View Full Version : Persian Archers Question
Brave Brave Sir Robin
06-27-2009, 18:38
Ok so I'm playing through a Seleucid campaign and as such, have become quite fond of my Persian Archer Spearmen as well as the base Persian Archers. I have a question about their recruitment however. Persian Archers require the first regional MIC to recruit which is understandable given that they are a basic, if strong archer unit. Persian Archer Speramen require the second, again understandable as they are an archer unit capable in melee. However, their price is cheaper than that of the standard Persian Archers. :dizzy2:
Can anyone give me an explanation as to why? AFAIK they have the same or very similar range and the same amount of ammo. The only advantage I can see is that Persian Archers have the fast trait. Of course I'm not complaining, as the spearmen are much more useful in my campaign, especially against those annoying Pahlava and Saka generals.
Anything I'm missing about the regular archers?
ARCHIPPOS
06-27-2009, 18:50
archer spearmen have shorter range than the archers... however they carry more ammo (not sure how much more exactly but my guess would be 30% more) ...
as for the archer spearmen lower recruitment costs i have had the same question myself...
Watchman
06-27-2009, 19:19
It has to do with values in the unit-creation system concerning the final price equation. Let's just say that the improved archery skill thingy that gives the basic archers their longer range is rather more expensive than the archer-spearmens' long pointy stick.
A Very Super Market
06-27-2009, 19:34
Persian Archers have a cooler uniform as well...
Archer-Spearmen should be a staple for Baktria, lacking the huge horse-archer armies of the nomads. It gives you enough range to hit back at them, although they have no real effect on the Armoured HAs. Subeshis have the longest range, though.
antisocialmunky
06-27-2009, 19:50
Yeah, Persian Archers are the only real archer that Baktria has. Indians are horribly inaccurate, unarmored, and ammo low and archer spearmans aren't really that great at anything. Atleast Indians can melee quite well.
ARCHIPPOS
06-27-2009, 20:00
subeshis are quite expensive though...for missile troops i go for a mixture of persian archers/archer spearmen/slingers... behind phalangites those guys nicely make up for each other's shortcomings and work wonders in missile duels ... i haven't tested Indian longbowmen in missile duels yet but what did you expect??? they have an upkeep of 113 or sth... i say for their money the longest range/deadly machette edge is not that bad :)
Indian Longbowmen are rubbish at archery duels, they have a crappy range (170m) and a lot less arrows (16 per man) than most archers, in meele though they are a different story.
TruePraetorian
06-27-2009, 21:00
In my current Baktrian campaign I also wondered the same thing. What I noticed is that, like everyone is saying, the Persian Archers have better range and are more capable in ranged battles.
I also took notice on how the Persian Archers are much faster moving then their counterparts.
ARCHIPPOS
06-27-2009, 21:15
i'm kind of curious abt how the Thanvare Parsig (Heavy Persian Archers) guys might behave...you know them???The red smurf archer guys??? they're fuck expensive sure but supposedly "they have greater range and penetrating power than their Achaemenid forebears and with their basic armour are not as vulnerable as their more lightly equipped brethren"
anyone tried them before??? they are very high on "my-once-i-get-filthy-rich-fantasy-elite-fullstack"... :yes::yes::yes:
Mikhail Mengsk
06-27-2009, 22:08
Mmmh i'm playing Baktria and i found them not yet useful. Sure they are better than standard Persian Archers, but not SO much for their cost. I'll take them only when i will have plenty of mnais, just because they looks good XD
Archer-Spearmen are very useful, but I have to remind to switch skirmish mode off. I enjoy their ability to fire arrows and to hold the line when the first enemy units charged them, until my first line countercharged the enemy. THeir cheapness makes them even more effective. Also, they have more arrows (why?!?).
Anyway, persian archers are the backbone of my missile power thanks to their range. Make them level up and you will cover the sun with deadly arrows, taking down nasty enemy missile troops from safe distance.
Andy1984
06-28-2009, 00:25
In my current Baktrian campaign I also wondered the same thing. What I noticed is that, like everyone is saying, the Persian Archers have better range and are more capable in ranged battles.
I also took notice on how the Persian Archers are much faster moving then their counterparts.
This is exactly the reason why I almost always prefer persian archers.
Watchman
06-28-2009, 00:34
i'm kind of curious abt how the Thanvare Parsig (Heavy Persian Archers) guys might behave...you know them???The red smurf archer guys??? they're fuck expensive sure but supposedly "they have greater range and penetrating power than their Achaemenid forebears and with their basic armour are not as vulnerable as their more lightly equipped brethren"
anyone tried them before??? they are very high on "my-once-i-get-filthy-rich-fantasy-elite-fullstack"... :yes::yes::yes:From what I can recall without firing up teh Notepad++ to check, they should indeed have better bows ergo range - Scythian composites instead of the less pokey Persian type IIRC. So yeah, they should be extra bit shooty on top of being rather more arrow-resistant and actually almost capable of fighting hand-to-hand (0.1 lehtality shortsword instead of 0.04 knife does that).
I also took notice on how the Persian Archers are much faster moving then their counterparts.Weird. Pretty sure most archers ought to be on the "fast" animations on account of, you know, not exactly being weighed down by heavy armour. The exception being the Indians in their melee mode, as there wasn't a "fast" two-hander anim available...
How do the Persian archers compare to Caucasian archers?
Ibn-Khaldun
06-28-2009, 16:17
Caucasian Archers are better.
Nirvanish
06-28-2009, 16:20
Caucasian Archers
Damage-6
Range-180
Ammo-28
Secondary-.04 knife
Defense-8
Persian Archers
Damage-4
Range-192.5
Ammo-25
Secondary-.04 knife
Defense-8
Caucasian Archers
Damage-6
Range-180
Ammo-28
Secondary-.04 knife
Defense-8
Persian Archers
Damage-4
Range-192.5
Ammo-25
Secondary-.04 knife
Defense-8
Does the two extra damage from the Caucasian archer overtake the extra range that Persian archer has or vice versa?
Brave Brave Sir Robin
06-28-2009, 16:41
I'd rather have the Caucasian archers. I've found them to be a little more useful given their higher attack rating against infantry. I guess in an archer duel, Persians would be better. Although I find the Mardian archer mercenaries to be much better then either Persian types. Higher missile attack, better range, and more ammo.
ARCHIPPOS
06-29-2009, 08:38
hey it has just occured to me... the persian archers (contrary to archer spearmen) come with an officer command... you know the persian guy with the helmet,scale armor and longsword??? surely this could explain the 25 mnai difference in the upkeep??? i mean officers typicaly received a higher salary,no???
Watchman
06-29-2009, 08:47
The officers or lack thereof have zero effect on the unit costs.
Flavius_Belisarius
06-29-2009, 19:52
Are such officers stronger than the unit itselfs or are they only there for decoration?
ARCHIPPOS
06-29-2009, 20:00
i dunno but the random "captains" acting as generals during battles are a pain in the ass to kill...
Watchman
06-29-2009, 20:05
Are such officers stronger than the unit itselfs or are they only there for decoration?AFAIK nobody really knows just quite how exactly they function under the engine, but they do generally seem rather badass in a fight. Mostly, though, they're decoration.
In a Baktrian campaign I would suggest Paya Hinam Dunai Purma (Subeshi Archers) which are easily recruitable in the provinces to the north and east of the Baktrian capital. The have more ammo, longer range higher defense and a better secondary than the Persian and Caucasian Archers. They are about 50 mnai more upkeep but well worth it.
Attack: 5
Range: 198
Ammo: 35
Secondary: .1 sword
Defense: 12
Mikhail Mengsk
06-29-2009, 20:42
I rectruit them in THakashila (sp?), the northern indian city. They are very very good!
A Very Super Market
06-30-2009, 01:18
Can different men in a unit have different stats? I mean, the engine deals with individual men at times (As with experience) so it seems likely.
Can different men in a unit have different stats? I mean, the engine deals with individual men at times (As with experience) so it seems likely.
In my opinion that would mostly be speculative, but with 0 experience newly recruited units I'd assume individual units too be identical stat-wise.
Tartaros
06-30-2009, 21:35
... Although I find the Mardian archer mercenaries to be much better then either Persian types. Higher missile attack, better range, and more ammo.
Totally agree with you. I prefer them also and hire them if they available as merc - too bad they are not recruitable for the seleucids empire.
but the normal persian archer are also very effective, i like them more than the archer spearman
Aemilius Paulus
06-30-2009, 21:55
Can different men in a unit have different stats? I mean, the engine deals with individual men at times (As with experience) so it seems likely.
Oh yes. That is a proven fact. When two units merge, each soldier keeps his own stats.
Are such officers stronger than the unit itselfs or are they only there for decoration?
Multiple (>2-3) hitpoints, high lethality and pretty high attack. Very strong.
antisocialmunky
07-01-2009, 04:27
Those units just have stats of ht base unit multiplied by stuff right or do they have their own stats?
Tyrfingr
07-01-2009, 10:43
Indian Longbowmen are rubbish at archery duels, they have a crappy range (170m) and a lot less arrows (16 per man) than most archers, in meele though they are a different story.
Indian longbowmen is probably the best unit to have in besieged cities. Bows that gives quite a punch, and an armour-piercing sword cool enough to be in Final Fantasy 7, beats the crap out of most elite units.
Oh yes. That is a proven fact. When two units merge, each soldier keeps his own stats.
I wish there was some way to see those individual stats. I'd love to see how many battles Joe the spartan survives and how lethal he is etc. Unit rosters would be awesome for those statistic lovers out there. It would be the equivalent of baseball stats for the ancient world.
While we know that each soldier has his own skill level, is this represented in battle? For example, half the unit has 3 silver chevrons and half has no chevrons then the unit should average out to 3 bronze chevrons. What I want to know is in battle, will half the men in the unit have silver chevron battle stats and the other half no chevron battle stats, or will every man in the unit have 3 bronze chevron battle stats? Did that make sense?
Yeah it made sense miotas. As for an answer, I don't think there is any real way to find that out other than looking at the code. Perhaps someday they will release the RTW code to the public domain.
Yeah it made sense miotas. As for an answer, I don't think there is any real way to find that out other than looking at the code. Perhaps someday they will release the RTW code to the public domain.
I'd be highly surprised if that happens. Proprietary software FTW once again!
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.