Fire at will

[Kongamato]

Quick question: When different types of units are within archer range, which unit will the archers fire on first, if left to their own devices?

[Knight_Yellow]

the unit closest to them.

[Marco]

So when having a missiles duel do you guys

a} let archers fire at will
b} aim to take out one enemy archers at a time
c} others

Give me some of your reasons why too. Im usually too lazy to target one at a time so I just use fire at will.

[Alastair II]

I choose c, because I find that, in the early campaigns I play, at least, that archers are not worth their cost. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif Usually whenever my enemy has archers, I consider myself to outnumber them by however many archers they have, since archers firing is about as effective as archers yelling (which is to say, there might be a small morale penalty, but that's it).

[TheViking]

B would be my anser. Cus i think its more effective

Alastair II: You should see me work with trebizond archers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[HopAlongBunny]

Not effective in early?

I sat 2 ghulams off to the side of an archery battle in SP; Spain vs Elmo's early; the army I was facing was junk so I finally selected all and ran for the far side of the map.
I looked at my "high" armour ghulams as I set the mass charge and both were half-dead http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif Pretty expensive

[Knight_Yellow]

r on about sp though and lets admit it the ai in sp is worse thann a steaming pile of dog s%&t.
in mp if u take archers u get creamed by pavs. and if u think that there good when ur inf are in comabat and then they shoot LOL ur own archers hit just as many if not more of ur men as they do the enemy inf.

basicly archers suck.
pavs r the only good ranged units and even then there pretty lame

[Naagi]

The AI tries to take advantage of your fire at will setting sometimes and will move a crap unit up to use up your archers. Now they may not be the best unit but archers can be handy, archer duels however arent very productive. Though sometimes inevitable. Try and get your archers shooting at one of their heavy units and circle your cavalry to take out their archers, or even some javelin guys can work here but I suck at javelins. Like Knight_Yellow said try and build up your archery to the pavise crossbowmen and arqubelesters(sp), much slower rate of fire but nice casualties.

Naagi http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[hoof]

I have pretty good luck with archers and "fire at will". This lets them engage the enemy w/o the micromanagement that specific firing requires. "Fire at will" archers will usually not shoot at an engaged unit unless there's a center of mass of the enemy that they can shoot at with minimal friendly casualties. They will also stop shooting routing enemies and switch to a non-routed enemy, if one is in range. Specifying targets for archers requires too much micromanagement, IMO.

On the flip side, I *always* micromanage horse-archers that are away from my main army. The AI's pretty good at running your horse-archers if they're not too green or tired, however, the enemy AI's also pretty good at trapping and killing them.

Sometimes I specifically target a unit, usually because I'm trying to get the enemy to break. If he has a peasant unit in range, I'll often order all my archers to shoot at them, as they can start a mass-rout once they get cut down enough.

But overall, "fire at will" works well enough for my style of combat.

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Dec. 30 2002,12:36)]in mp if u take archers u get creamed by pavs. and if u think that there good when ur inf are in comabat and then they shoot LOL ur own archers hit just as many if not more of ur men as they do the enemy inf.
Tsk tsk...

clearly you haven't seen armoured Turcoman Foot soak up the arbs fire while dealing out more damage themselves. Naturally you need to shoot at other targets than the arbs.
Just ask Puzz3D about the devastation Turcomans can give if properly defended, even in the face of Pavise Arbs.

In fact I think I have the replay if you want it.

[Exile]

Quote[/b] (Marco @ Dec. 30 2002,00:00)]So when having a missiles duel do you guys

a} let archers fire at will
b} aim to take out one enemy archers at a time
c} others
C - I usually group all my archers at the begining of the battle and set them on hold formation and hold position. Then I target the strongest enemy unit, a vulnerable unit (flank to archers) or their general with my entire group of archers. A few volleys cuts the target down considerably and then I move to the next best target.

[Marco]

Quote[/b] (Exile @ Dec. 30 2002,21:09)]
Quote[/b] (Marco @ Dec. 30 2002,00:00)]So when having a missiles duel do you guys

a} let archers fire at will
b} aim to take out one enemy archers at a time
c} others
C - I usually group all my archers at the begining of the battle and set them on hold formation and hold position. Then I target the strongest enemy unit, a vulnerable unit (flank to archers) or their general with my entire group of archers. A few volleys cuts the target down considerably and then I move to the next best target.
Ok so you are peppering their strongest unit which in most cases would be very strongly armoured - would take a while to get them down in numbers. Meanwhile your own archers would get creamed by the opposition archers plus they might be quite advance from your main line making them vulnerable to a cav raid.

Oh Knight Yellow I was referring to mp and when I said archers I meant missiles units in general. sorry for confusion.

[The Marcher Lord]

C - I usually target the slow moving enemy units, any of them, that are trying to outflank me. Shooting at fast mounted targets has a very poor return and shoot outs between archer v archer end up with pretty equal losses on both sides. Once the outflank has been stopped I shoot over advancing centre section (if everything is going to plan - which it rarely is )

[Divine Wind]

Wheres option d.?? Blindly charging your brave archers into the enemy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Spino]

I'd have to choose 'c'. However, I sometimes get in an 'historically accurate' mood and let my missile units fire at will. Generals personally and instantaneously directing missile fire back then must have been an incredibly rare sight. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I find Archers to be essential in Early campaign games. I always try have 3-4 (mounted or foot) per army stack. They earn their keep when the AI attacks with a missile poor force and you get to rain unanswered death upon its advancing ranks, especially its cavalry. Two or more archer units will also make a nice dent in an advancing AUM unit.

I usually try to avoid missile vs. missile exchanges unless I clearly have the upper hand. If my own missile units are getting the worst of it I usually charge a light horse unit (Alan Mercenary Cavalry are ideal for this sort of tactic) from the flanks towards the most exposed enemy missile unit, if for nothing else than to spook them out of line. The time it takes them to retreat, reorder and get back into firing position after I've pulled back my cavalry means my own missile units get a few unanswered volleys off.

Have to keep in mind that regular archers are nothing more than a unit of your average joes armed with short bows. There's only so much they can do, even with boosted valor and weapon bonuses. Trebizond archers on the other hand... watch out With any archer unit it is essential that you maximize their volleys by putting them in two or three row formations. When dealing with regular archer units it is also essential that you concentrate more than one unit's fire on a vulnerable enemy unit.

It's amazing what Pavise Arbalesters can do when used properly. I've routed elite units in MP simply by concentrating all my Pavs on them (especially if they're out in front and have no friendly units on the flanks). An elite unit routing through their own ranks really hurts morale and does wonders for your follow up assault. Because of the relatively even sides and lack of unit variety in most MP games routing a single enemy melee unit before it comes into contact with your line can really tip the scales in your favor.

It's too bad CA did not give host players more control over the parameters of a given multiplayer game. I'm absolutely sick of seeing Pavise Arbalesters (or pavise anything for that matter) in High and Late MP games. I'd love to see a host player eliminate all pavise units (and anything else that tickles his/her fancy) from the available force mix just to make things more interesting. It would be great to play a Late MP game where everyone is limited to gunpowder units as their missile troops

[hoom]

It all depends on the situation.

I try to have 4-6 missile units per army. Sometimes even with replacements when they run out of arrows.

I group them into 2/3 groups depending on my setup (left/right, left/center/right or front rows/back rows (due to range differences)).
They always go into hold position, engage at will, fire at will to start with.
This keeps them in position, lets them fire at anything that gets in range (actually, manually targeting lets you get them to shoot just a little earlier than they would on auto. I've had cases where none were firing but all could fire after manual targeting http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif ) and if a unit gets through the spears, or the spears get pushed back, then the near ones will have a go at the enemy hand to hand while the rest keep shooting.

I almost never get into a missile duel.
Too easy to loose troops unnecessarily. Better to charge to make sure they break. (never played MP)

I will normally manually target them in their groups as the enemy approaches to make sure they start firing as soon as possible.
If the target unit routs and I notice, I will see what they are shooting at next automatically and if I dissagree, I change it manually.

What I target depends entirely on what missile units I have.
Low power stuff like standard archers, I target low armour units. Preferably ones with high melee like in early, UM are a good target. They wither to even standard archers. This allows you to soften the enemy up for a cavalry charge.
Aiming for stuff with high armour/shield is not a good idea as it just bounces off.
Aiming for stuff like peasants with high numbers and little melee ability is mostly pointless as it is hard to kill enough to significantly weaken it.

Medium power stuff like crossbows and trebizond archers (available early with a bowyer for Byz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ) can be used against medium armour like standard spears and early cav quite effectively and are devastating against low armour.
You can actually do decent damage to large units too.
At a pinch, you can use them against high armour units particularly in large numbers.

High power stuff like Arbs (never even tried gunpowder yet) aim for the baddest, best armoured, best melee guys in range. Like knights and heavy cav.

I try to avoid wasting high/medium power bolts on weak units.

Artillery aim at the most densely bunched part of the enemy. This increases the likelyhood of actually hitting something and if it does hit, then it will do lots of damage...unless you get one of those bounces where it lands just in front, between, between then behind http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

On bridges, get them as close as you can and just let them go on auto.

Every now and then (particularly, but not limited to bridges) I like to turn off auto fire for all missiles to allow the enemy to get close, then turn it on.
With the enemy up close, the deaths are higher due to accuracy, killing power etc.

er [/rant]

[Jeroen Hill]

Since I use longbows, enemy archers come in my range first. This is because the enemy would want to weaken me too so he sends his archers in as well. Since I use 4 units of longbows, total 480 longbows.

[Exile]

Not so Marco first, my archers are usally behind spearmen and the spearmen's large shields protect them from arrows quite well and they are generally expendable anyhow. The AI does not accumulate their archers very well into the battle and when it does I bring my calvary around. My archers effectiveness outmatches the AI every time. If I lose a battle it's because my lines were broken by a strong melee or calvary unit, so I direct my attack at those strong units first. It has worked very well for me.

[Crandaeolon]

Treb. archers or any other foot archers except for longbowmen have no better missile weapons than the ordinary shortbowmen. They use the exact same stats. So, if they are better in combat it is because of their other abilities (or if there is some other, hardcoded mechanics affecting missile power.

[hoom]

Then how come my Trebs get quite decent kills vs standard spearmen?
My standard archers don't.

[Crandaeolon]

Yep arrrse, that _is_ a bit of a mystery http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif There should really be no difference in theory. Either peeps haven't done enough _objective_ testing, or there is something hardcoded that is affecting missile accuracy. I'm almost beginning to believe it's the latter.

Or perhaps some other mechanic affects archery more than it's currently believed to?

*looks at devs*

[Crandaeolon]

This is a shameless repost from the other archery thread.

---

Alright good comrades, here's a test for you. Thanks to Znake for taking the time to help, and for the patience when he was getting shot to pieces. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Settings: Steppesinland03, arid, summer.

Attacker: 8 Trebizond Archers, 8 Archers. All valour 0.

Defender: 16 Spearmen. V2 except for the gen.

Znake deployed his gen behind the line of spearmen, so I didn't include his gen in the test. I left one of my Archer units out of the testing as well. (The little maneuver was unnecessary, I know, and resulted in 1 casualty from friendly fire. But it was a boring test http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif)

The archers were lined up in 4-deep blocks and given orders to shoot a spear unit ahead of them until they ran out of ammo. Fire at will was off.

It was not a perfect test, but I'm gonna settle with that for now and just play the dang game. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Average kills per Trebizond archer unit: 43.6

Average kills per standard Archer unit: 44.9

Result screenshot: 00000001.jpg (http://personal.inet.fi/private/jonsu/00000001.jpg)

Replay:
archertest.mrp (http://personal.inet.fi/private/jonsu/archertest.mrp)

[Jaret]

I belive that some Archers get a bonus to their Accuracy.

Ordinary Archers are like Peasants with Bows. Trebizond Archers have some better training with their Bows, just like Janissary Bowmen. I belive they get a Bonus of some kind that isn´t documented and can´t be modded ... duno for sure thought. Any comments from CA on that maybe ?? GilJaysmith ?

PS: I love Archers ... I use them as it is apropriated ... which is actually diffrent in every battle ... even Archerduells make sense, in the right situation. (Reduce their numbers before they can shoot back for example).

[Crandaeolon]

Well, this is a really wild guess, but could it have something to do with the formation? Ya know, Treb archers and Turcomans are in a less cohesive formation than standard archers.

IIRC, the "first rank" of a bowman unit fires more accurately than the other ranks. So, the moblike formation might allow them to shoot "between the men", thus giving more men in the unit the "first rank" bonus?


Quote[/b] ]I belive they get a Bonus of some kind that isn´t documented and can´t be modded ...

Yeah, that may be the case. But if so, what's the point of giving out the unit stats files for modification, if there are still some unknown factors left?

And as the above test showed, standard Archers performed slightly _better_ than Trebizonds in a 4-deep formation... I can't help but find it a bit weird that people claim Trebs to be so much better, if it can't be proven either by looking at the unit files or by testing in practice? Or am I playing a different game here? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[ToranagaSama]

Nod to Exile we fight archers quite similarly.

You know in all this discussion, no one has mentioned the "quality" level of their archers.

0, 1, 2, 3, 4 stars?? Makes a huge difference in terms of effectiveness. Level 2 is where archers really begin to be effective and serve for the example below:

I usually have 2-3 units of archers protectecd by 2-3 units of Spears set to Wedge, Hold Formation, Hold Position. The Archers are set NOT to Fire At Will, prefering to direct fire myself. Hold Position. My archers never move unless I tell them to, so they don't get isolated by "advancing".

I target the closest, MOST dangerous unit(s), which is never other archers. If I have 2 units I target them both onto a single AI unit. If I have 3 units, depending upon circumstances, I'll either target them all on a single unit (this is a killer); or target 2 units on a single unit, keeping the third in reserve to hit any decimated unit that may still be dangerous (or to aid in dealing with AI reinforcements); or target another separate unit.

I try VERY hard to conserve my arrows. As I don't intend for the Archers to "decimate" any AI unit, but rather to inflict substantial enough damage as to initiate the AI unit with the "fear" factor.

I'll then attack with an appropriate foot unit, which will be attacking a reduced-in-number AI unit, which adds a bit to the "fear" factor. The "fear" should increase with the attack. The intent is not necessarily to destroy the AI unit, but to induce fear to a level to cause the unit to flee. Flank the AI unit and it will flee in quick order.

This is my basic overall strategy in using my army.

Archers are very useful for this purpose, but need to be followed up by foot or cavalry attack.

Once the "targeted" AI unit is engaged by foot or cav, then I re-target the archers and repeat (to a degree). I usually manage to attack two AI units, significantly, in this way. I will have used 2/3 to 3/4 of my arrows (and the reserve unit, if any, might have all or most remaining). Generally, at this point, I'm moving my 2nd line reserve "foot" units into Flanking position and beginning to engage.

If the situation allows I'll seek out any of my units that may be having trouble and target the archers upon the AI units they are engaged with.

Lastly, I'll send my Cav at the AI archers at the earliest possible moment once any AI units near them that could be used for protection are engaged and the archers are vulnerable. On the occaision I don't have Cav, I'll send some expendable unit(s) (peasants or whatever may be left of a spear unit(s)) to chase the archers off the field.

Depending upon the circumstances, my archers take out 60-120 of the enemy while losing 0-5 themselves. RARELY do my archers get wiped or do I use them in hand to hand. The only time I've deliberately used them in hand to hand is in winning battles near the "edge" of the map at the point where AI reinforcements are entering. But then that's another thread....

IMO, Fire At Will waste arrows and should only be used in large battles when your are outnumbered and may not have time to direct fire cause your to busy directing your foot and cav.

MTW Archers can be quite effective, but need good generalship to be so. In STW, archers are much more effective and in addition the Shogun's hilly terrain often lent itself to very effective archer use. MTW's terrain is as good, being often fairly flat.

-----------
Edited: that last line s/b: MTW's terrain is NOT as good...

[Kraxis]

Crand, in my old tests of all the archers I found the Trebz to be a little worse than the Archers as well. The Turcomans won easily beating the other quite profoundly, with the Jannisary Archers on a second place. While Jannisary Infantry managed only a very weak performance.

But because of the lack of difference in the stats I have a hard time beliving that any archers is better than another.

[Lion King]

Well, for you guys like me that think archers suck most of the time, download my mod in this Post (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=5;t=4104)

[hoom]

I think it must be the byzantine generals.
The Byzantine line in my campaign was mostly up in the 7+ stars league, so combined with the bonus from making treb archers in trebizond, then you get 4/5 valour on the battlefield.

[Crandaeolon]

Lol yes, that kind of huge valour difference would probably make peasants better than low valour man-at-arms

Byz generals are insane, I once had an 8-star general who had _lots_ of personal combat virtues... sword saint on steroids http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Kraxis]

Most likely that can be the cause.

Rank 8 general means Valour 4 (though no Morale).
Trained in Trebizond means another Valour.
And should we for just cause give another one from combat.

Valour 6 Trebizond Archers, they can cause heavy damage in melee, but also by then the change in accuracy must be felt.