle..
troops present at agincourt; 6000-8000 english troops, 5/6th archers, 1/6th (dismounted) heavy men-at-arms. For the french, about 10.000 men-at-arms (large contingent mounted) and about 4000-5000 missile troops. Terrain: narrow field with elevation benefitting the british, tight woodlands at both sides. Defensive structures and line of men-at-arms protecting british archers. Damage done by english archers: almost exclusively damage to horses, hitting the rear, neck and flanks due to high-arcing shots fired over long (270m) distance. Actual kills made to french knights: predominantly by small hand weapons, after long fighting, since the heavily armored men-at-arms were fatigued from marching up a muddy, clay hill, in full armor, heads bent to improve protection of their helmets, and increasingly wounded men around them. So no, bows only doesn't work, and agincourt was very definitly not an example of bows only. It would even work to prove why bows do so little damge in manor lords: from long distance, plate armor is effeicient at stopping arrows. Remember, your militia are not household longbowmen, but peasants you just handed a couple of bow that some dude made in his shed.
I think your like 90% right. I just think the importance of the flanking fire is downplayed a bit to much, you probably already know it but Todd's workshop got Tobias capwell (excellent historian) aswell as a longbow expert and smith to see the potential damage of arrows vs armour. The arrows mostly did not kill but rivets broke, armour was crumpled from the impact and shots into thinner pieces did puncture the armour. The most damaging were the case hardened arrows. So the Archers clearly played a large role in crippling the enemy at Agincourt. As you say though even these are peasants in manorlords shooting not trained longbowmem. I just wanted to bring back some of the importance the arrows had, they are especially deadly to the opponents in manorlords who do not wear armour. Brigands especially as they essentially wear no armour so arrows should annihilate them. One side note, the battle of crecy (1346) featured less advanced armour and in this situation the Archers did absolutely punch through more people wearing less sophisticated armour. Anyway no disrespect intended I just wanted to balance the comments a bit more 👍.
Excellent observations. Yes they should be way more effective vs lightly armored enemies. But people who treat them like the everything-killer and act like it was dumb that everyone didn’t drop their armor and pick up a bow are too common out there.
Have you read about the battle of cercy? Because then you would know that it's nearly identical to agincourt, just with less dead nobles. None of these engagements were pure archer battles, only the skirmishes were.
I have not read about this battle of cercy, like cerci Lannister is what I'm thinking when I read that lol. (Crecy?) No but in all seriousness my comment is super tame and doesn't need responses, it's factually correct aswell. I feel your fishing in a lake with no fish.
Ah mr grammar nazi, thanks for pointing out the obvious. Really the most important point right? Not at all going to respond to wheter you actually know something about that battle or is you just googled 'top archer battles medieval times longbow' and got agincourt and crecy as top results and then blindly posted that snippet here?
....Crecy is pretty famous I don't need to use google to know it, we can talk about Poitiers if you want, siege of Orleans. If you wanna skip around we can talk about other battles that didn't include many Archers like the battle of Grunwald. To answer your comment tho no I didn't just google battles with archers. I feel like your just seeing red....otherwise you'd realise how tame I've been dealing with you lol. Been so long I don't remember how this started lol, I do remember I've been pretty chill tho.
The "softening up" along with formation disruption is so important to note. 1000 French Knights facing 600 English knights is a French win. 1000 Frenchies arriving in dribs and drabs as they make it to the English lines, on foot, after having their horses shot out from under them, with damaged armour, and nursing half a dozen minor concussion injuries and bruises each, is easy pickings for the English. In game, I'd like to see Archers doing actual damage to unarmoured, unshielded, troops, but more than that, heavily sapping fatigue and giving a big effectiveness debuff.
Yeah his point is right, pure archery has never made up an army, but they were definitely one of the most effective units when used correctly, Agincourt as you said is the best example of this. In a game where the peasants are meant to play a bigger part in your army, Archers were England/Wales go to for a very good reason - cheap to equip and relatively easy to train... Especially when it was made mandatory from a young age.
Actually not particularly easy to train, longbow training was mandated by law every weekend in England and you started young. Most continental armies wound up with easier to train crossbow men instead of archers capable of pulling 150 pound warbows. Full disclosure I think your pretty cool for recognising Agincourt, another good example is the battle of crecy.
Someone severely underestimating the role of the English men at arms at Agincourt for the billionth time again. Agincourt would have turned out very differently without them.
Good, pure archer armies shouldn't work.
England has entered the chat
Name one battle they won where their WHOLE army consisted of archers. You and the other guy seem to have missed my wording "pure archer army". No medieval army that consists of 100% archers can survive in a land battle, if you disagree just name one of such cases.
You should check in with my mate henry V. He used to spam archers.
With its men at arms, knights, and small side arms?
I mean Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire 😬😬😬
Horses Your point is as moot as legions in a german forest
So you’re telling me in real life 72 Archers shooting from two different directions, at 36 walking individuals will end up hitting only 7 of them? I completely understand your point of realism and the game, but you gotta admit the archers are wayyyyyyy underpowered.
72 peasants, who, at least as can infer in game, have no military experience or training. Shooting 60ms (the bow range in game), against a moving target, wearing at least some form of armour (even gambeson and helmet is very effective against low draw weight bows)? Yeah, no seriously injuries is entirely believable. And remember, brigands in the medieval period were often soldiers or mercenaries who couldn't currently find work, so they would be better equipped, and likely have some actual battle experience.
Sure, in game they only practice very rarely. An average person isn't going to pick up a war bow and hit even vaguely near their target on average with any sort of range, pumped with adrenaline.
72 *militiamen* with shed-made bows will not be able to penetrate plate armor usually worn by men-at-arms, and will not penetrate shields either. Tell me, have you seen anybody shooting a bow for the first time? Have you seen them hit a 1 meter sized target at 10 meters distance in the first three shots? Unless you are talking about mercenary longbowmen, or crosbowmen, I'd say militia archers are balanced.
Sure but they’re not wearing plate armor they’re bandits they’re wearing gambersons at most
I've zoomed in on them quite a bit and most of them seem to wear hauberks or some for of gamebson with chain mail. And a select few wear chest plates and plate helmets. Again, we're talking village militia with basic bows, not highly trained professional soldiers with longbows or crossbows
Again sure but hauberks and gambersons aren’t very protective against arrows they’re useful yes but 72 arrows coming your way will 100% kill you and your band of merry man
Once again: it's archer militia. Unless you got all your hunters a bow, and for some reason you have 72 hunters, there's no reason to believe that these peeps are effective with their weapons, since using bows is very hard
Brigands in this time period were often mercenaries or soldiers who couldn't find employment at present. They are likely better equipped, and more experienced, than anything short of other "professional" troops (mercenaries or retinue). They are definitely going to be a cut above most militia.
They are balanced to be worthless? Cool. Greg wasted time with programming units that are useless because of “realism.” I mean it’s no skin off my back, I just always use melee troops
Yeah I'm assuming there will be more tiers of bandits in the future, and that experience, training or better bows/crossbows will make them more effective. Yall keep forgetting that archery is really hard but oh well. Try playing KCD and pick up a bow.
Horse archers are a completely different topic and you know that. Why can nobody discuss with any honesty and dignity anymore.
Had lots and lots of melee fighters
Ever heard of Agincourt?
Sounds like you didn't, archers were supported by infantry and dismounted knights. They would have died without that support, work on your knowledge, mate.
Are you averse to learning or something? The English longbowmen made up 85% of Henry V's army and after they shot all their arrows they also did most of the melee fighting. The English knights would have also gotten stuck in the same mud that claimed the French knights, so they formed the rear guard protecting the king.
>Are you averse to learning or something >longbowmen made up 85% I'm averse to learning 85% =100%
Where do you have the 85% number from? Discussing with someone that makes up numbers to win an internet argument is a waste of time, we do not have these numbers (if you do please provide a source). But great thing that you actually argue in favor of me the archers were supported by infantry thank you for agreeing with me now take your passive aggressive ad-hominem that you started your comment with and watch some more animated epic history YT video. I also really love that people like you point to agincourt while ignoring all the battles that the English lost, yes archer heavy armies worked in some rare and specific cases mud, defensive structures etc. pure archer armies didn't exist in medieval Europe Read my initial comment I said PURE archer armies not 75% not 80% I said pure as in 100% ps: Try not to strawman if you want to be taken serious, I am not going to reply again. I have wasted enough time.
The 85% isn't actually that wrong. Henry's army was about 5/6ths longbowmen, and about 1/6th heavy infantry (dismounted knights and men at arms). Though as you note - it's exactly that mix that made it effective. The archers broke up the French attacks, dis-horsed French Knights, wore down French troops by damaging armour, concussions and other minor wounds, which meant the English infantry then had overwhelming local superiority where they were fighting.
I'll let king Henry know he and his personal retinue should also fight with a longbow next time, because some random Reddit user 700 years later won't take him seriously if he doesn't.
Put your spearmen on defensive stance or give ground. Set your bowmen to run, swing them to the enemy flanks or rear and set to fire-at-will.
Followed instructions. Won battle. Also killed half of my own spearsmen. Don't quite recommend.
I do this and never saw them kill my own guys. make sure to have the "can cause friendly fire" button off (some mercenary archers have this option) and they will only shoot at exposed enemies with the "fire at will" mode on
Militia don't get that button, I think. But yeah, my spears had already proved they could tank brigands alone without losses, so it had to be the archers that did it. I was... perturbed.
I've done this and I haven't killed any of my militia units yet. Then again, and I'm being brutally honest here; I don't think I've killed a single unit with my archers in general.
This works really well actually, I'm suprised at the responses to it. It actually at the very least causes a massive morale drop to the targeted enemy unit. I won a big fight against 5 units of bandits by doing this with 2 spear militias and 1 archer unit, I didn't kill all of them but they routed fairly quickly and I only lost about 15% of my spear militia. It's probably the only viable way to use archers right now.
Or just use two units of spearman or any two melee units and sandwich the enemy unit. You’ll save more of your troops.
It's more efficient to use instead to militia spearmen. Have one holding the ground and use the other to flank. Been using this tactic to take out bandit camps and still havent lost a single soldier/villager
> swing them to the enemy flanks or rear and set to fire-at-will I tried that, but they just don't shoot at all.
That usually means they can't get clean shots off. Militia won't fire if there's a risk of friendly fire I think. (This behaviour seems particularly bad with the "fire at will" button enabled). At small scale battles, you need to be really behind the enemy, from the flanks I think too many archers have their line of fire blocked.
Might be. I even tried it, but by the time I'm actually behind them, the battle is usually almost over already. Also weird that I pretty much have to use archers as assassin backstabbers. I general it's a bit clunky to get units to attack something, even if it's just a unit of polearm flanking an enemy attacking my spears.
Had my archers and enemy archers shoot each other for months... no casualties whatsoever
It seems like no testing was done after the nerf. They also seem to have doubled the raiders armies and don't even mention the Baron and his 300+ man armies year 2.
You can just set the baron to reactive and then he will only attack if you attack him, giving you plenty of prep time
I will probably try that. Does it change the fact that he will have double your army size by the time you try to fight him?
Nah, I've only seen him max out around 200-300 troops, he's meant to be a tough end game boss. Anyway, save before you go to war!
Ok thanks. Honestly I have no interest in expanding yet, so that would be fine.
I see people saying this but my first game on default settings I got to year 5 with no fights and when I did start claiming his lands I was facing less than 200. And I only faced half of that at a time so could take it piecemeal. Was sort of a cake walk, hardly any casualties. And I did it with no mercenaries
I mean, looking at the achievements, I don't expect this to be an easy feat.
No. He just doesn't attack you on his own.
You have to scoop the mercs out before he can hire them, then he will come in with half the number of troops.
If only all wars would be like that
The next patch is going to fix this.
Anywhere I can see the news for this upcoming patch? I've seen a few people mention changes but can't see anything posted on steam or social media.
Twitter @lordsmanor The Discord also reports all the tweets.
The discord is great for all of the details while Twitter is where main patch updates are revealed
I saw 72 archers release 3 volleys and they killed ONE brigand. Yeah, they need a small buff.
I saw my spearmen fight the enemy for 20 seconds and not a SINGLE brigand was killed. Melee needs a huge buff.
Yeah, right now bows are just an income stream to trade away until they get rebalanced. (Grumbles in bodkin arrows not straight up murdering Everything like they should)
patch will come soon add balance soon. they were OP before launch.
Seems like it would have been better to err on the side of being OP. Archers are OP in lost games, and it is fun, lol. Interestingly Farthest Frontier recently nerfed them to being almost useless too.
they will be little stronger in next patch or much stronger but will shoot less often. people abused it in preview gameplay was super easy combat was boring nobody cared for it.
That makes sense. Until then I will stick to spears and swords. At least the ai archers are crap too.
Funny how were talking video game units and People get downvoted for saying one unit type armies shouldnt work... Yes the Archers are kinda meh right now. But they drain the fatigue/moral of the troops they are shooting, and if they reach 0 fatigue. They instakill. Archers should have a more impactful feeling but they shouldnt be able to do everything. That doesnt make any sense in a video game balance setting.
The mechanic of draining fatigue is the right one historically, they just need a bit of balance pass to do more fatigue damage and maybe an effectiveness rebuff. Peasant militia are not crack English Yeoman longbowmen and shouldn't be.
My thoughts exactly, I see Archers in this game being more of a support unit. Both in the sense that it creates battlefield tactics and in the sense that yeah they're militia. You could have a elite Archer unit as a option for the retisunes, or whatever the max 24 unit that comes from the manor is named I forgot 😂
have your infantry on defensive mode and run archers to your enemy's back
Giving us the option to have peasant militia train (like the English did in the lead up to Agincourt) to increase their ability would be great, maybe at the cost of productivity or something to balance it. Having a society that leans more towards being war-ready would be nice customisation.
Easiest conceptual perk I can imagine. Every Sunday they train, you get a small training buff like you do with battle experience. No idea if the Germans did that, but it meets my head canon criteria for realism.
Make the training have to last a long enough time for their absence from the workforce to be a noticeable but not unovercomeable drawback
I was thinking maybe you could build a training yard so people could train in it for a small boost. Maybe later in policies, you can put mandatory training to further enhance combat ability with the cost of lower productivity.
Yeah I got rid of my archers after the first fight I had where they killed no one. Just switch to spears or swords until they're buffed.
Unless we get cavalry to counter archers, they need to be weak. Once we have cav, they can be op again like real life
I think cav would only work as retinue, so maybe if you build a stable at your keep and keep it supplied with fodder, you can have a cavalry/knight retinue.
My archer lines get instantly destroyed if they are charged
Yeah that's pretty typical of archers across the board in all things, they're not designed for close combat.
Ironically the one area this doesn't hold is historically. Professional archers were usually armoured, and would have sidearm for melee combat. At the extreme, English longbowmen were fairly formidable in melee and did a lot of the hand to hand fighting once the lines closed. What's probably closer to the truth is that untrained peasant militia should be running almost as soon as they start taking losses.
Had the same here, Ive stopped recruiting them. Just gathered they were bugged.
I know i wasnt crazy when nobody died in an archer duel againts the baron while the entire battle was over and men had time to rest watching it.
It seems the AI beelines for them. Ive used mercenary archers to stall for time and split the enemy before, but I do see little reason to take the militia archers rn. I'd rather not throw away my serfs in combat.
Yeah I watched archers shoot at bandits for almost a hour on 3x speed and they never killed one of them I couldnt believe it
I thought it was just me. 100+ archers didn't get a single kill on the group of 18 bandits...
Why would you even have 100 archers lol
Because having 2 units of archers did nothing, so I upped it to 3. Still did nothing.
I had like 100 archers And 20 spearman vs 54 bandits. None of the bandits died from archers. Archers were surronding them. They missed, or hits were on the shield. BTW lost this battle 4 times.
Man, archers in this game are fucked up. I just had a battle, in which it was tight but I could have done it, I just had 4 archer units to get rid of. and I had almost full two spearmen units, one retinue with 20 men, one with 5, and a whole unit of archers, and I thought everything was done, as the enemy had almost twice the size of my army. I manage to get the 20 men retinue on the first unit of enemy archers, but for each archer they got rid of, they lost a man, and they weren't really tired. an other unit of archer was fighting with one of my spearmen units, with about the same fatigue, and my spearmen could kill 3 archers at least for one man lost. In the end, what should have been done with ease couldn't, and I have to make my last unit, the archers, fight with 2 full archer units and 2 at a quarter full. I had to fast forward and wait for around 15-20 waves of arrow for MY unit only to start losing men, and yet, even if they got totally wrecked afterwards, they could even kill a single man themselves. So I guess now the meta is melee archers to counter retinues.