The MA Ulm issue.

[Sombre]

CUnknown: It is entirely debatable. Where have you 'shown' that arbalests deal the most damage per combat round of any missile weapon? I'm talking about tests here, not simply saying "look at their damage stat". Several people have noted that the arbalests fire first at extreme range and usually don't do much, then sit around reloading for two turns. Their second volley obviously does a lot better, but by the time they reach their third and fourth volleys crossbows, longbows and composites have put out a whole lot more fire. And yes, generally I believe crossbows are better, because I find the combination of firing more often and still having good AP damage (useful vs mid level prot) more worthwhile than being able to hurt the high prot guys who usually have shields.

It's worth noting that if we ignore body/head prot and just talk about shields, a parry is a parry and ignores the strength of the missile attack (I have tested and confirmed this - shield prot isn't factored in). Arbalests are no better than crossbows if the stumbling block is shielded enemies - indeed they are worse, as they produce less chances to get by the shield.

If they fired at the same speed as crossbows and cost the same amount of resources (the weapons themselves cost 4 as opposed to 3) but had better damage and range, you could say there can be no debate that they are better than crossbows. But that isn't the case. To my mind it's obvious arbalests and crossbows and longbows are all for different things - you can't say that Arbalests are simply the best and there can be no argument, because in so many cases (using fire arrows, against effective shields, against mid or lower prot, against enemies that will reach you before the second volley etc) they are not.

Ignoring all other factors, such as the resource and gold cost of the unit carrying the weapon - I would take crossbows over arbalests. They put out more fire (important for fire arrows, vs mid/low prot, vs shields) and still have the AP to do what I need (kill and injure non uber prot units). Note I'm not saying there can be no argument that Arbalests are better. There can. It will have to point out why the instances where they are better (vs high prot, high hp etc) are more important than the instances where crossbows are better. Actually since you said they're the best ranged weapon, no argument possible, you'll have to compare them with longbows, javs, throwing axes, mind burn etc etc.

[Valandil]

The best missile weapon in the game? Gaze of death! Enslave mind! Theft of Reason! you name it...

I think he meant something like ...'best mundane bow' or something. Even poison bow might be better.

[CUnknown]

Yeah, I was talking about 'best mundane bow'.. although Sauromatia's poison bows may in fact be better, I forgot about them.

Where have you 'shown' that arbalests deal the most damage per combat round of any missile weapon?

I did earlier on in the thread:

Weapon -- DPR (Prot 10) -- DPR (Prot 12) -- DPR (Prot 16)

Shortbow -- 0 -- 0 -- 0
Longbow -- 3 -- 1 -- 0
Crossbow -- 2.5 -- 2 -- 1
Arbelest -- 3 -- 2.67 -- 2

Arbalests are no better than crossbows if the stumbling block is shielded enemies - indeed they are worse, as they produce less chances to get by the shield.

Shields are irrelevant in this dicussion because they affect crossbows and arbelests equally. It doesn't matter that "they have more chances to get through the shield" since that when arbelests -do- get through, they do more than enough damage to make up for not getting through last time. Just look at the damage numbers.

Fire arrows is a different matter, when that spell is cast, the DPR changes:

Weapon -- DPR (Prot 10) -- DPR (Prot 12) -- DPR (Prot 16)

Shortbow -- 3 -- 2 -- 0
Longbow -- 6 -- 3 -- 0
Crossbow -- 4 -- 3 -- 1
Arbelest -- 4 -- 3.33 -- 2

In this case, you can't really tell which one is better.. Longbows are definitely the best against anything lower than 12 protection with fire arrows up, but arbelests still do pretty good, and are still the best against higher protections. But, admittedly, the lead has shrunk a lot, since even a shortbow has a good chance of damaging a 16 prot guy if it's flaming.

Without flame arrows, arbelests are just better. Now, there may be some issues with the first volley missing due to range (although arbelests have a nice range and precision stat), and that is more a problem with unit placement before the battle than with the arbelest itself anyway.

Here are the total damage numbers with the first volley completely missing (no flame arrows), through 5 combat rounds:

Damage x5 rounds (first missing): (Prot 10) -- (Prot 12) -- (Prot 16)

Shortbow -- 0 -- 0 -- 0
Longbow -- 12 -- 4 -- 0
Crossbow -- 10 -- 8 -- 2
Arbelest -- 9 -- 8 -- 6

This is a little more debatable, since the longbow has a nice edge against 10 protection or below. Also, the arbelest doesn't do any damage whatsoever until the 4th round.. but still, on the 4th round the arbelest catches up in a big way against anything over 12 protection.

I guess the take home lesson is to not put your arbelests in the far back, because they might miss the first round, and then they're much closer in power to the other mundane bows.

[Maraxus]

Judging from the shortbow damage, you have not considered the random number. That's bringing a fault into the calculation (through it obviously makes the calculation a lot easier. - I'd say calculateable. I have no idea, how one can calculate the distributions of open ended d6s.)

I'f used Excel to calculate it and the result was as follows:

Damage per hit:

Prot 10 -- 12 -- 16
Shortbow -- 1.37 -- 0.593 -- 0.043
Longbow -- 3.35 -- 1.93 -- 0.353
Crossbow -- 5.1 -- 4.19 -- 2.59
Arbelest -- 9 -- 8 -- 6.04

Multiply this with the number of shots per interval of your choise.
...
Okay, I do and see, that the DRNs don't make to much diffrence. The open-endedness comes on top of this but should not chance that much more.

Well, at least, it shows, that at Protection 12, the Longbow is still quite en par with the crossbow but nobody can argue away the heavy loose in damage once Prot>Damage



Of course, this was in reswponse to CUnknown. Tuidjy has given more important points.
I would not value hits as high because routing enemies will often come back again but one should definitly not ignore this point, too.

Oh and of course one thing you can put into a formular even less well:
If you shoot fast enough, you will more likely catch the opponent in the ideal distance.