View Full Version : Archers
muffinman14
10-23-2002, 04:53
Archers I think are downgraded then what killing power they actually had in the middle ages and i for one want them to be more deadly but mabye more expensive.
Archers i think are (pythdic)-spelling, Your lucky to get 20 kills off before the enemy gets to ur infantry.
If you use them in say larger numbers then you might enjoy the results a little better. Say 4 units of archers. That should be enough to rout enemy. Spears out front. Ai can never break that combo. Reserves in back to protect flanks.
There have been a crapload of threads about this and the bottom line is that archers are very useful in SP due to the idiocy of the AI, but near-useless as a weapon for killing in MP(What I mean by this is that you can use arbs to force a defender to charge etc.).
Boondock Saint
10-23-2002, 04:58
No ... they are fine. IMO anyway ...
They are perfect against early units and always useful against cav units.
Besides it doesnt take all that long before crossbows are available ... think about it ... u make archers stronger then its dominoes ... to accomodate the change then x-bows need a boost, then arbs and I think we all can agree arbs are right deadly and do not need any boosting of any sort ...
Now, my argument is all based on teh dominoe affect that is u increase the lower missile units killing ability then u need to increase each units strenght as missile units advance ... and that would just be silly as arbs can ... I said this already didnt I?
Did this make sense?
------------------
.com died ... so I am here ...
.com refugee 123321003
Hakonarson
10-23-2002, 05:36
I reckon the main erason they're no use in MP is that MP battles allow far too many florins to be spent buying troops.
So virtualy every troop is up armoured/valoured to the hilt.
It's a common feature among wargamers - in another era they call it "Tiger syndrome" - 'cos all eth young inexperienced players want to field lots and lots of German Tiger tanks - never mind that they comprised maybe 5% of total German production in WW2!! lol
I wonder how archers wouldfare in a 2000 floring battle?
I would say that archers are fine in SP, due to the fact that you have to make a CAMPAIGN with your units.
They are VERY effective at attrition, and usually I have most of my losses because of them ; armies with lots of archers are usually my nightmare, because I know that I will have many deaths because of them, and then the next turns my units will be weakened.
Orda Khan
10-23-2002, 05:44
Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
I reckon the main erason they're no use in MP is that MP battles allow far too many florins to be spent buying troops.
So virtualy every troop is up armoured/valoured to the hilt.
It's a common feature among wargamers - in another era they call it "Tiger syndrome" - 'cos all eth young inexperienced players want to field lots and lots of German Tiger tanks - never mind that they comprised maybe 5% of total German production in WW2!! lol
I wonder how archers wouldfare in a 2000 floring battle?[/QUOTE]
Very true
......Orda
------------------
" Send us your ambassadors and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war..if you make war on us the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."
Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
I wonder how archers wouldfare in a 2000 floring battle?[/QUOTE]
They would suck bad heh
But no question that the amount of money is a big problem..the main reason for that is cost of cavalry...and archers heh.
CBR
anymapkoku
10-23-2002, 10:16
Like CBR said they would do horribly. The florins don't really matter either way, and archers might even do better at high maxed out settings. I guess archers are more of a single player unit.
ShadesWolf
10-23-2002, 12:12
Simply solution, then
Make smaler battles, with less florins.....
3000, woul dbe equalt to approx 10 archers at 300 each.....
But add peasants etc and a few 150 units and you might have a good battle.....
How effective are archers against heavy infantry...not very...but I still bring one unit a archers with me to pick of those light horse units and the unarmoured infantry unit somebody always bring to the battle. Crossbows are better for armoured units. Slow but pack a punch.
------------------
Don't be in a rush to die!!
I've had, in SP, the same experience as most.
Archers are weak indeed BUT in a campaign they make sense for attrition effects, as said, and can only be used against early/non armoured units. By the way, muffin, killing 20 is not bad, it's a 1/3 of some units and will soften them up considerably bfore the inf shoch.
I also find arbs extremely usefull and effective, obviously in defense (great at killing the general) but also in attack, actually to force the enemy to attack me (if its army is full of missile units, go for pavise arbs)
My only disapointment was longbow, way too expensive. Take 2 arbs units instead.
Fearless
10-23-2002, 20:01
I've just read about someone making changes to the walking speed of armoured troops. Sounds good as it, will and, should slow them down. That way you can unleash hell (More arrows) however it will work both ways!
I tend to find that the body count in MTW is not as high as in STW.
Swoosh So
10-23-2002, 20:02
Um were archers the deciding factor in medieval battles? I doubt it
Couldn't archers be viable in MP when playing in "Early" period? I belive there are more armored troops in "High" and "Late" period play.
Archers are still way too expensive to be real good in early. And you can have lots of nicely armoured units in early too.
CBR
Last night i took out 5 royal knights with my 3 units of regular archers with a few volleys. I think that is quite good, 25 % of the knights' unit. Maybe it was luck...?
[This message has been edited by Rnold (edited 10-23-2002).]
Quote Originally posted by Swoosh So:
Um were archers the deciding factor in medieval battles? I doubt it[/QUOTE]
True, but almost all medieval armies had them in various numbers, why would they have them if they were that bad?
And what about the Muslim armies? They kicked rearquarters after the 2nd Crusade (mix of archers and horse archers). Don't forget the Mongols either (horse archers mainly).
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Odyssey of War
10-23-2002, 22:12
The archers seem to work well as they are, without being too powerful or too weak. As it stands, archers are very good in river crossing battles and for defence of forts,castles, etc.
Was able to hold a castle with just 4 units of archers and 2 units of cavalry even after an army that was 4 times larger knocked down the wall. And this was with limited ammo.
In open field battles, archers are useful for provoking the enemy and for thinning out an enemy army. They should never be used as a main army force due their low armor and limited damage potential. Cavalry units and foot units should always be the main part of your force and that is true with historical battles also. Archers are support units.
Quote Originally posted by Odyssey of War:
...They should never be used as a main army force due their low armor and limited damage potential. Cavalry units and foot units should always be the main part of your force and that is true with historical battles also. Archers are support units.[/QUOTE]
Guess Edward III and Henry V were all wrong then http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
CBR
Odyssey of War
10-23-2002, 22:30
Good point.
In defensive battles, archers are much more useful.
That is all good and well in SP, but in MP the enemy will just laugh and close on you losing 10 men and beat you with his stronger melee forces.
That is the main problem with them. They are not feared in MP as they were to some degree in STW.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Odyssey of War
10-23-2002, 22:38
Talks about the use of archers as a defensive force, in which case they wouldnt have unlimited arrows, just whatever arrows they brought with them (they could have a supply cart with more arrows as has been suggested by some), but I like limited arrows, makes it more of a challenge.
http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/battles/poitiers.html
Odyssey of War
10-23-2002, 22:41
MP is definitely a different story.
Archers are pretty much useless in MP.
Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
That is all good and well in SP, but in MP the enemy will just laugh and close on you losing 10 men and beat you with his stronger melee forces.
That is the main problem with them. They are not feared in MP as they were to some degree in STW.
[/QUOTE]
querulously
10-23-2002, 23:41
A big problem with SP is that there are not limited flanks so that archers then become useful in support of fighting units
Defenders usually chose defensive terrain with a limited frontage but the maps are too big for this and terrain usually too limited (unless you use a mapedge,which is something that should be designed out)
Nial Black Knee
10-23-2002, 23:54
I have no prob with archers. Combined arms
mantra. Come on everyone. ooooom
Orda Khan
10-24-2002, 01:47
Quote Originally posted by Swoosh So:
Um were archers the deciding factor in medieval battles? I doubt it[/QUOTE]
?????????????????????
In many, yes.
.......Orda
------------------
" Send us your ambassadors and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war..if you make war on us the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."
muffinman14
10-24-2002, 02:29
Im not arguing with arbs because they are very good and in defensive battles where the enemy has a big army 1 group of arbs can kill at least 100 men.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.