Mounted Archers Used Weaker Bows

[BarqqDogg]

Does it make sense that a mounted archer have higher damage output than a foot archer, let alone a crossbowman?

No. Horse archers used weaker bows than foot archers. Or at least the strength of the shot was a lot weaker. You don’t have your legs grounded to anchor your weight, so your top draw weight is lesser. Even if you were using the same bow, you were not able to overdraw as you would standing up, simply due to the constriction of your hips. If you wanted to shoot on a horseback, you couldn’t turn your hips to get the full draw length to begin with. Shorter draw length = less power. A foot archer can stand 180 degrees Olympic-style, getting the full draw of his arm, perhaps even more. Good luck drawing a monster 200lbs warbow sitting down, let alone achieve full draw weight. Mounted archery also takes great deal of training.

WIth these in mind, maybe the devs will have a better direction on how to go about balancing mangudai (too weak), camel archer (too weak), and horse archer (too strong).

Mounted archers should be relatively expensive and not expendable, hard to mass up. They should be units that are able to get high return-on-investment if micro’d correctly. Really bad ROI if you suck at the micro (noting the high level of training required).

They should have high hp, light-armored, and as fast as scouts (with the exception of camels). Mangudai and rus horse archers should be infinitely kitable against melee units. No melee cav should be able to catch up to them.

At the same time, decrease their range and missile damage overall to match regular archers (noting the weaker power of horse bows). Perhaps keep the high rate of fire (also noting the high training received by mounted archers). Missile infantry should easily counter them by out-DPSing them if massed value-for-value. There is absolutely no sense in keeping mobile missile units as a front-line fighting force.

The Rus horse archer meta forces you to make archers (which do softly counter horse archers), but they are not hard counters by a long shot. Since horse archers don’t cost that much, a Rus player can get a mango or two. A single mango shot can tip the scale.

I sometimes think that unit balance might turn out alright if historical facts were relied on, trying to reflect truths about military units onto be game practically.

[m4dm4x3552]

Im copieng my post of the other topic about the HA and i agree that the damge value is TOTALY busted !!!

The Archer cost 30 Food 50 Wood = 80 resources with a starting dmg of 5 and comparable veteran 7 dmg !
The Horsearcher cost 80 Food 40 Wood = 120 resources with a starting dmg of 12 !!!

The think the 40 costs more in total would be ok only by giving them the mobility advantage but there are nearly double the damage than normal archers.

They have even equal damage than crossbows (vs light) and this is wayyyyyy to much.
The problem is that they bypass the armor system of the game because of the high base dmg.

Archers are balanced because they low dmg number is highly modified with the armor value . If ur cutting 5 dmg (MaA armor) from a 7 or 8 dmg archer. It gets to a realy low amount and thats the advantage of high armor units.
The Horsearchers dmg isnt even halfed by the armor of a MaA AND they can kite them.
In my opinion they should have the same Damage than normal veteran archers.

It would be logical.
It would be balanced.
It would be nice and fair.

[MinusKollege]

@BarqqDogg

Mounted archers should be relatively expensive and not expendable, hard to mass up. They should be units that are able to get high return-on-investment if micro’d correctly. Really bad ROI if you suck at the micro (noting the high level of training required).
They should have high hp, light-armored, and as fast as scouts (with the exception of camels). Mangudai and rus horse archers should be infinitely kitable against melee units. No melee cav should be able to catch up to them.

You basically describe how AOE2 represents them.

@BarqqDogg

I sometimes think that unit balance might turn out alright if historical facts were relied on, trying to reflect truths about military units onto be game practically.

Thats what I feel everywhere in this game… They preached how much they like and were inspired by history, then implented some crazy bs and modelled it like they read one wikipedia article about the subject

They can still fix a lot of it by just doing number crunching. Chrunching AOE2 numbers has been the bread of butter of so many people in this community for such a long time *violent flashbacks to the last 169 SOTL farm-efficiency videos and seems to find it’s way into the new content developed for AOE2DE. It’s a shame they took absolutely none of that knowledge over to AOE4.

[P0ryg0n2046]

Mounted Archer should be a harassment unit, NOT a head-on frontline and absolutely not a A move Protoss DEATHBALL like what Rus HA currently be.

Of course historically the Mongol main army being the Mounted Archers, it was their lifetime career from childhood, and they were extremely excel on it, WTFpwn everyone even the European Knights, but simulating this would make the game in a horrible state in balance.

[RepeatingEar125]

You are already lose if you trying to put reality logic into a game

CAV archer is all about Rus. If you nerf it Rus would unplayable

[Spyken1]

I vote for more realistic environnement and game mecanic, over a unicorn world whit magic and lies.

[P0ryg0n2046]

■■■■■■■■, they got early knights, best springalds, best handcannoneers, still having the free gold, age up fastest.
Just removing their broken crap doesn’t mean it is unplayable, unless you know ONLY a-moving those HA death ball.

[CrosstownPiano1]

I’d say that the fire arrow upgrade from the university should probably not apply to mounted archers perhaps?

Just something to try and wean people off spamming them all game for the sake of seeing some diversity from certain civs in team games

[MahoganyHalo80]

@BarqqDogg

You don’t have your legs grounded to anchor your weight

Why do you think horse archers have stirrups???

It is to stand up and pull heavy bows and arrows to deliver deadly shots.
There you have it! They can do more than 180degrees…

You don’t have any knowledge of how horse archers use their body and develps muscle.
Horse archers back in the time especially the Mongol ones had stirrups to allow them to stand up and pull heavier bows. Today people just do this for fun and keep their tradition.
Back in the time, it was meant to kill.

About the bow

You cannot compare European bows to Asian Composite Recurve bows as the Composite Recurve bow will perform 1.5x times better than any European bows.

Historically, European foot archers were not able to hit the Mongol horse archers from afar due to low range, but the Mongol horse archers were able to kill them with ease.

How do you think the Mongols were able to fight against European Knights using horse archers and turn it into a massacre, not battle? The horse archers’ main target is not the rider, but the horse. Taking out the horse would have a 70% chance to kill the rider as it could drop on the man who is mounted on it and stirrups caused the main issue. So the Mongols simply shot the horses and it killed its rider no matter the armour they have, plate, lamellar, etc.

[m4dm4x3552]

@RepeatingEar125

CAV archer is all about Rus. If you nerf it Rus would unplayable

fuckking no!

Rus is a early knight faction what is atm totaly ignored with a aspect of healing in t3 abd buffs via warr monks.

Rus would be in a good spot after a HA nerf and the players would make varients of tactics cause of that.
Ur seeing at the Rus example in extrem when one unit is overtuned and breaks the whole civ concept.

The Rus would have a knight archer playstil like french. A Cav playstil with knights HA and monks and even a heavy lategame Siege comb with strelzi frontline.

But its totaly destroyed by the supremacy of Horsearchers

[Spyken1]

Mongol bow were bether then the europeen, but it did not exceed range of a longbow.

[MahoganyHalo80]

Today the record of the longest shot is held by the Composite Recurve bow!
not Longbow.
There you have it!

[BarqqDogg]

Why do you think horse archers have stirrups???

Stirrups hold your feet in place relation to the horse, which is moving. They do not ground you, so your hips are simply not stable enough. HOLDING and GROUNDING are two very different things. Stand on your bicycle. Do you feel grounded?

You don’t have any knowledge of how horse archers use their body and develps muscle.
Horse archers back in the time especially the Mongol ones had stirrups to allow them to stand up and pull heavier bows. Today people just do this for fun and keep their tradition.
Back in the time, it was meant to kill.

I hate to say it but…I speak from experience, and Reddit theorizing and armchair historicism is no substitution for experience. Horse archers developing muscle does not mean that you are physically able to pull heavier bows than while you are standing. You may still be stupid strong and able to shoot heavy bows while mounted. But, as I say: I am compring foot archers generally and mounted archers generally.

You may be trained and conditioned to use a particular draw weight issued to you or made by your tribal bowyer. So you probably used the same bow as you would while on the ground. Let’s say 140 lbs. But your shots would be on average weaker. A point you glossed over: Your hips are constricted. The only times you are able to get proper draw is when you are shooting to the side of your bow hand (as you kindly uploaded) and looking back. If you are trying to shoot forward, you are not able to achieve the draw length as you would standing up on foot, on the ground. Not to mention your accuracy goes down significantly. I don’t care how godlike you are with bow and arrow. Your accuracy and power goes down when you are riding a horse on average. No amount of training can make you into some kind of aimbot on a horse. This is fiction.

You cannot compare European bows to Asian Composite Recurve bows as the Composite Recurve bow will perform 1.5x times better than any European bows.

This is a moot point. What I am comparing is foot archers generally and horse archers generally. Never compared European bows vs Mongolian horsebows.

Historically, European foot archers were not able to hit the Mongol horse archers from afar due to low range, but the Mongol horse archers were able to kill them with ease.

This is not exactly the whole picture. Mongol warriors were probably trained to use 130 lbs of draw weight easy. Eastern Europeans’ warbows (before assimilating Asian-style bows) probably topped out at around 100 lbs draw weight on average. Range is directly related to draw weight, not the construction. Construction of bows help with the ease of draw and overall flexibility adding to poundage. As the Reddit post you posted mentioned, composites are more flexible. They are more acceptable in tolerating overdraw (pure wood bows stiffen harder and faster). So, Mongols were able to squeeze out more power with lighter bows by overdrawing. Adding to my point earlier, you can’t overdraw your bow while mounted as easily. You can’t overdraw while facing forward. If English longbowmen were to go up against Mongols, they may have outperformed in range as they had comparable, if not heavier, draw weights (it’s hard to know how heavy mongol bows were for average horse archer since their bowyers were not professionalized like English bowyers). But this did not happen, or at least no record of it. Maybe not, since higher vantage point of being on a horse helps to increase range also. But this is a digression. I compared foot archers generally and horse archers generally. This is not really relevant.

How do you think the Mongols were able to fight against European Knights using horse archers and turn it into a massacre, not battle? The horse archers’ main target is not the rider, but the horse. Taking out the horse would have a 70% chance to kill the rider as it could drop on the man who is mounted on it and stirrups caused the main issue. So the Mongols simply shot the horses and it killed its rider no matter the armour they have, plate, lamellar, etc.

See above.

[MahoganyHalo80]

@BarqqDogg

Stand on your bicycle. Do you feel grounded?

I do feel grounded! Moreover, you cannot compare a horse to a bicycle.
The horse is an animal that would balance itself, no need to balance, and feel grounded as a good stirrup would allow the rider to balance without an issue.

A bicycle is an instrument that needs to be balanced by the cycler. It is a completely different thing.

@BarqqDogg

You may be trained and conditioned to use a particular draw weight issued to you or made by your tribal bowyer. So you probably used the same bow as you would while on the ground. Let’s say 140 lbs. But your shots would be on average weaker. A point you glossed over: Your hips are constricted. The only times you are able to get proper draw is when you are shooting to the side of your bow hand (as you kindly uploaded) and looking back. If you are trying to shoot forward, you are not able to achieve the draw length as you would standing up on foot, on the ground. Not to mention your accuracy goes down significantly. I don’t care how godlike you are with bow and arrow. Your accuracy and power go down when you are riding a horse on average. No amount of training can make you into some kind of aimbot on a horse. This is fiction.

Well, historically the horse archers proved to be more effective and devastating than mass archers.

Stirrups allow the rider to adjust legs forward and backward. What it does helps the archer on a horse to take a stance just like the ground. Therefore, it was pretty easy to draw full length. And you really need to do a lot of research about composite recurve bows.
a) Let’s take an example of drawing weight. if it says 80lb, it would feel like 60 lb draw weight. It is due to a genius design and materials that work against each other. It is meant to be easier to draw and also offers faster projectiles with high energy.

And you need to know that in order to be a horse archer they need to be a skilled rider and archer. Therefore, do not ever and never compare me to them or yourself.

There are various techniques to shoot 360 degrees. you might not be very familiar with how skilled the nomadic horsemen were. And I leave that to you to research. It is not as limited as you think of. The bow handling might be, but on the saddle, the rider can turn and use stirrups precisely in various ways.

Horse archers always beat archers on the ground battles as the foot archers would have an issue of mobility and that makes them pretty static targets to hit. And that would be easier for horse archer to hit.

On the other hand, the horse archers are much harder targets than the foot archers due to projectile velocity. It is not like a modern bullet that takes plus 500m/sec minimum. Arrows take from 1 to 50 seconds to land or hit their intended target. And that makes the horse archers much more effective units both from long and short distance battles.

And it is not fiction. Horse archers especially the Mongol Horse archers (and others) were the most dominant force before gunpowder muskets. And you can ask any historian about it.

[BarqqDogg]

I do feel grounded!

No. You don’t. Don’t lie. If you have any experience, you wouldn’t say that. Every gallop of a horse throws human right off center balance if standing up. You counterbalance by shifting your body to maintain level balance.

Horse archers always beat archers on the ground battles as the foot archers would have an issue of mobility and that makes them pretty static targets to hit. And that would be easier for horse archer to hit.

Again, you are shifting the argument to something irrelevant. I’m talking about sheer power output of a mounted archer compared to a grounded, foot archer. Mobility is not the issue I ever raised.

Again, you clearly don’t know what you are talking about. You are speaking on irrelevant points.

Stirrups allow the rider to adjust legs forward and backward. What it does helps the archer on a horse to take a stance just like the ground. Therefore, it was pretty easy to draw full length. And you really need to do a lot of research about composite recurve bows.

And you ignore natural constriction of movement of hips when mounted. Proper overdraw requires your chest to be 180 degrees flat (or as close as you can get to 180). You need your hips straight, not shifting and turning. On horseback, overdraw is not possible on most angles.

[BriefSphere2007]

Is it possible that they have hands, for example

[BarqqDogg]

On a side note: Mongolian horse archers literally carried 2 to 3 bows one for each niche. One would regularly be a heavier bow for ground use. I don’t see how this is a point of argument.

[MahoganyHalo80]

I do feel grounded, I can cycle without my two hands locking the wheel of my bicycle.
I’m telling you you cannot compare a living animal with a bicycle.

@BarqqDogg

Every gallop of a horse throws human right off-center balance if standing up

Oh, now I have to talk about horses. I love it.
So there are a lot of different methods.
As I told you, horse archer shoots when all hooves of the horse are in the air. Before that, he would take good control of his stirrups. The stirrups as I illustrated to you, prevent the rider to be thrown off-center. As it locks the foot. And the Mongols for example used big boots that would fit and lock precisely and were easy to pull off. You talking like a person who has no idea of stirrups xD

@BarqqDogg

Again, you are shifting the argument to something irrelevant. I’m talking about sheer power output of a mounted archer compared to a grounded, foot archer. Mobility is not the issue I ever raised.

Again, you clearly don’t know what you are talking about. You are speaking on irrelevant points.

The damage horse archers have in the game is based on how effective they were. Not how powerful the bows solely were.

You can think of Knights, lancers, why do they have higher damage than Man-at-Arms?
Think more!
You cannot base the damage of a unit solely on a single thing.

@BarqqDogg

And you ignore natural constriction of movement of hips when mounted. Proper overdraw requires your chest to be 180 degrees flat (or as close as you can get to 180). You need your hips straight, not shifting and turning. On horseback, overdraw is not possible on most angles.

They can do 180 degrees. Not as limited as you think of.

[BarqqDogg]

… Look at the picture you uploaded.

Their torso is not 180 degrees. And they are not overdrawing. Look at it. They are NOT overdrawing. The draw is to the cheek, not beyond the neckline as Mongolian foot archers would. It’s because they are unable to do so with ease.

And for goodness’ sake, Mongol Archers carried more than 1 bow, one heavier for dismounted use.

“Quivers containing sixty [arrows] were strapped to the backs of their cavalrymen and to their horses. Mongol archers typically carried 2 to 3 bows (one heavier and intended for dismounted use, the other lighter and used from horseback) that were accompanied by multiple quivers and files for sharpening their arrowheads. These arrowheads were hardened by plunging them in brine after first heating them red hot” - Wikipedia page quoting Daily Life in the Mongol Empire, George Lane, (page 102)

@MahoganyHalo80, I don’t know why you are arguing about a matter you don’t know about. It’s just foolish.

[MahoganyHalo80]

lol, now you sound defeated.

It is just a picture I found from youtube and is not ofcrse historically accurate.
Anyways, your argument is defeated since you have nothing to say about the in-game horse archers’ damage since I destroyed you with my Knight and Man-at-Arms comparison and how effective the horse archers were in the medieval era.