Archer still ridiculously OP

Field of Glory: Empires is a grand strategy game in which you will have to move in an intricate and living tapestry of nations and tribes, each one with their distinctive culture.
Set in Europe and in the Mediterranean Area during the Classical Age, experience what truly means to manage an Empire.

Moderator: Pocus

Post Reply
desertedfox
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 1:07 pm

Archer still ridiculously OP

Post by desertedfox » Sat Jun 26, 2021 11:36 pm

Yes yes yes, I know their cost is now approximately 50% more than javelins, but it doesn't matter when you easily recoup that cost by winning battle after battle destroying the enemy's army.

Add in the fact that as the game progresses money doesn't become an issue and you can have 10 archers in every army, plus 10 javelins (to help absorb missile hits) and go about trashing your enemy if he doesn't have access to archers.

I have played more MP games than anyone (currently in 16 MP games) and if you don't get access to archers, you have no chance in the long run. Of the 7 main nations, I have won with every one of them except Carthage.

I know you are working on the medieval version of the game and archers shouldn't present such a problem as pretty much everyone had them. However, IMHO, they are a big problem balance-wise in this version.

SuitedQueens
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:09 pm

Re: Archer still ridiculously OP

Post by SuitedQueens » Sun Jun 27, 2021 12:02 pm

Never head this before. One could imagine that you can use them tactically by exploiting Impulse system to soften up enemy forces before the main engagement. Remember that no merging and general bonus lose occurs due to instant retreat in the same impulse if you lost the combat.

I mean if we are talking about raw power then I'm no expert on this topic since I export 90% of my battles to FoG 2. But I know that AI doesn't score superior provincial archers very highly on Power Rating comparatively to other troop types. Anyway, would to hear other user ideas or explanations on why archers are so good. /3 support rating tilts the scales in their favor or smth else?

w_michael
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1022
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:04 pm
Location: Fort Erie, Canada

Re: Archer still ridiculously OP

Post by w_michael » Sun Jun 27, 2021 9:21 pm

Try winning as Picts & Caledonia with no access to archers, and cross-eyed skirmishers who only provide a support value of one.
William Michael, Pike & Shot Campaigns and Field of Glory II series enthusiast

Pocus
Ageod
Ageod
Posts: 2889
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:05 pm

Re: Archer still ridiculously OP

Post by Pocus » Mon Jun 28, 2021 1:42 pm

What is the worst offender here, for you. Is it the better support value of archers or the disorganization they inflict in the ranged phase?
AGEOD Team - Makers of Empires, ACW2, WON, EAW, PON, AJE, RUS, ROP, WIA.

elxaime
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 7:35 am

Re: Archer still ridiculously OP

Post by elxaime » Tue Jun 29, 2021 1:33 am

While we are on the subject, can someone explain the pros and cons of archers vs. mounted archers (everything else being equal)?

desertedfox
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 1:07 pm

Re: Archer still ridiculously OP

Post by desertedfox » Fri Jul 02, 2021 8:41 pm

Pocus wrote:
Mon Jun 28, 2021 1:42 pm
What is the worst offender here, for you. Is it the better support value of archers or the disorganization they inflict in the ranged phase?
Hi Pocus,

I am not 100% sure but I think it's the disorganization they inflict.

I am not saying what is represented in-game isn't historically realistic, I would say it most likely is realistic. It's just they are sooooooo much better than javelins that from a strategic balance aspect, they are unbalanced so much so

that without access to them, you will not have a chance of winning.

A few MP games are now going with no big nations, just the minor ones. They are quite fun and with good play and a little luck, these small nations can compete with the AI-controlled larger ones. However, if your nation is in say greater England or Gual, no matter how good you play, those in the eastern part of the map will crush you should you get that far.

I remember a game a long time ago before archers were made more expensive I was playing the Indians and had crushed Selucis. Ran into Ptolemy and his ally (forget who the ally was) and despite having a slightly stronger in terms of AV army
was totally crushed because I had no archers. I lost every battle and there were quite a few. Nothing has changed since then. The extra cost of archers is a small price to pay for an OP unit.

Swuul
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 363
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 5:44 pm

Re: Archer still ridiculously OP

Post by Swuul » Sat Jul 03, 2021 3:52 pm

Pocus wrote:
Mon Jun 28, 2021 1:42 pm
What is the worst offender here, for you. Is it the better support value of archers or the disorganization they inflict in the ranged phase?
It is the same reason why one should never assign a leader to city garrison as it spawns, but even worse. Archers cause two fatigue hits, which eats away two experience stars (just like assigning a leader eats away experience for the coming turn). This can and does have a massive effect.

Example: A two star unit without any other modifiers would normally roll in melee d10 results 3 to 10. Get hit by archers during skirmish phase, and they roll 1 to 10. If during melee a dice roll of an average of "5" would be a good result, it means the two star unit would normally have just 20% to roll under it (ie a "bad" result), but if hit by an archer in skirmish that jumps to 40% (ie twice the chance to roll a "bad" result).

Meanwhile in a situation where just javelins are available in skirmish, the chance (after being hit by a javelin) for a bad roll goes from 20% to 30%. Archers actually are twice as effective *per hit* than javelins-

The above however totally ignores the "ranged attack" and "ranged defense" values of javelins and archers. Archers have much higher ranged attack values than javelins, so archer ranged attacks hit way more often than javelins. So not only are the archers twice as effective per hit, they also cause way more ranged hits.

The easy, and I would say somewhat historical, solution would be to pump up the ranged defense of javelins (and slings) by *LOTS*. They usually after all had shields as their protection against arrows and stones, not to mention the loose formations (compared to archer formations) so archers should have an extremely hard time to hit skirmishing javelineers (they are spread out and they have shields). I would suggest tripling, the "ranged defense" values of javelineers (and doubling the "ranged defense" values of slingers) from the current numbers. Archers would still cause way more fatigue per hit, but when the opponent lines are screened by skirmishing javelineers there would be way less hits.
There are three kinds of people, those who can count and those who can't.

Pocus
Ageod
Ageod
Posts: 2889
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:05 pm

Re: Archer still ridiculously OP

Post by Pocus » Mon Jul 05, 2021 2:19 pm

Interesting suggestions, a kind of internal rock-paper-scissor (lizard-Spock) game within the main RPS game of battles? I'll give it some thoughts and if not for this game, for the next.
AGEOD Team - Makers of Empires, ACW2, WON, EAW, PON, AJE, RUS, ROP, WIA.

Swuul
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 363
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 5:44 pm

Re: Archer still ridiculously OP

Post by Swuul » Tue Jul 06, 2021 3:10 pm

Pocus wrote:
Mon Jul 05, 2021 2:19 pm
Interesting suggestions, a kind of internal rock-paper-scissor (lizard-Spock) game within the main RPS game of battles? I'll give it some thoughts and if not for this game, for the next.
Nice :)
There are three kinds of people, those who can count and those who can't.

Gray Fox
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 642
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:02 am

Re: Archer still ridiculously OP

Post by Gray Fox » Thu Jul 15, 2021 2:47 am

@desertedfox So you don't use light cavalry? Foot skirmishers have a siege resistance of 1, so I may put a stack of 8 in a city to stiffen up the Urban Militia, but my field armies almost always get light cavalry. Improved LC have a range combat value of 7 vs. archers' 9, but have a flanking value of 3 vs. 0 for the archers. If you win a battle, flanking units do additional damage to the enemy routers. Some horse archers (Sarmatian) are as strong as archers and also do flanking damage. You don't use them either?
For new players: Grand Strategy AAR and Steam Guide: Tips for new players
Samstra's Trade guide: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1805684085

w_michael
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1022
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:04 pm
Location: Fort Erie, Canada

Re: Archer still ridiculously OP

Post by w_michael » Fri Jul 16, 2021 4:39 am

Gray Fox wrote:
Thu Jul 15, 2021 2:47 am
@desertedfox So you don't use light cavalry? Foot skirmishers have a siege resistance of 1, so I may put a stack of 8 in a city to stiffen up the Urban Militia, but my field armies almost always get light cavalry. Improved LC have a range combat value of 7 vs. archers' 9, but have a flanking value of 3 vs. 0 for the archers. If you win a battle, flanking units do additional damage to the enemy routers. Some horse archers (Sarmatian) are as strong as archers and also do flanking damage. You don't use them either?
Light Cavalry is a must, especially if that is your only option. I take two in each army and four when I have a large empire.
William Michael, Pike & Shot Campaigns and Field of Glory II series enthusiast

Gray Fox
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 642
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:02 am

Re: Archer still ridiculously OP

Post by Gray Fox » Fri Jul 16, 2021 4:05 pm

Here's a typical battlegroup:
Attachments
Battlegroup.jpg
Battlegroup.jpg (715.06 KiB) Viewed 809 times
For new players: Grand Strategy AAR and Steam Guide: Tips for new players
Samstra's Trade guide: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1805684085

primevalangel
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2020 11:05 am
Contact:

Re: Archer still ridiculously OP

Post by primevalangel » Thu Sep 30, 2021 8:58 am

desertedfox wrote:
Fri Jul 02, 2021 8:41 pm
I am not saying what is represented in-game isn't historically realistic, I would say it most likely is realistic. It's just they are sooooooo much better than javelins that from a strategic balance aspect, they are unbalanced so much so that without access to them, you will not have a chance of winning.
Swuul wrote:
Sat Jul 03, 2021 3:52 pm
The easy, and I would say somewhat historical, solution would be to pump up the ranged defense of javelins (and slings) by *LOTS*.
Pocus wrote:
Mon Jul 05, 2021 2:19 pm
Interesting suggestions, a kind of internal rock-paper-scissor (lizard-Spock) game within the main RPS game of battles? I'll give it some thoughts and if not for this game, for the next.
Hi guys, awesome discussion you had here. While I appreciate you're trying to improve the game, I'm pretty sure the way you approach it is fundamentally flawed, resulting in the proposed solution which makes the game more balanced but less realistic (and I appreciate Swuul tried to come up with a solution at least "somewhat historical"). (Also nice Big Bang Theory analogy, Pocus). The problem I see is that, if we continue like this, we will end up with a second EU4, where gamers like it for the realistic historical simulation it was, rather than the simulation with unrealistic mechanics it has become.

So you guys want a more balanced game (to have a chance of winning with any faction against the strongest faction); are you sure this is what you really want? Then why are you not playing lots of other much-more-balanced games? Like Star Craft 2, which is arguably the most balanced strategy game there is. You are not, because being the best in a fictional/fantasy game does not necessarily help you be smarter. So it also needs to be a reality/realistic simulation. Then why are you not playing EU4 (which is more balanced than FOGE)? Is it because FOGE is more realistic than EU4, even if less balanced? I think this is why you are playing FOGE instead of other more-balanced games. At least, that's why I play. Don't get me wrong, I want more balance too, whenever possible, but not at expense of realism.

Once you realize that lowering realism in exchange for balance is not what you really want, you will then look for realistic solutions to fix the problem. And you already mentioned a more realistic solution, but because you focus on balance-first and not on realism-first, you don't look at the historic "solution" to the problem:
desertedfox wrote:
Sat Jun 26, 2021 11:36 pm
medieval [..] archers [..] pretty much everyone had them.
If javelins were a good-enough alternative to archers, then why everyone replaced them with archers? It doesn't seem realistic to make javelins an alternative or counter-unit to archers. Clearly a more realistic solution is the historic one: give every one the possibility to recruit archers, most likely in very-late stages of advancement (maybe level 2 or 3 government + level 3 military building, or any other harder way)

Also the fact that this archers "technology" is restricted to certain factions doesn't seem realistic to me, more so if historically everyone got it in the end. The fact that they did so much later in history, is not usually a good excuse to introduce faction-specific restrictions to game mechanics. The ideal way to do it is to simulate the mechanics that prevented factions from getting it sooner.

Also there is a bit of a contradiction/impossibility here: You, as an experienced player, you already have a chance of winning with any faction against the strongest faction, if that faction is controlled by AI or a beginner player; what you want in fact is to have a reasonable chance of winning with any faction against the strongest faction, even if controlled by an experienced player. If the other player is equally good as you are, would be like playing against yourself, right? Therefore if you start as a smaller nation, against yourself playing a bigger nation, then (even if the nations are basically identical in terms of mechanics/advancements, like you are trying with these "balance" changes) don't you agree it is almost impossible to beat yourself? Therefore even if perfectly balanced, if the nations are not ALL equally strong at start (like in Start Craft), you will never have reasonable chances to beat an equally-experienced player who starts with a considerably stronger nation.

Is my logic flawed? Or am I missing something? What do you guys think?
Last edited by primevalangel on Thu Sep 30, 2021 9:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
Maker of "Realistic Stone Age" DoM mod and "History of Empires" YouTube channel

devoncop
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1486
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Archer still ridiculously OP

Post by devoncop » Thu Sep 30, 2021 9:21 am

100% agree with the above.

Giving every nation an equal chance of winning is frankly crazy and removes much of the joy of the asynchronous nature of the game.

Rome in competent hands should always beat the Samnites in equally competent hands and if you want a game where the Samnites conquer the world I am sure EU4 has a mod that will be right up your street :roll:

Pocus
Ageod
Ageod
Posts: 2889
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:05 pm

Re: Archer still ridiculously OP

Post by Pocus » Mon Oct 04, 2021 2:41 pm

Rest assured that's not the aim of the game, to level all factions so you can win the map even with the tiniest nation.

Actually I believe the flaw is in the original data, where archers were restricted artificially to some nations. Now the new game is not doing that and is following more historical armies make-up.
AGEOD Team - Makers of Empires, ACW2, WON, EAW, PON, AJE, RUS, ROP, WIA.

primevalangel
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2020 11:05 am
Contact:

Re: Archer still ridiculously OP

Post by primevalangel » Tue Oct 05, 2021 10:45 am

Awesome, I'm really glad to hear that archers will no longer be restricted artificially to some nations and that "more historical armies make-up" is one focus for the new game. Can't wait to hear more about it (as I really hope to be at least as good as FOGE, and by 'good' I mean 'realistic'). Keep up the great work Pocus!
Maker of "Realistic Stone Age" DoM mod and "History of Empires" YouTube channel

Pocus
Ageod
Ageod
Posts: 2889
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:05 pm

Re: Archer still ridiculously OP

Post by Pocus » Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:46 am

Thanks :D
AGEOD Team - Makers of Empires, ACW2, WON, EAW, PON, AJE, RUS, ROP, WIA.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory: Empires”