Archers Should Have Secondary Weapons

that is basically what the total war series does.  and i approve

You could give archers secondary weapons, as long as it comes with drawbacks.

First there is the fact that it requires a lot of training to be proficient with a just a SINGLE weapon. Archery alone can take years of your life to get good at. Then add in some other weapon, its goint to take longer.

Second, as an archer, lugging around extra weapons is going to slow you down. Something a ranged unit does not want. Archers want to go as light as possible, in order to maintain range against those heavily armored infantry. A small dagger might be useful, but don't expect an archer (who probably never really trains with a dagger) to do much against a well trained swordsmen.

I have no problem in allowing players to create complete badass units, that have full armor, big ass sword and a kickass longbow..if they want to. But its going to take forever to train these units, and probably cost a lot. Then there is the question of the exact role of the unit. Creating cheaper units with focused roles is probably more efficient then creating expensive masters of all trades.

  Good idea

I agree wholeheartedly with this idea- archers should never be without some sort of weapon in case the other guys get up close and personal.

As a means of balancing it out, I'd suggest a reality based option: big armor and heavy weapons make it that much harder to pull and fire a bow. A suit of armor could weigh something like a quarter ton, and those bows weren't designed for lightweights either. In game, this'd translate into accuracy, range, or damage penalties for heavily encumbered archers. I think that this'd work better than the "extra training time" solution, mainly because as an archer, you aren't terribly concerned with being good at dagger fighting. When the other guys get close enough to actually hit you, you're doing you job wrong. All you're really just trying to do at that point is buy time either for one of you buddies to stab the guy or for you to run away.

Just my 2 cents.

If there's a dexterity modifier that attacks the use of weaponry, loading up your archers with plate mail and a broadsword would leave them unable to operate their longbow effectively.  You'd then have an expensive and unwieldy unit that sucked at the primary job.

But I thought that this is what Elemental will be all about -- as DEFAULT ?
I mean: There is no unit (class) called an "archer", or a "knight", etc. You build your units and equip them with equipment as you see fit. I had thought that it shouldnt be a problem at all to give, for instance, a unit who is trained in archery and equipped with a bow a dagger -- this would simply cost a bit more: more resources for the dagger and a bit more training. Hopefully, we will be able to control the level of proficiency when designing our units; e.g.
- Unit X might have 4 ranks of longbow proficiency, 1 rank of short melee proficiency, and 2 ranks of stealth -- provided that you have learned the prerequisite trainings.
I had imagined that you sort of click and add these bits from drop down lists of possible "ingredients", and the training time and cost expenditure would increase automatically. But maybe I have misunderstood something.

In fact there should be an option in the unit designer to give several weapons to it.

@onomastikon- You are right, you can choose which weapons your soldiers have.  So far, however, there is no way to give a soldier multiple weapons and I don't know if it was planned to be implemented, as there is only one attack value and not split into ranged and melee attack values.  I just want soldiers equipped with a bow to also have a melee weapons for hand to hand combat.

  I agree, they should have light melee weapon aside from their ranged weapon.

Maybe Single-Weapon vs. Primary and Secondary Weapons should be one of the things that clearly separate regular units from champions. The combat math could still have some room for the idea of secondary weapons on folks in a crossbow squad, but the UI could let sovereigns think of them in terms of putting meat behind a specific type of offensive metal and not providing optimal arms & armor to every grunt in a group.

I really like the idea of having separate proficiencies for different weapons.  Being able to train specific uses instead of everything together sounds outstanding.  You can give your longbows short swords so they aren't completely screwed in melee, but only spend time training them for ranged combat.

I like the idea even better if weapons and armor are use trained in combat, instead of just having generic leveling.  Perhaps a slightly less demanding system more along the lines of the Civ4 upgrade system where you pick a boost instead?

Hmn I thought this was the way it was planned to be. Hmn!

wouldn't pikeman need secondarys as well?

unless they don't behave like in total war games i am fine with secondary pike unit weapons

arrrgh the memories: go pike man attack those horses ... no what are you doing ...with your pikes not with your swords ...

Well, you COULD pay the extra equipment cost to equip your archer with a melee weapon (which is perfectly viable, and probably the choice used most often with Archer-integrated armies)

However, if your archer only has a Bow n Arrow, then I suggest that a ranged weapons melee attack is 20% its normal attack. Or something to that effect.

Of course, champions using Bow n Arrow could have a workaround via feat, skill, or something, but the average trooper with a bow n arrow (if only equipped with a bow) should be relatively slaughtered up-close.

Equipping an archer with only a bow should make them cheaper and for a more specialised role. Sure, you can have more of them, but you have to protect them. Also, the level of secondary weapon will also be a decision. Should your secondary weapon just be a sword? A dagger and Shield? a Broadsword? All interesting decisions, for varying levels of cost/numbers and troop reliability.

And yes, I think all units should have the option for two attacksets. Each attack set should be either Weapon or Weapon + Shield, so theoretically both attack sets could be Weapon + Shield ... however its probably not a good choice if the strategic use is much the same. THe only time I see two attack sets both being Weapon + Shield would be if its a Champion that has an Uber Fire Sword and an Uber Ice Sword. Other than that, alts will most likely be a Pike, Bow, Axe, or Mace/Hammer.

Does anybody think this may be solved by splitting the attack value into a ranged attack value and melee attack value?  I don't know if this is planned, I'm just going off of the current system.

Nothing is currently planned, and everything is currently prepared for. However I don't see any reason to separate ranged attack from Melee. A melee weapon can ONLY attack from direct contact and a ranged weapon can ONLY attack from indirect contact. In truth all ranged weapon's melee attack should be 1 because you are essentially just hitting your opponent with an un-optimized stick at that point .... unless your actually trying to draw your bow and fire. In which case I decided to call Yatzi and say that a Ranged Weapon should only get 20% attack in the melee as a fair abstraction ... as the initiative of the melee attacker would TRULY determine wether the ranged player lived or died (if the ranged player had no secondary weapon).

If, however, the Archer had a dagger, then it would be Broadsword vs Dagger when close-up as opposed to Broadsword vs Swinging Bow or Broadsword vs Quickly retreating Archer.

Honestly in Champion vs Champion situations, I would prefer (in sword vs bow applications) the bow gets a FULL powered shot each round after a melee miss, and only a half powered shot after a melee hits. So, if the sword hits the bow (lets say their attacks are both 8), then next round the bow would attack at 4. However if the Sword misses the bow (dodge) the Bow would attack at 8. And by that, I mean the max RNG value, not the actual roll. Its very possible for the 4 attack to roll a 4 and the 8 attack to roll a 1.

In any case, if a sword is locked into a melee involving physical contact (which happens if two large units engage each other via connected borders or overlap for any number of rounds longer more than one) then the bow shouldn't get full attack power. I suppose if you felt you needed a melee attack, then this could be your 20% power ... or merely an attack of one ... although any melee attack by a bow (in reality) is going to be pathetic ... so really its just an abstraction of their ranged prowess at point-blank range while being stabbed, grabbed, and bashed.

Personally I go with the 20%, or 50% for Champions (correctable to 100% with a Skill or Feat) ... if the Archer has no secondary weapon. Otherwise, if the archer DID have a secondary weapon, the first round of melee contact I would allow the archer to pull off a full ranged attack of opportunity, and then the second round start swinging the melee weapons. Of course, without the secondary weapon, first round is a full ranged attack, and all subsequent rounds are at 20%.

This brings me to my next point. An archer unit without secondary weapons (or even with) should have an option called "Friendly Fire". This is when archers forming a multi-row unit work semi-independently. Lets say the first row or two is caught in the melee ... clicking "friendly fire" will cause the Units in the back to attack into the melee, with a 40% chance of hitting a friend in the melee, a 35% chance of hitting an enemy in the melee, and a 25% chance of hitting an enemy behind the melee (or missing if there is nothing behind the attackers engaged in combat).

Friendly Fire, then of course, would be unwise to use in many situations ... however if there are many archers and no way to safely disengage from the melee, it might be wise to sacrifice the ones in the front lines to save the many. If its half in half however ... its a tougher call. Also, once you start giving them secondary weapons to defend themselves ... you might be tempted to commit all your archers to the melee (assuming running away is not an option).

In short, melee attack vs ranged attack only works if its "The unit" instead of "the weapon". An Axe of 7 attack isn't going to have a real ranged attack, same as a Bow of 7 attack isn't going to have a real melee attack. I suppose you could attach blades to the end of your bow to make a makeshift butterfly-knife defense, although that is too hypothetical, and you might as well have forged a bow and some knives instead of making a heavier and unwieldy bladed bow.

Essentially, the weapon's attack is removed from the function, as both attack armor equally. I will admit, however, that with the introduction of Fantasy monsters (especially if such monsters can wield weapons) we might very well NEED a ranged attack vs melee attack .... because the 6 armed Swamp-Rhino-Gorilla might have a melee attack of 10, as well as wielding 2 crossbows each with a ranged attack of 7. Or you have a Hydralisk that spits for a ranged attack of 6 and eviscerates opponents at a melee attack of 12.

Sorry for making you write that wall of text.  I meant that the unit would have ranged and melee attacks based on what weapons you give them.  Slings, bow, and throwing weapons (javelins, axes, daggers) would give a unit a ranged attack, while a sword or axe or spear would give a unit a melee attack.

Hmm, well I suppose you could do that, and you wouldn't need a button to switch between weapon sets ... however I prefer the flexibility of weapon sets (see Dragon Age).

In a weapon set, its not always restricted to one Ranged Weapon and one melee weapon. Perhaps my Pikemen wish to carry Axes on their backs for when they meet armored Swordsmen instead of Mounted Knights.

KillzEmAllGod-"shouldn't pikemen need secondarys?" Short answer is yes.  What kind?  Short Sword, Mace, Dagger(light melee weapons)  For the longer answer from wiki is Pikemen.

edit* I didn't check on lengths of swords that Pike units used but taking all the other weight factors into account-armor, pike the swords couldn't have been too heavy(opinion).  Some Pikes reached up to 22' in length.  In article it say's that Alexander the Greats father used pikes in formations.  They were used up until guns became the dominant form of warfare.  It also says the Spanish had groups of early gun units that kept flank with the pike units in a somewhat checkerboard arrangement.  Also, a pike is a (typically) wood shaft or pole with a speartip made of metal fastened at one end.

Being able to equip troops with multiple/backup weapons would be useful.

Knights who use lances on horseback, swords on foot...or soldiers with javelins to throw before switching to a melee weapon.

Would make things interesting.

I believe that secondary weapons have been confirmed. At least, Frogboy made a passing remark about wanting to equip archers with daggers. I have a good memory for useless shit like that.

Yes you are right he did, so this thread is kind of irrelevant now.