View Full Version : Archers owerpowered and illogical melee mechanics.

03-03-2013, 08:20 AM
Salute everybody. I guess, that there is the problem, that must be solved in case of simple logic and combat realism: why do archers can handle melee combat with worriors without any disadvantage. Therefore, archers can fight in 1st and 2ed line, forming shield wall (sic!) and totaly prevail on the battlefield.
I had met many squads with in 3-5 archers, that totaly exploit illogical thing, that raider or even shieldbanger can delivered only 1 damage, to unarmed woman, when she can deliver same to armed man or giant with shield.
So, epic and brutal game, become to comic situations like that one:
It's so sad to see... it is upsetting...

But, I have a solution, that brings back logic and realism:
1) Remove armour from archers( couse we can't see any protective things on them).
2) Improve dodging to them.

Or, give archers disadvantage im melee combat in other way.

03-03-2013, 08:37 AM
You are joking, right? Archers have less armor then any other unit type. Also, they cannot shoot in melee, thus losing benefit from puncture in 1v1 fight.

Where did you get 1-damage thing? Warmaster with 14 strength one-shot archers. If we are talking about basic units - raiders do 2 damage to fully armored archer (4 with exertion),shieldbangers 3 and warriors 5

Either you should study mechanic more deeply or you are troll)

03-03-2013, 08:38 AM
I don't understand your point too well, but archers CAN'T do melee combat with anyone. They have to move away to be able to attack at all.

03-03-2013, 08:57 AM
Ok, to reiterate:

Archers have one of the lowest armour and strength rating. They also can't attack in melee range and if they move they loose their puncture passive (+1 to strength for every 2 armour lost by opponent). They also have the shortest base movement in the game (3 tiles, the same as your shieldbanger who is a tank unit, thus he's movement is also smaller).

The reason why the archer in the above scenario have put up a decent fight in the late game is because she only lost 1 strength, while the shieldbanger is maimed (i.e. lost half his armour and strength or so). If you put a fresh archer and shieldbanger next to one another in a melee range the archer is bound to loose.

Give it a go a bit more (and maybe leave some willpower for late game with the shieldbanger) :)

03-03-2013, 09:17 AM
You didn't get my point. Yes, archers had less armour and strength, but thay haven't any melee disadvantage(exept shooting impossibility, but it itsn't a problem to move above). It's just not right. Raider(melee unit), or, even shieldbanger hold attack as like, as archer, by same sistem.Sheid didn't serve as protection against arrows. Womam with bow and without armour get same damage to armour from attack, as worrior with shield and chain mail.
You guess it's pointless, when unarmed unit hold damage aslike armed shielder? It isn't a problem, that archer can form shield wall, whithout shield?

03-03-2013, 09:24 AM
I don't understand your point too well, but archers CAN'T do melee combat with anyone. They have to move away to be able to attack at all.

Yes. But they can face melle atack as like as melee unit. Example: raider strike other raider. We have to choose: crush armour(2) or strength.(1). And same when raider strike archer. WHY? Archer is just a bit weaker(2 poits in both armour and str.) and face strike as like as melee worrior. It's pretty simple, that it's illigical, when weapon and sheild counts nothing.
2 points isn't inaf to show difference between melee and range unit in melee combat.

03-03-2013, 10:51 AM
2 points quite often decide the fate of match. Raider using WP can maim archer in one strike(bringing it from 7 to 3 STR). What do YOU want? Any melee instakillimg archers regardless of armor/atrength?

03-03-2013, 11:43 AM
You guess it's pointless, when unarmed unit hold damage aslike armed shielder? It isn't a problem, that archer can form shield wall, whithout shield?

I don't understand why you think this. As has been pointed out, archers have the lowest armor rating already. Any lower and they basically become an insta-kill.

Frontline archers are dead meat. I guess I could see a line of archers holding up against an already maimed opponent, but archers alone would have a heck of a time getting into that position if they're being used as frontline troops. I'm just not seeing how it's anything but balanced.

03-03-2013, 11:54 AM
Well, i'm now running 4 SA WH WM slag-and-burn build. SAs have 10 armor and play frontline troops role. It's gimmicky, but fun)

03-03-2013, 05:08 PM
Archers was good as it was, make them weaker and the hole Gameplay was a melee massacre. Remove the Armor from Archers was a festival for BBs not a good Idea.

03-03-2013, 05:55 PM
Shieldwall is a colourful and descriptive name for the ability. In mechanical terms it's balanced, and it'd be a nightmare to keep track of if only units represented with a shield got it. Warriors, for example, don't carry shields either, yet benefit from shieldwall.

I guess in flavour terms the raider has a direction he doesn't have to worry about, so can focus on shielding three sides instead of four, and the other unit gets the benefit of the raider helping to shield blows aimed against them.

There's not a direct match-up in this instance between flavour and gameplay in this instance - so that requires some suspension of disbelief. I don't feel that this is a problem.

In chess, the rook is often represented by a tower or castle, and the knight by a horse or horseman. Now, I've yet to see the horse that could jump over a castle, but the knight piece can jump over the rook.

03-03-2013, 09:56 PM
In chess, the rook is often represented by a tower or castle, and the knight by a horse or horseman. Now, I've yet to see the horse that could jump over a castle, but the knight piece can jump over the rook.

Or a castle that can move around, for that matter. Outside of, you know, certain Studio Ghibli films.

03-04-2013, 04:42 AM
Well, maybe if it were a siege tower... or a prefabricated fortress...but essentially, yes, we suspend our disbelief.

03-04-2013, 09:01 PM
@Sir_Bertran: You are aware you can add / remove stats on your characters correct? I play with 2 Warhawks (11 Armor / 16 STR) and 4 Thrashers (11 Armor / 12 STR). All 6 of my units can practically kill Archers in a single hit (or take them down to 1-2 Strength if I don't use Willpower.) Whereas it takes Archers 3-4 shots to bring one of my units down. Archers are hardly overpowered. In fact I grin whenever I see someone with 2 or more Archers; as I know I'm in for an easy match.

03-05-2013, 07:21 PM
Can't play this game... that's totaly stupid.

Four melee fighers(wounded a bit) CAN't win in MELEE 3 archers... they stand in fromnt of archers, but arhers can shoot in other sides. Angry men with axes can't kill women with only bows in melee combat...
I can't hold it, farewell Banner Saga.

03-05-2013, 07:32 PM
The problem I see is you wasted too much time and effort on other 2 enemy units and allowed to get on low armor against so many archers without even touching them.

03-05-2013, 07:35 PM
The problem is that archers without armour or weapon can handle melee combat and haveing armour somehow.

03-05-2013, 08:13 PM
Yeah Sir Bertran I can't say that isn't a really bad break. With your line up you should have killed that team easily though. Did he turtle in the corner and you just didn't feel like slowly killing him down?

03-05-2013, 08:16 PM
In this scenario you probably should have killed the archers before the Shieldmaster. As in, ignore him completely, and put everyone one killing the Bowmaster to break up the Warleader/Bowmaster combo that looks like the engine of this build. Facing a build like that, you have to keep armour damage to a minimum until the archers are down, or badly crippled.

1 AR 1 ST - is not 'wounded a bit' that's more like 'on verge of collapsing from blood loss'.

Might want to rebuild your raiders - you've built the thrasher at least quite weak - most people have 12 8, 10 10, or 8 12 for thrasher Strength and Armour. Also, try swapping one of those raiders for a warrior.

Also, no reason why archers can't wear armour. These archers could be wearing cloth armour, which is about appropriate for the time. The thrasher doesn't have any obvious armour, other than a shield. The Warrior and Shieldbanger's don't have any obvious armour either. The backbiter has a helmet, but that's about it.

03-05-2013, 11:32 PM
They are wearing mithril armor.

As for Sir_Berthran's issue - 3+ archer builds are rather easy to play against I should say. You just need to carefully count where is the most threat comes from and go for it. Ignoring archer defenders and going for archers right away usually pays off even with sacrificing some of your can opener units (you do have your first characters more armor breaking than strenghfull, right?). 4 archers are simply too hard to defend at once, and they are either placed too tightly to be able to be blocked by fewer units or too broad to not be able to cover each other.
That's the general mechanic you'll come to with experience, you just shouldn't judge the game by real historic out-of-the-game standards, but by gaming ones (it's just the game afterall). Need to shake your brain a bit :)

03-05-2013, 11:35 PM
Sir_Bertran you need to stop acting like a child and start acting like a strategist. You come and start complaining about "logic" in a turn based tactical game. That doesn't apply here. There is a system in place for armor and attacks - archers can't attack while base to base with another unit. Pretty big disadvantage. Also, any other unit aside from a Varl can usually catch them and kill them. It seems like you need to reconsider your strategy rather than crying foul about the design.

03-05-2013, 11:47 PM
The most obvious thing I can see is that you only used one varl (the big guys) and it was a Shieldbanger to boot, meaning that you had no real source of damage other than relying raiders, plus it was on a map where it is hard to maneuver if you don't know what you're doing. Plus I can see that you have a thrasher at 9/9 which is not really ideal because it makes the thrasher easily picked off by archers... and warriors and raiders and shieldmasters with higher stats.

I just don't see what your problem with archers is, other than the fact that you just don't play the game properly. The easiest way to kill archers is to either have a hit squad to target the archers (usually a mobile backbiter) or just eliminate the front line and (if you're playing properly) you should have enough left over to mop up the archers. Plus if you're opponent is going 4 archers then it should be obvious that you can just run past the varls and just go straight for the archers for easy kills.

Also, if you have such a problem with how "overpowered" archers are maybe you should run 4 archers yourself and see how well you do with them before whining on the forums about it. Maybe you could learn something about how to combat archers by see how your opponent adjusts to fighting archers before going on the forum after a few games instantly assuming that you really understand what is overpowered and what isn't overpowered.

Finally, if your explanation to why archers are overpowered and "silly" boils down to that it's unrealistic because the archers "don't have armor" then news flash! IT'S A GAME. You know what else is unrealistic? 10 foot giants with horns on their head wielding man-sized swords. How about instead of complaining about how "unrealistic" something is when it doesn't work to your favor, you actually learn to adjust and improve on what you did wrong. Because if you actually pay attention to the posts in this topic, you would realize that you have a lot to work on before you can even assume such "illogical" notion that archers are overpowered.

03-06-2013, 12:21 AM
I think this thread may end up becoming a little too heated, and I think the topic has been answered/responded to amply enough (waited for a good number of replies to come in). I will be closing this thread, hopefully so we can focus on other topics.