Archers - are they worth it?

[Jools]

I stopped my bowsmith and demolished one a few day ago as my remaining 18 archers never seem to do anything. After a disastrous attack yesterday I lost 35 recruits and all 18 archers. Starting up my bowsmith again I quickly ran out of logs for my coking plant, so put it on hold again.
But I'm now thinking, are they worth all the resources, yesterday when they got wiped out was the only time they fired a shot, but didn't actually achieve much.

[Rohab]

I find archers are benefical if you have more recruits than scavangers.
Reason being that if you have 60 recruits against 60 scavangers, you'll lose equal amount on your recruits, but the likelihood is that your archers will finish them off while taking no damage.

I've had 50 archers for about a week now, not lost 1 in a battle because my recruits are cannon fodder leaving my archers to finish off the bandits.

[Jools]

that's what I thought, but if you don't have enough recruits then they simply get wiped out as they have so few HP. It would be better if they were first strike so they could take out a lot of the scavangers and reduce your loses.

[Zavvy]

Oh man I cant believe it.. I just made a really long post about the cost of archers and my browser flipping died on me.

Anyway the conclusion was this:

Cost of a recruit: 10 bronze swords (30 coal, 10 copper) + 5 beers
Cost of an archer: 10 beers + 10 bows (80 pine wood logs)

Now in the castle empire site theres a trade calculator that lets you translate other materials into e.g. pine wood logs. lets call their worth pine wood log equivalents (pwle)

1 beer = 12 pine wood log equivalents
1 coal = 4 pwle
1 copper = 2 pwle

Now heres where the calculator comes to fault.. it says that because 2 coal and 1 copper are worth 10 pine wood log equivalents, 1 bronze bar should be worth 10 pine wood logs. This is obviously faulty but we can live with it for now.

Cost of recruit = 30*4+5*12+10*2 = 200 pwle
Cost of archer = 10*12+80 = 200 pwle


So, calculated in pine wood log equivalents a recruit and an archer both cost the equivalent of 200 pine wood logs. If you dont factor in time and buildings needed what youre left with to look at is damage done and HP.

DAMAGE
The average damage of a recruit is 22.5 dmg (15-30), an archer 30 dmg (20-40). This makes the archer do 0.0375 MORE damage per pwle than the recruit. ([30-22.5]/200=0.0375)

What this means is that for the same amount of pine wood logs (or equivalents) you get MORE damage from archers, basically they are better than recruits under the assumption that they arent attacked in the fight.

HP
Lets factor in HP. Recruits get 40 HP, Archers get 10 HP. This means you get:

1 recruit gives you 40/200 = 0.2 HP per pwle.
1 archer gives you 10/200 = 0.05 HP per pwle

No news there really, 4 times as much HP on the recruits. But if you look at the combined worth of the archer and the recruit it gets more interesting:

Combined worth
1 recruit gives you: 0.2+0.1125 = 0.3125 "HPDMG" per pwle
1 archer gives you 0.05+0.15 = 0.2 "HPDMG" per pwle

Suddenly the recruit starts to shine. Basically this is because while the recruit has 4x as much HP as the archer, the archer doesnt do 4x as much damage as the recruit. The combined worth of the recruit is therefore higher if you factor in HP.

Additionally, there's a convenience benefit to just making recruits, too. Having that bowmaker suck vital pine from your sawmills and coking plants can be a strain on your cutters. In the end its up to you to decide whether theyre worth it. I havent gotten that far yet but Im sure there comes a point when the amount of damage from 200 recruits wont suffice and youll need units with more damage, then the archer (and other units) might be needed. But for level 16-17-18 ....

In my opinion its simply better to just focus on recruits.

[Jools]

thanks zavvy, just need to make sure I don't get them wiped out in future;
Patience is a virtue

[sparkz]

Comparing the costs of making the unit woudlve made sense, if you produced both types of units constantly. A group of well used archers are one time expense, which is also why theres no need to factor the time needed to produce bows/ archers.

The problem is, starting from around 21-22 level plenty of fights will include guard dogs that kill archers before they have a chance to shoot. That is why its better to make militia instead - same damage, more resilience, costs are once again irrelevant long as you dont lose any of them.

[Jools]

OK thanks for that, I suppose when you get to that levels you need to choose who you send to each battle rather than just sending everyone.

[Zavvy]

Comparing the costs of making the unit woudlve made sense, if you produced both types of units constantly. A group of well used archers are one time expense, which is also why theres no need to factor the time needed to produce bows/ archers.

The problem is, starting from around 21-22 level plenty of fights will include guard dogs that kill archers before they have a chance to shoot. That is why its better to make militia instead - same damage, more resilience, costs are once again irrelevant long as you dont lose any of them.

I def agree with you that archers are a one-time expense since if you lose them youre doing it wrong. For guard dog camps, I havent gotten that far yet, maybe its better to bench the archers for recruits and militia?

I havent made any militia yet but from what Ive understood they are quite pricy. If you can just grind your way through with recruits maybe militia arent worth it? They need iron so you need to sub your entire bronze industry for that, it takes a lot of res. I cant really make a calculation either cuz I dont even see the requirements for militia.

[Jools]

Militia depends on whether they are a one-time expense too. You can't really get rid of your bronze industry, you need it for tools

[Zavvy]

Militia depends on whether they are a one-time expense too. You can't really get rid of your bronze industry, you need it for tools

ah right, my bad. tho you can downsize it

[Psychynius]

I cant really make a calculation either cuz I dont even see the requirements for militia.

Militia require 1 settler, 10 beer and 10 iron swords.
1 Iron sword requires 2 iron & 8 coal.
1 Iron requires 4 iron ore & 6 coal.

So more expensive then the bronze. ^^

60 hp
20 - 40 damage
80% accuracy
Normal initiative.

[sparkz]

Militia is needed for one boss fight, so you might aswell squeeze some sword production in and make like 50-60 of those units, being careful to not lose them in regular fights.

[IncontinentNick]

archers/range weapons should get first stike...therefore grunts would be depleted before they could get into the action...Just like the real thing

[lynnkx]

Militia require 1 settler, 10 beer and 10 iron swords.
1 Iron sword requires 1 iron & 1 coal.
1 Iron requires 1 iron ore & 1 coal.

So same as the bronze. ^^ (To make the swords, Militia do require more beer)

60 hp
20 - 40 damage
80% accuracy
Normal initiative.

My iron smelter needs 4 iron and 6 coal to make 1 iron bar....

And my iron weaponsmith needs 2 iron bars and 8 coal to make 1 sword....

Plus the iron mine takes longer to get the iron mined than the copper mine takes..... and the weaponsmith takes the same amount of time to produce one sword as the iron smelter takes to produce one iron bar so either two smelters are needed or the weaponsmith has to get turned off half of the time.....

[Jools]

yes I see that now I've gone and built them all :(
Might not have bothered had I known

[sparkz]

archers/range weapons should get first stike...therefore grunts would be depleted before they could get into the action...Just like the real thing

Keep in mind that TSO is not a standalone game, its a UK server for a game that thousand other people plays on dozen of other servers. If you granted ranged units first strike on any of the more developed servers it would lead to most missions being completed WITHOUT loses, apart from maybe few recruits. That being said people would not only spend less money on doing missions, but also would skyrocket with levels, doing couple missions a day.

[Dralleballe]

I disagree with your assumption, especially early game.

The most difficult task is not to get mats for making your army, its to get enough settlers over to train. This is why i choose a mix of bowmen and recruits. Simply cause i want the fights to only go one round, this minimize my losses alot.

[Psychynius]

My iron smelter needs 4 iron and 6 coal to make 1 iron bar....

And my iron weaponsmith needs 2 iron bars and 8 coal to make 1 sword....


Aye, got corrected about that last night. Forgot to edit the post. My bad. I'll edit it now. ^^

[Jools]

Aye, got corrected about that last night. Forgot to edit the post. My bad. I'll edit it now. ^^
tsch... damn MODs JK:)

[Zavvy]

My iron smelter needs 4 iron and 6 coal to make 1 iron bar....

And my iron weaponsmith needs 2 iron bars and 8 coal to make 1 sword....

Plus the iron mine takes longer to get the iron mined than the copper mine takes..... and the weaponsmith takes the same amount of time to produce one sword as the iron smelter takes to produce one iron bar so either two smelters are needed or the weaponsmith has to get turned off half of the time.....

Ok so if you can live with my pine wood log currency a militia would cost:

M=Amount of militia
B=Beer
I=Iron
Is=Iron swords
Ib=Iron bar
C=Coal
P=Pwle

Militia resource cost
f(M) = 10M(B+Is)

Is=2Ib+8C
Ib=4I+6C

meaning
f(M=1)=10

In pwle
B=12P
C=4P
I=17P

we have:
f(M=1)=10[(12P)+8(4P)+2(4(17P)+6(4P))] = 10[12P+32P+2(68P+24P)] = 10[44P+184P] = 10[228P] = 2280P

One militia costs 2280 pine wood log equivalents. (Remember archers and recruits costed, less than 10% of that)

So what do we get from a militia

[B]Damage: 20-40, 30 avg
30/2280=0.013 DMG/pwle

HP: 60
60/2280=0.026 HP/pwle

Combined worth
0.013+0.026=0.039 "HPDMG"/pwle

in comparison:
Archer: 0.2 HPDMG/pwle
Recruit: 0.3125 HPDMG/pwle
Militia: 0.039 HPDMG/pwle

Basically your costs to get to the next tier of melee is enormous and your military becomes even less cost-effective. Would be interesting to do this on the other units as well to see if it keeps going this way. obviously this doesnt take into account time as mentioned. using settler spawn as the limiting resource it makes more sense to make the best units around

I dont have the building time of the buildings either, but if you had you could factor in how much DMG, HP and HPDMG youd get per unit of time while making any of these.. meaning if you have an abundance of resources, free settlers and all the infrastructure needed.. what gives you the most powerful army in the shortest amount of time

[Jools]

what does the f in f(M) = 10M(B+Is) stand for?

[Guenivere]

I think you guys must also take into account the battles themselves.
If I where to battle 100scavangers with 40HP dam 15-30 hit 60%
I would need >150 recruits to kill them all on the first shot
If I use 50 recruits and 60 bowmen, I prolly lose only my recruits and kill them in one shot without having as large as an army that we would need with only recruits.
Atleast this is what I have been using and I never lose my bowmen and only replace my recruits.

[Zavvy]

what does the f in f(M) = 10M(B+Is) stand for?

just shows its a function.. couldve written C(M)=... to make it more intuitive. if C was "the total cost", C(M) would read "the cost of making M amount of militia" where M is an integer (the amount of militia you want to make)

[Zavvy]

I think you guys must also take into account the battles themselves.
If I where to battle 100scavangers with 40HP dam 15-30 hit 60%
I would need >150 recruits to kill them all on the first shot
If I use 50 recruits and 60 bowmen, I prolly lose only my recruits and kill them in one shot without having as large as an army that we would need with only recruits.
Atleast this is what I have been using and I never lose my bowmen and only replace my recruits.

yes good points.. but I know too little to actually do that right now. I dont even know what accuracy stands for.. I mean if a unit has 60% acc does it mean that only 60% of the damage goes through every round?

and you can juggle your amount of recruits/archers in the battle sim to find a sweet spot where you minimize your casualties, just like you already figured out. for recruits there seems to be no drop off point where an additional recruit wont reduce casualties, but... after some point it becomes so small you dont have to care

I mean look at this. 100 recruits vs 50 scavengers
http://gustav.agrell.net/gus_files/misc/rec100_50.jpg

24 losses

200 recrutis vs 50 scavengers
http://gustav.agrell.net/gus_files/misc/rec200_50.jpg

23 losses

[Zefroid]

I have wondered about that. It makes no sense...
How come that it says 21 avg losses when I put 150 recruits vs 50 scavengers?

[SamAxe]

Keep in mind that TSO is not a standalone game, its a UK server for a game that thousand other people plays on dozen of other servers. If you granted ranged units first strike on any of the more developed servers it would lead to most missions being completed WITHOUT loses, apart from maybe few recruits. That being said people would not only spend less money on doing missions, but also would skyrocket with levels, doing couple missions a day.

I think range and troop speed would have to be implemented together- range couldnt be added with out a superior troop

[jemster]

A note on accuracy: If I understand this (http://hallophp.de/dso_kampfsimulator/en/) correctly and if it is appliable to TSO (so far the simulations have been correct...), accuracy is the chance the the troop does max damage, otherwise it does min damage.

[Shandas]

Could someone please verify that accuracy indeed means the chance for max dmg.

[incurro]

In shot, not reading all stuff - they do a lot! Especcialy if there are non first-strike enemys. They got best dmg done.

[Lymond]

The use of all troop types is situational. In many cases, especially early on, there is no benefit to using better troops. If 200 recruits can kill the enemy in one round then replacing some of them with bowmen or militia will have no added benefit. However if 200 recruits take the battle into 2 rounds then replacing half of them with bowmen could do enough damage to end the fight in one round or leave fewer enemies to fight in round 2, hence reducing your own losses as long as you are sure to take along enough recruits to protect the bowmen. Replacing a few with cavalry could allow you to kill their archers before they hurt your troops, but if they have dogs could prove too expensive in losses to your own.

Metal Tooth (sector 8) is the first time you really need to consider whether it's worth sacrificing expensive troops to beat an enemy. If the simulators are right (they reset his hit points to max after each wave) then its completely impossible to win the battle with recruits since he is the first enemy to be attacked and his troops kill off 200 recruits before you can reduce him to 0 hit points. If they are wrong and his health does not reset to full after each attack it's only extremely slow to kill him with recruits. If the latter is true you have to decide whether all the horses needed for the cavalry you will lose are more important to you than the time it's going to take to grow and train the hundreds of extra settlers to send in recruit waves and the cost of three generals - assuming you have enough housing to build a full 3 waves of recruits. I'll have the cavalry before I have the population limit to build 600 recruits and I'd rather save the 500 gold needed for a 3rd general too. You might kill metal tooth with 2 recruit waves, but it's not guaranteed even if he heals nothing between attacks.

Only you can decide what your priorities are. If you set up your town so it produces horses quickly it'll be a lot less painful to lose some than if you have to wait an age for a single stable to produce the same number. How you use your precious building licences and which buildings you choose to upgrade will make these decisions unique for you. People can make suggestions but they may have a quite different setup to yours.



Could someone please verify that accuracy indeed means the chance for max dmg.

That seems to be the assumption used by the simulator at http://castleempiresim.com/
Since it appears to predict results accurately, it seems fair to assume that it is correct.