"How to Use Horse Archers" in Rome: Total War

[Doug-Thompson]

Ludens' How to use horse archers for Medieval: Total War is still required reading for anybody interested in this type of unit. However, there are some very significant improvements in R:TW and especially in "Barbarian Invasions."

First, the "Barbarian Invasion" expansion fixes the issues that were caused — unintentionally, apparently — by the 1.2 patch, which messed up HA so that they did not fire while moving in skirmish mode. Those who don't have the expansion kit are strongly advised to use Qwerty's most excellent fix.

1. Skirmish mode works now.

2. Horse archers now fire on the move. Foot archers don't.

The effects of that are enormous. Foot archers are still one of the best counters to horse archers, but they're not nearly as good as they were in MTW, especially if the AI is handling the foot archers and a human is controlling the horse archers.

Obviously, a moving target is much harder to hit than one standing still. Therefore, the effect of firing on the move is even greater when the HA uses Cantabrian circle.

Missile battles, though, are not the HA's best use, not by a long shot.

Rain arrows upon an advancing melee infantry unit. The unit will probably keep moving and its supporting foot archers will keep moving to stay close. HA can shoot an entire phalanx to pieces before the foot archers ever get a chance to stop and fire.

Horse archers can also follow or chase units and keep firing. This shooting in the back is incredibly deadly.

3. On the strategy map, an all cavalry army with a mix of melee and HA cav can wrought havoc. They can attack several armies in one turn and are very difficult to catch. If an opposing army has any slow infantry at all, the cavalry unit can choose when and where it wants to fight.

4. The Barbarian Invasion expansion vastly increased the effectiveness of shields and armor for protecting units (in R:TW and in BI) from archer fire, but only for units that are FACING the archer fire. Units are still very vulnerable from the side or from behind. This is greatly to the advantage of HA, since they can easily and safely get to the side or behind compared to foot archers.

5. The horde HA of Barbarian Invasions now come in the same "horde" formation as peasants. This is actually a very nice feature. The horde formation has no "corners" to get caught by melee units.


[edited p.s] This is a summary of the thread's most important points to date:

1. Put HA into big square formations if they don't come in "horde" formations. This makes the unit easier to move about. HA fire in all directions and don't suffer as much from friendly fire because there is less unit overlap.

2. Beware the map's edge.

3. Try to envelop your enemy. The HA units don't have to be in contact with each other. There's no need for a "continuous front" here. Gaps between "squares" are covered by fire.

4. Move and shoot for the enemy's "weapon" side. The hand that carries the weapon has no shield.

5. Use Cantabrian circle carefully. Circling HA tire out quickly and can suffer if caught in melee. However, the tactic does reduce casualties in a pure missile fight.

[Tamur]

Nice summary of the differences. The new skirmish is really amazing to watch, 'tis true.

One thing I would add is that there are now other units that can be considered Horse Archers -- British Light Chariots being my favourite. They have buckets full of arrows in those chariots, and can keep firing for probably triple the time that standard HAs can.

[Colovion]

I find that the HA skirmish mode is still a little bit hectic with the Cantabrian Circle - as it probably should be. Basically the rule of thumb is to not use the Cantabrian Circle when the infantry/cav gets close enough to charge your HA. This is because the Circle will continue running around and will eventually find themselves running headlong into the front of the enemy and the circle doesn't back up as a unit fast enough because the whole spiral is both moving towards and away from the enemy formation. Once the enemy overtakes the crux where your HAs usually turn around and start going the other way you'll find yourself with a lot of dead horses. I switch off the Cantabrian circle once the enemy closes in - this keeps them at a distance well enough to reduce the causalties.

[Orvis Tertia]

Just wondering: What are the advantages of the Cantabrian Circle. I've used it a few times, but I've always wondered if my HAs would do better damage in regular formation.

[Doug-Thompson]

Thanks, Tamur, and you're right. Some discussion on chariot tactics is needed. Do you use them the same way as HA? Does skirmish work with them? Are they as fast?

I haven't had experience with chariots except in fighting Egyptian ones. Those chariots seem to be rather easily spooked by camels and go out of control. Of course, that's not a problem in Britain and north Europe. They also seem a bit slower than cavalry, but perhaps they're just tired when my melee cav catches them.

=====

Colovion, your post shows yet another disadvantage of the circle. I'm not a cantabrian circle fan, to be honest. Movement of any kind seems to be just as effective in dodging arrows as the circle, but that's just my impression. Parthian HA and (I assume) others can fire backwards, forwards and sideways.


=======

edited p.s.

I'm not sure there is any, Orvis Tertia.

Multiplayers tend to learn lessons quicker, and the hard way. I've read where some of the swear on, or at, the circle as a very effective anti-missile tactic. I'd still like to see some sort of test on that. I tried to do one in a custom game, but for some reason the HA's wouldn't circle. I need to try it again.

[Doug-Thompson]

I don't think many early infantry types are armored nearly so well in Rome: Total War as they were in Medieval:Total War, especially when taking fire from the sides or back.

Ancient shields work well, but it sure does seem that even a good infantry formation melts when they start taking fire from the side or behind, even faster than they did in M:TW.

Of course, HA can get to the side or behind much easier than foot archers.

[LordKhaine]

When using multiple units of HA I don't use cantabrian circle. It just gets messy and people end up too close to the enemy. Plus you can get a lot of FF happening. On the other hand, if you're using a single unit and they're under missle fire, the cantabrian circle can be very very useful.

Friendly fire is often the largest problem with HA's. I often lost more men to FF than the enemy! Since HA's seem to love firing whenever they can, it's kind of unavoidable to a degree. But always make SURE you disable fire at will before you send any infantry/cavalry into a melee within range. Horse archers will gladly fire at an enemy unit, even if it consists of 2 people running away while in the middle of your own troops. And to make matters worse they'll keep shooting at the area for a few seconds after all the enemy are slain! The other day I had two eastern infantry units pretty much destroyed like this in a matter of seconds. So be sure to take them off fire at will mode at these times!

One thing to remember with HA's is also that (unlike in MTW), you can pretty much leave them alone and they'll keep themselves out of trouble. You don't have to baby walk them all the time like in previous games.

[andrewt]

My problem with the Cantabrian cirlce is that it takes too much space. Considering the friendly fire problems in RTW, the circle makes your HAs more likely to overlap each other and start annihilating each other.

[Doug-Thompson]

RE: LordKhaine's comments.

I had everybody use the circle in one battle, just to see what would happen.

It was a fiasco.

If all the cavalry is circling, the AI foot archers decide not to switch fire and never have to move. One target is just as difficult at the other, so they might as well keep shooting at the same target. The fire is less effective than if the HA were standing still, but more effective than it would be if the archers had to keep on the move and switch targets all the time.

In addition to the problems LordKhaine described, it's been my experience that Horse Archers do not stop firing even when you turn off "fire at will" and order them to halt. I strongly suspect that when you order them to move, the "halt" order is cancelled. In effect, the new order to move allows them to fire again, too

==========

re: andrewt

My problem with the Cantabrian cirlce is that it takes too much space. Considering the friendly fire problems in RTW, the circle makes your HAs more likely to overlap each other and start annihilating each other.

I wonder if collisions are a problem, too. Also, overlapping HA units make for a more dense field of targets.

[Doug-Thompson]

Has anyone experimented with a long, thin column rather than a wide, shallow line?

Such a formation could run past an infantry unit and "rake" it on the way by firing on the move, then continue past the unit and get behind.

[Ptah]

In addition to the problems LordKhaine described, it's been my experience that Horse Archers do not stop firing even when you turn off "fire at will" and order them to halt. I strongly suspect that when you order them to move, the "halt" order is cancelled. In effect, the new order to move allows them to fire again, too

The horse archers will respond exactly to the command you have issued. They cease fire with a halt command, if, the "fire at will" status command was initially turned off. Thus, you must always first turn off "fire at will", and then issue a halt order, to stop them from firing on the move.

Also, issuing a status command within a group may not be what it seems. Always check and see if the individual unit is being properly issued in its orders. If multiple groups of horse archers are selected when one turns on/off the "fire at will mode", some of them may not respond properly.

[troymclure]

noone here uses Cant Circle? wow i use it almost exclusively, even if they're aren't missile troops in the other army. I don't know it seems quite effective and i just like the way the battle map looks when i have 8 HA units harassing the enemy all running in spinning circles of death.

[Doug-Thompson]

Had a really interesting, running fight with some Greek Cavalry tonight.

The Greeks were running toward some Horse Archers of mine. I sent some Persian Cavalry to intercept and charge them. Then, before contact, the Greeks started taking serious losses.

The two units were running on almost parallel courses -- and the Persian cav were shooting into the Greeks on the run. They were at pretty close range and, apparently, the side of a horse is a big target even when moving.

I cancelled the order to charge and simply ran alongside, shooting all the way. The Greeks went from 52 men and horses to 25 before they stopped, obviously shaken. THEN I charged with the Persians. The Greeks never stood a chance.

[The_Emperor]

Parthians do have the ability to shoot behind them (the parthian shot).

I was surprised to see this in action when I faced down a unit of Parthian Horse Archers in the desert. Thinking in MTW terms I decided to send some cav to chase them down... (Arab Merc Cav) The Horse Archers then turned and ran away, so I continued the chase. Then I saw those Parthians twist around in the saddle and let off a volley of arrows into my chasing cavalry.

Pretty soon I broke off pursuit fearing they would wear me down too much and then got some foot archers in on the action.

it was very nice to see. (chariot archers also shoot behind them nicely)

[frogbeastegg]

Multiplayers tend to learn lessons quicker, and the hard way. I've read where some of the swear on, or at, the circle as a very effective anti-missile tactic. I'd still like to see some sort of test on that. I tried to do one in a custom game, but for some reason the HA's wouldn't circle. I need to try it again.

[FF]Louis-Ste-Simurgh and I tried cav archers against normal infantry archers a few days before we started our phalanx tests. Circle does make a huge difference; it tires the horses out faster but makes them very hard to hit indeed. I don't recall the exact numbers, but the difference was both significant and unmistakeable.

Circle is one of the reasons cav archers now beat foot archers, rather than losing to them a la MTW and STW. The infantry can't hit them and the cav can rip them apart at leisure.

It also appears that infantry archers may not get a bonus when shooting at cav; in all our tests with the two types of Roman infantry archer against vanilla and specialised Scythian horse archers the infantry lost. The more advanced infantry archers (archer auxilia?) did have a slightly longer range than the cavalry; it gave them one extra volley before the cav started shooting back. The vanilla Roman archers had the same range as all the assorted cavalry archers, IIRC … certainly the same range as most of them.

So, based on our tests, and my in-game experience which prompted them, cavalry archers are no longer countered by infantry archers. In fact there does not seem to be a natural counter to them. Even light cavalry tend to get shot up quite badly while closing to melee due to the cavalry archer's ability to move and shoot, and the Parthian shot ability.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Frogbeastegg got it mainly right. We try with 10 regular archer, 10 auxiliaries, 10 HA, and 10 noble HA.

Even very light armour Horse Archer can defeat Chosen foot Archer, with the circle additional protection (actually... even without it...). Horse Archer won missile duel in ALL configurations.

I think part of the problem is the foot archer targeting. It looked like the foot archers were targeting left of my horse archer. A bit like if they were targeting ahead of the horse, but did not get that the horse is NOT going to move in a straight line.

Range of Chosen Archer; 170, of normal Foot Archer; 120, of all Horse Archer; 120.

Personally, I don't think there is any good solution against horse archer... Beside engaging ennemy infantry line (if there is any to engage...) as fast as possible, or getting an awful lot of armour, as in REALLY a lot. And pray that the HA will target cheap unit.

Light cavalry pursuit is difficult, as Horse Archers faction also often have good cavalry (making pursuit hasardous)... Not to mention getting shot at while pursuing. So pursuing is much like giving a nice good convenient target.

Louis,

[Doug-Thompson]

Parthians do have the ability to shoot behind them (the parthian shot).

And if there's any significant drop-off in accuracy or lethality, I haven't noticed it.

Horse archers at a gallop but near their target seem to do better than the same unit standing still and at a modest distance.

As you and frogbeastegg attest, light cav is not nearly the threat it used to be, either. Not only are they vulnerable to missiles, which are now everywhere, their morale is pitiful. A few losses from arrows and they're shaken. One charge from Persian cavalry or your own mercenary light cavalry and they rout.

One of my favorite moves is to have the pursued HA flee toward some friendly cataphacts or camels.

[frogbeastegg]

We try with 10 regular archer, 10 auxiliaries, 10 HA, and 10 noble HA.

Yes, that's the unit allotment. Thanks for compensating for my dodgy memory.

I think part of the problem is the foot archer targeting. It looked like the foot archers were targeting left of my horse archer. A bit like if they were targeting ahead of the horse, but did not get that the horse is NOT going to move in a straight line.

This was the other interesting point we found in our tests; I didn't mention it before because I didn't get to see it personally. I was suffering from terrible lag during the last half of the tests and it was impossible to tell what was happening with the animation. If there is an issue with infantry archers not quite aiming correctly it would make a good part of an explanation as to why they get killed each and every time now. This could stand more investigation.

[Doug-Thompson]

Foot archers "leading" targets that aren't moving? That would be a find.

However, wouldn't that mean that things like HA circling would make foot archers more effective instead of less?

Anybody want to propose a test, or series of tests? I'm game.

[frogbeastegg]

Tests ... hmm. I would take a unit of foot archers and a unit of cav. I would see how many casualties the inf caused while both units were stationary. Say an average of 10 volleys. I would then get some fresh in and cav, and try the same thing again. Kills are totted up and averaged.

Next up is 2 more units of fresh inf and cav. This time the cav walk towards the inf while the inf fire. Again 10 volleys, then repeat with fresh units. Kills are totted up and averaged.

Next up same idea again, except this time the cav run forwards. Repeat twice, 10 volleys, average kills etc.

Then with the next set of fresh units I would have the cavalry run from left to right in front of the archers in medium range. 10 volleys. Repeat twice, average kills.

Finally I would get two more lots of fresh units and get the cav to run away while under fire. It would be vital to make sure the inf didn't open fire until the cav started moving away. 10 volleys, repeat twice, average kills.

Note: in all of these tests the cav are not shooting themselves; infantry deaths will affect the number of arrows being fired and screw up the results. Circle is not used at all.

This would have to be MP; not only is the fine control needed but also the AI tends to do stupid things which ruin tests.

That should give decent results.

That's what I'd do, but based on my experience last time I'd lag badly less than halfway into this. Louis had no troubles with lag before, but I ended up down to one screen every two seconds with half my controls not working. I'd also have to get someone else to do the maths unless you wanted it dyslexified.


EDIT again: I'd also be interesting in some decent tests to see if archers, slings and javelins are more accurate close up or at maximum range. I have seen it suggested that archers do best at the end of their range this time.

[Doug-Thompson]

This would have to be MP; not only is the fine control needed but also the AI tends to do stupid things which ruin tests.

Well, that knocks me out. I have an older machine and a phone line.

It's a very important topic, though. If foot archers can't hit a horse any better than a horse archer hits them, that's an enormous change from all the other TW games.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Foot archers "leading" targets that aren't moving? That would be a find.

Sorry, I was not clear enough.

In a sense Canta circle are not moving... But in another sense, if one archer target one specific circling horse archer, and assume that he is going to ride straight, all arrows are going to go array. Because Horse Archer are not going straight. by circling around, I wonder if Horse Archer are not fooling foot archer targetting ability.
I don't know how targetting work. does it target the unit leader? The unit in general? Are all archer targetting a specific target? I got no clue.
But I was surprised to see all the arrows landing left of my circling unit.
Does that depend on the rotation sense of the canta circle?

The obvious result was that Horse Archer hits Foot Archer far better than Foot Archer hits Horse Archer.
Foot Archer do better if Horse Archer are not circling... But they still lose.

And yes it's a very significant change from previous TW.

Louis,

PS; test is doable... next week.

[Lord Ovaat]

Having used bows for many years, I'll offer first-hand experience that hitting moving targets is quite difficult. Because of the slow speed of the arrow, and the high trajectory, lead required is nigh impossible to calculate, particularly since targets seldom move directly away, or to the side, but rather at an angle. That said, trying to hit ANYTHING while the shooter is moving is laughable. Horse archers generally fired on the move at mass targets or individuals at close range. And at that they can be leathal. But the damage I've seen in RTW from horse and chariot archers while at a full gallop is absurd. It just ain't that easy. 'Twould be nice to find some happy medium for a change. Volley firing with arrows, then later with firearms, increased the possibility of hits, most notably on masses of troops. Chariot archers in this game, while running around inside a city wall, will still tear my troops up. Really? On the move? Shooting over a wall? I'm just glad this is a game. I guess it is a lot more fun and better to give, rather than receive.

[frogbeastegg]

PS; test is doable... next week.

I'm busy this week too, but next week should be doable for a few hours. I'll add it on to my (getting long) list of things to test with a smurf.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

I'm busy this week too, but next week should be doable for a few hours. I'll add it on to my (getting long) list of things to test with a smurf.

Errr.... how long is that list?

Can I enroll smurf associate? Does it have to be a test with a smurf? Are we sure test with a smurf are relevant when it comes to games with human?



Louis,

PS; for missile you want to test the range issue? We also need to check the rank thing.

[frogbeastegg]

Off the top of my head:
-missile accuracy at close, medium and long range to see if there really is an accuracy difference as in previous games.
-the cav/inf archer test above
-do formations still 'wrap' around smaller enemy formations? Probably, but does this have the same devastating effect as in MTW?
-slings, arrows and javs - which is best against armour? At what point does a target get so much armour each missile becomes worthless?
-Guard mode when taking charge: useless or was that other test where guard mode made things worse a fluke?
-When facing cavalry with troops like Roman legionaries is it better to hold position or to counter charge? This is assuming there are no pilums to throw.
-Do multiple ranks have an affect on missile accuracy? Can you really get away with 10 ranks as I suspect from my SP experience?

I'm probably missing a few. You know me, the ever curious froggy I'm always endlessly curious about how things work; half of this probably isn't even needed, certainly not for SP and maybe not for MP. The last one kind of answered itself when I had archers 8 ranks deep and firing without any problems at all. Anyway if I work through this list I will only get more questions; that’s how frogs work.

Smurf associates and smurf substitutes are fine, as are frog substitutes. All together our assorted phalanx tests took over two and a half hours spread out over a week, and that's only in-battle time. I really can’t do that kind of thing very often, and I don’t expect you can either.

[Doug-Thompson]

-Do multiple ranks have an affect on missile accuracy? Can you really get away with 10 ranks as I suspect from my SP experience?
... The last one kind of answered itself when I had archers 8 ranks deep and firing without any problems at all.

Exactly; If you have the slightest overlap in too different units, there always seem to be some friendly fire problems. However, if you have one unit that is very, very deep, there do not seem to be such problems.

If any of this is true, "densepack" would reduce the chance of unit-to-unit overlap -- which would reduce friendly fire casualties.

[Dark_Magician]

Cantabrian circle is not for archers, it is for javeliners

[Locklear]

This is all very interesting. I am concerned about the missing "horses are a big target" factor.

One thing I have noticed pertains to leading and range. When archers shoot at targets at the limit of their range, sometimes it seems that even when the target is moving AWAY from them very quickly, the arrows still manage to hit. This would suggest that archers are capable of shooting beyond their maximum range, if leading. This might even be evidence of what some others have described as a "homing" effect. Anyone else notice this?

I would also suggest setting up HA in circle and halting them in a circle. I theorize that foot archers will shoot into the "center of mass" of the unit, missing the horses on the outside; although I haven't tested this myself, I notice that archers tend to shoot at the center of a unit, and outer units quickly shift closer to the center, creating a "shrinking" effect.

Anyway thanks for your efforts froggy.

[Oleander Ardens]

Hm I did some testing with Slinger vs Archers, I will try to found the sheet with the results somewhere...

I don't know anymore what exactly contained the projectile_desc. but if my memory doesn't trick me it seems that there was a explicit armor_piercing stat.

Anyway it seemed that good Slingers are better suited for masses of lighter armored targets while good Archers are better to decimate heavily armored enemies. I tried BS and Chosen Archers against LevyPikemen and SSP with upgraded armor...

Shields seemed also more important than in MTW, as equally well armored Agema Phalangites (Royal Pikemen) had far less casualities per volley as I can recall

Perhaps the sheet with the results will turn up...

Cheers
OA