To the question... Archers vs Crossbowmen. We will leave the nobles and
stuff out of the picture.
20 Archers vs 30 crossbowmen (2 to 3 right)
20 archers(5,5,50) have a 50/51 chance to kill a crossbowmen...
30 crossbowmen(1,1,25) have a 25/30 chance to kill a Archer...
I don't feel like doing the probability math right now... but lets
see...
round 1 - 20 archers kill say 100% of the time for 20 kills.
round 1 - 30 archers kill say 80% of the time or 30*.8 = 24 kills.
round one shows all the archers dead and still 10 crossbowmen alive...
who won.
In this example I actually had the archers kill percentage higher than
it is and the crossbowmens lower.
So the rules on average should be even more favourable for the
crossbowmen.
Finally, behinds of multiple levels still take part in ranged to my
knowledge. Reasons to have More than one level. Put the most valuable
nobles the farthest back. You will want the melee troops and beasts at
behind zero. But maybe crossbowmen at 1, archers at 2 etc... The noble
at each level could buy you the needed time to win the major conflict.
Holbrook J (Jason) at MSXSSC wrote:
>
> Ok, I have another question.
> Is there any benefit of putting a Noble behind with the behind order, with a
> number greater than 1 since I have only two Nobles in this stack.
> As I understand it, if you had 3 nobles with one at behind 0, one at behind
> 2, and one at behind 4, then only two nobles can attack anyway right? Since
> they would be stacked 3 levels deep and only the first two levels can fight,
> providing of course that the second has archers.
> Also, I have heard from many people that quantity is better over quality. I
> have noted that 2 Archers costs exactly the same to maintain as 3
> crosswbowmen but the 2 archers will beat the 3 crossbowman in all aspects,
> ie AS/DS/RG. But since I can have more crossbowman should one stick with
> them?
> That's it for now.
>
> Atan Delgor