View Full Version : archers who needs them :)
Arrowmaker
10-20-2004, 03:46
I recently saw a medieval archery desplay recently and was lead to believe that archers were quite powerful especially by the middle ages. I wonder whether this is accurately reflected in the TW games as bowmen tend to be very weak? ~D
LordKhaine
10-20-2004, 03:48
Play as Parthia, and field an entire army of horse archers. Then you'll see what arrows can do!
Colovion
10-20-2004, 04:04
I just won a battle vs the Egyptians with my Hoplites and archers plus a little Cav work.
Basically I just setup my hoplites in a very subtle bowed formation and my 5 units of archers (2 of them Cretian) behind them. My cav just were there to cover the flanks, not for fighting unless needed. They advanced and got cut down so that barely any of them reached my lines. Most of my casualties were from friendly fire.
Red Harvest
10-20-2004, 04:26
Archers of the RTW period were not generally decisive...heavy infantry was. There are some VERY powerful archer/slinger units in RTW. Seeing one or two on the field is enough to dictate how you fight the battle at times. The base units don't seem unreasonable, but the ones with high missile attack values seem over the top. I don't see much loss of killing power/accuracy with distance.
Colovion
10-20-2004, 04:34
There's also no counter for an all archer army - you just get pwned left right and center before you even get within melee range.
LordKhaine
10-20-2004, 04:49
I wouldn't say that. An all melee cavalry army would surely destroy an all archer army. But things are never that simple.
Personally I'd say onagers are perhaps more to be feared. You can predict what archers will do, but you can never tell where that firepot is heading. I remember one game I did, my first shot of the battle.... landed a firepot right on the enemy general killing him. And I wasn't even aiming at him!
metatron
10-20-2004, 04:54
Ah, the old Rock/Paper/Scissors dynamic...
But yea, anywhere from 2 to 5 units of archers can decimate an unarmored target. Legionaries are alot harder, but then again, I have been playing as the West. The East should have compound bows, no?
bmolsson
10-20-2004, 04:54
I think that the efficiency of archers really depends on the user. They are pretty useless if you don't use them wisely. If you play on a computer with a bit lower specs, you might have trouble to get them in the right place at the right time and they appear rather useless. If you have them where they really can wreak havoc, you will think they are to strong. So my point is, the balance of the archers will be very difficult since they depend a lot on the user (leader) ...... ;)
TopHatJones
10-20-2004, 05:26
Archers are actually useful in this game, unlike MTW. I think it is more realistic this time around too. In MTW (not counting longbowmen) archers couldn't fire much further than I could throw a rock. They also never seemed to hit/kill anything! Even if they could they would get no more than 2 or 3 volleys before it was time to fall back due to their ridiculously short range.
I think it is realistic to practically destroy a single unit of 100 men, if they are being fired upon by 300 trained archers. No imbalance there either, 5 units of archers would put the hurt on 5 units of infantry, but the infantry would win in the end.
I like that there is more freindly fire when trying to shoot an enemy unit that is fighting a friendly unit because it is very hard to fire it just right to go over one group of heads and come down 10 feet further into another group! Its a kinda flat trajectory.
The problem is that when the archers should be firing in an arching, non-flat trajectory (like when the enemy is far away from the unit in front) the friendly fire is the same as if the units were in close combat....not cool.
Of course javelin throwers aren't nearly as bad as far as this is concerned...they are just right....except when they throw OVER the elephants!
bmolsson
10-20-2004, 05:27
There's also no counter for an all archer army - you just get pwned left right and center before you even get within melee range.
Speed. Fast troops and fast commands, that's the counter. ~;)
Try fighting the "Warlord Style" Egyptians in MP - six chariots, and the rest are all Pharao's Bowmen.
Good luck trying to beat that without any onagers or weak cavalry.
ToranagaSama
10-20-2004, 09:19
Are you guys talking about MP or SP?
Archers are great (I use 1 or 2, depending on the situation)! Especially when you outnumber the enemy. Just concentrate on one unit to rout and use that area as the place where you do a big flanking maneuver. You can sweep and devastate the enemy with this. :charge:
I agree, archers are extremely useful. I used a unit of Cretian Archers for the first time last night, one unit managed to obliterate over 300 Hoplites (playing on huge unit size) but it's not just the number of kills, it's the morale bonus they give also. Troops under constant fire suffer a morale penalty, using tactics like these give you a real advantage. The 300 Hoplites killed were from three different units all of which routed at the first sign of my cavalry charge from the flanks, this left a gapping hole in my opponents front line... just big enough to fit my hardcore melee units through. Needless to say the battle was over very quickly after that. ~D And all down to one unit of archers!
I also disagree that archer were useless in MTW, i would rarely consider going onto battle without at least 2 units of archers (in Early anyway) Later i would compliment them with crossbows. Not having them on fire at will meant you could use both very effectively to destroy armoured and unarmoured targets. Especially good at taking out light cav, i found.
Just my opinion but i like these men firing pointy sticks!
*Ringo*
I'm now trying a basic 1:1 ratio of Legionary Cohorts - preferably Praetorian or Urban - and Archer Auxilia. I aim for 5 of each, but if after cavalry, the general and any siege engines I have spare slots, I add extra archers.
Although the large number of archers weakens my frontline when the close quarters fighting occurs, they've usually already tipped the balance and in a pinch can be used to flank and backdoor the enemy. A heavy cavalry presence is poised on each flank to keep the enemy honest, joining in the slaughter when the foe start to crumble.
Zatoichi
10-20-2004, 12:28
Yeah, I never leave home without 'em! I usually have at least 2 units of archers when going on an expedition - yes they require some micromanagement to avoid too many friendly fire casualties, but it's generally worth the effort. Another added bonus if you get the micromanagement wrong and they get accidentally mown down by enemy cavalry or shot to bits by the enemy archers (surely, that doesn't just happen to me?), they tend to be the most prolific healers after the battle, so the losses are never as bad as other infantry. They're also a must when defending cities, of course.
Boudicca
10-20-2004, 12:37
Archers are of high value on the side of the defender in a siege. I have conquered Bruttium and have a city with stonewalls and seven archer units on the walls...It rarely happen that the enemy ladders reach my wall. The only thing they don´t usually stop are the siege towers.
(Playing Realism mod 2.2 at highest difficulty)
I recently saw a medieval archery desplay recently and was lead to believe that archers were quite powerful especially by the middle ages. I wonder whether this is accurately reflected in the TW games as bowmen tend to be very weak? ~D
Thats actually quite funny, as I was thinking only yesterday that perhaps archers were a bit overpowered.
This was the result of a rather stupid error I made in my ongoing war with Eygpt. Well two errors in fact, which compounded each other.
The first was my rush to try and capture Damascus before a Senate order expired which caused me to send an army to seige the city without waiting for it to be properly formed. The attack went badly due to a lack of missile troops and I got my nose badly blooded.
The second was to try and correct this by sending an archer heavy force forward to join it ready for a second attempt. The Eygptians seeing this force approaching didn't wait for it to reach them but counter-attacked pouncing on it well clear of the walls and out of reinforcement range of the main body.
My first impression was 'Oh shit!' but I realised my only hope was to command the army myself. From memory it consisted of three cohorts of obsolete roman infantry (Hastatii), nine cohorts of archers, six of velites, one Equities and my new and untried General fresh from Rome.
I figured I'd just go down fighting. Drew up the infantry in a single line on the highest rise I could find massed the archers in three ranks behind them and stuck the velites on the flanks just to widen the front slightly.
The cavalry were held in reserve.
What happened was not what I expected.
The Egyptians attempted to outflank my line on both flanks with cavalry and chariots and the velites took a bit of a pounding so I had to launch occasional counter-attacks with my cavalry to fend them off.
But apart from a couple of units of Desert Axemen the attack on my front just never got to close. The nine units of archers just slaughtered anything that came within range. Nile Spearmen units just withered and died where they stood, and I watch several charges by Desert Cavalry just baulk short of my line run off leaving piles of dead horses to mark the limit of their charge.
It looked like they were being mowed down by machine guns. My biggest concern was their bowmen but as it happens most of those died before they could deploy because the AI always advances them in close order and those that did fire seemd to aim at the infantry cohorts where I could afford to take casualties.
I actually slaughtered an Eygptian army of almost a 1000 men, some units even broke, reformed and came back for a second dose. After which taking Damascus was a walk over.
Another added bonus if you get the micromanagement wrong and they get accidentally mown down by enemy cavalry or shot to bits by the enemy archers (surely, that doesn't just happen to me?), they tend to be the most prolific healers after the battle, so the losses are never as bad as other infantry.
Apparently losses to missile fire and cavalry are more likely to be wounded casualties rather then actual dead compared to losses from infantry. Try getting your archers to melee with infantry and you'll see far fewer recover than what you've seen so far.
Try getting your archers to melee with infantry and you'll see far fewer recover than what you've seen so far.
I only send archer to melee as a punishment. After shooting my General in the back from 200 yards, my archer tend to find themselves charging the nearest heavy cavalry unit... they don't make the same mistake again!!! ~D
*Ringo*
jesus I NEED archers. Archers + dumb AI = I win.
Archers decide bridge battles. Archers are huge in city battles too, especially for clearing the area around the breaks in the wall and wiping out city-square guards without losing any of your own guys (cause the AI just sits there and dies).
They are decisive in open-field battles too, especially defensive ones (at least they were in MTW where the terrain actually allowed you to bunker atop a hill in the corner somewhere).
Red Harvest
10-20-2004, 17:09
I'm convinced that most of the high end archer units (you know, the ones you face most of the time) are overpowered. Why? Because in large armies I only need two or so to dictate the battle (in SP.) Same for when they are in the enemy's camp.
I can't just march up and endure the fire. In this time period I should be able to march through it with reasonably small losses (having effective units when I reach the enemy line.) Standing around in it would be stupid, but if I can close, I should not suffer. That is not the way it plays in my experience. (Suppose it would if I had desert axemen...grrr.)
Creten archers vs Madcedonian armies, with some hoplite anti-cav. They win, the enemy simply cannot get near to you without breaking. I have massacred thousands of Macedonians for almost no losses.
Archers are great!
I like to up the quality of the enemy's armour and weapons, then fight outnumbered (1.5 to 1 perhaps )with a few units of phalanxes, archers to the rear, and a few cav units for mobility.
Win some, lose some. But always good meatgrinder fun. :yes:
Red Harvest
10-21-2004, 01:11
I just had a nice army and faction leader massacred by a small besieging army. It had no family member, but it did have 3 units of chosen archers mixed with a few scraps of falxmen. I sallied out to break the siege. My two phalanx units could not get into range without being cut to pieces...and my cav could not break them because of the falxmen mixed with them. It was on very hard, but it illustrates the silliness of archery in RTW. Those units should have been dead meat.
lancer63
10-31-2004, 06:45
I'm still learning to use the archer units in RTW. In my MTW campaings, archers and xbowmen accounted for a pretty piece of the casualties I inflicted in battle. Funny that slingers seem to have the same range as archers and appear more efective too. Thanks for the tips guys.
Another added bonus if you get the micromanagement wrong and they get accidentally mown down by enemy cavalry or shot to bits by the enemy archers (surely, that doesn't just happen to me?), they tend to be the most prolific healers after the battle, so the losses are never as bad as other infantry.
Heh, tell me about it. I made an oops in a battle earlier today. I was playing the Gauls, and was in a big battle against the Scipiones. I tried to sneak an archer unit around to the right where there was this big cornfield, and it got ridden down by a unit of Cav Auxiliae. I lost the entire unit of 80 right there. 78 of them healed after the battle...
A solid wall of 6 pikemen, then 6 archers (preferably Creten), and then the rest cavalry and maybe one or two sword-armed mercs. This Macedonian army will beat anyone.
Except in MP against Onagers. But in SP it will.
archers in RTW are really good, the basic ones do an ok job and the Cretan archers are nice to work with.
i started off by using three archer units per army but now i`ve switched to using one archer and a couple of scorpions.
i`m playing Brutii at the moment and the long range of the scorpions can really whittle down those Macedonian phalanxs and armoured hoplites on their approach to my lines. long range fire is so cool. ~:cool:
i have seen them throwing bodies into the units behind and causing even more casulties, bit of an eye opener when i saw that the first time! ~:eek:
Sin Qua Non
10-31-2004, 17:29
Every time I play a faction without archers, I end up missing them 5 turns into the game. I just attribute it to my severe case of Agincourt syndrome.
A.Saturnus
11-02-2004, 00:35
I did a little test with archers. How they fare against well armoured infantry. So I gave the AI two units of bowmen (large unit size - makes 120 per unit) against one unit of Principes on my side (82 men - makes a ratio of 3 to 1). Well, the bowmen eliminated the principes, but they took rather long. Usually when the ammo was down, there were about 5 to 10 principes left, which had to be taken on in melee. Considered the ratio, I wouldn´t say that´s an overly good result but certainly also not outragously bad. It depends on what you expect from archers.
Anecdote: in one trial, I didn´t select the right map (flatland) but had one with a few hills. So the bowmen had to go around a hill. This caused the two units to overlap each other. Result: they lost half of their number. By friendly fire. One guy even managed to shoot his general in the head from just behind him :no:
Yes archers are so good they even can kill themselves ~D
I'm convinced that most of the high end archer units (you know, the ones you face most of the time) are overpowered. Why? Because in large armies I only need two or so to dictate the battle (in SP.) Same for when they are in the enemy's camp.
I can't just march up and endure the fire. In this time period I should be able to march through it with reasonably small losses (having effective units when I reach the enemy line.) Standing around in it would be stupid, but if I can close, I should not suffer. That is not the way it plays in my experience. (Suppose it would if I had desert axemen...grrr.)
Aren't you playing on VH battles?? Which might have a slight in influence on the outcome??
Uesugi Kenshin
11-02-2004, 05:09
Basically, all the units are well balanced, you need to find the right balance for you. I prefer to have heavy infantry to form a center line, with archers or slingers behind them and then war dogs, light cavalry and heavy cavalry on the flanks. I see the benefits of horse archers, but I never seem to have a place in my strategy for them, because if attacked by archers I either form a testudo formation or use light cavalry to run down the horse archers. Use trial and error to find your own style.
Red Harvest
11-02-2004, 06:02
Aren't you playing on VH battles?? Which might have a slight in influence on the outcome??
It must be awfully slight... My own archers are deadly, yet my side is the one taking the penalties on VH. To my way of thinking that shoots down the difficulty level as being the culprit (pun intended.) A single unit of my own archers causes grievous damage in only a few volleys--usually enough that the targeted unit is no longer a melee threat (so I swap and decimate the next unit.) I have not heard if missile attack is given a +7--it sounds as if it is only applied to base melee attack/charge values. Even if the battle line marches straight for mine, I can usually destroy the melee effectiveness of 2 enemy infantry units per archer unit deployed. The depleted enemy infantry units usually rout as they meet my line or shortly thereafter. From what I have gathered, archers were not that effective during this time frame.
Blaming it on VH fails for the same reason as it does when cav are discussed. My own light cav are still decidedly lethal despite VH, and like archer volleys, they tear up infantry. Infantry...now they suffer on VH, especially the smaller phalanx units.
I don't think the base level archers are all that powerful, but the many, many special units get range and missile attack boosts that often result in 10% casualties per volley at range (I've seen 15% before with equal sized units.) Want to place any bets on how likely that was in the RTW time period? If it had been so, armies would have rapidly converted to a heavy reliance on archery and been successful. Afterall, who would want to stand in a dense packed infantry formation so that archers could mow them down, while they could do nothing in return? No, archery must have been much less effective.
IMO, the AI in MTW did a much better job of dealing with human armies with archers than in RTW (on the offense). I have many vivid memories of the AI forming up en masse outside of archer range before charging me. I have yet to see that done effectively by the AI in RTW.
The frustrating thing is that it would be so much more effective in RTW due to the friendly fire issues. In MTW, it was very safe to have a wall of spearmen with your archers *behind* them (until the enemy mass hit your line). In RTW, placing archers behind another unit is a sure way of killing a bunch of your men except in very specific situations. This forces you to put your archers in front of your front line. If the AI did the "form up outside of arrow range then charge" maneuver from MTW, you would get only a couple volleys before being forced to retreat your archers behind your front line. The mass would then hit your front line, and you'd have a bunch of useless archer units for the rest of the battle.
In my experience, RTW AI armies tend to attack much more piecemeal, which allows you to tear them up. They'll charge a few units at your archer line, you pull them back, kill those exposed enemy units, rinse, repeat. Half the time, the lured enemy unit is the enemy General, which makes it even worse for the AI (apparantly the General unit gets so fixated on the archer unit they ignore the mass of spears that the archers just ran behind).
Of course, this is only on defence. On offence, I can pick apart the AI with archers just like in MTW. Actually, I find the AI in RTW tends to send cavalry after your archers quite nicely (one of the few good ways to minimize this tactic). Now if only it would figure out when the archers have reached safety and turn the cavalry around ...
I've noticed that as well. My Cretan archers almost always run out of arrows because the enemy walks to them instead of gathering out of range and then running at them all at the same time. I get so much time to shoot and I could rout them one by one because they come close one by one.
Another reason that the higher level archers are very deadly is because they are supposed to be a counter against higher level units. However, many higher level units have better defense values because of defense skill or increased rank bonuses, both of which don't protect against archer fire. Units like armored hoplites do well against archers. Even standard hoplites can take a lot of archer fire. Of course, horse archers can move to their back where their shield bonus doesn't apply.
warlordmb
11-02-2004, 12:46
I thought I'd sling my pennies' worth in to the pot.
Yesterday I loaded the Total Realism 3.1 Mod by Gaius Julius. One of the changes it makes is to the size of archer units. (60 on Large instead of 80). When I read this it seemed to make more sense, particularly as this was the same in MTW. The other thing I realised was how dependent I had become on large numbers of archer units in my army creation. I had made a point of sending a spare family member to the greek city states to recruit 3-4 Cretan archers and then on to Scythia to grab a couple (at least) of horse archers.
I guess the point I am trying to make is this - if you are more into realism then drop the reliance on archer units. Combat in this time period was heavily reliant on infantry. Rome's military dominance was built on the effectiveness of her legions who were the best (overall!) heavy infantry of that period. It is really down to personal choice, so whatever tickles you is OK.
The size of archer units in Rome should be adjusted, in my opinion, to about two thirds, or smaller. A unit of 80 archers should not be able to destroy a 80 strong unit of say, armoured hoplites. It never happened back then. Missile troops played a supporting role to the real battle winners - the infantry. If archery units were really as effective as the game makes them do you think that Julius Ceasar, Pompeii, Marius and Sulla would not have adopted that into their military doctrine. These were the best Commanders of the First Republic and they relied on infantry, because that was how war was fought. Part of the reason was also because bow technology was not as advanced as some seem to think at that time.
Using the realism Mod 3.1 forced me to change my battle strategy. In this mod archer units are not available until after the Marian reforms. Instead, I have to make use of slingers which means putting them out in front of my main battle line (composed mostly, now, of Infantry cohorts) and relying on my infantry to slug it out. It is only my opinion, but I found it much more satisfying winning with infantry and not relying as heavily on archer units to shred advancing enemy formations. The other advantage to this new strategy is that I now rely much more on my cohorts to make better use of their pilum (again, this is far more historical). This mod has had tweaks to the effectiveness of javelin and other thrown missile stats making them more effective.
For anyone interested in a more historical battle experience, jog over to the TW Centre forum and have a peek at the R:TR Mod 3.1. I would recomend it.
However, realism is not everybody's style. If watching one of your archer units slaughter one of the AI's prime units toots your horn then that's fine. We all have our own playing styles. Me, I go for realism and that's because I have been a long time admirer of the Roman legions and this game is exactly what I've been waiting for since I first played games on a PC.
:duel:
Basically, all the units are well balanced, you need to find the right balance for you. I prefer to have heavy infantry to form a center line, with archers or slingers behind them and then war dogs, light cavalry and heavy cavalry on the flanks. I see the benefits of horse archers, but I never seem to have a place in my strategy for them, because if attacked by archers I either form a testudo formation or use light cavalry to run down the horse archers. Use trial and error to find your own style.
A HA based army like Scythia would handle this army with little effort.
Zatoichi
11-02-2004, 18:19
I lost a bridge battle the other day because I was still in MTW mode - I've only had a couple of bridge battles in my campaigns in RTW so far, all except this one on the offensive. I was Carthage, and had a couple of slinger units and a couple of mercenary hoplites - I was sending this band up as reinforcements when a Gaul army decloaked and attacked me (my army had finished its move on a bridge). Anyway, when I saw all I had facing me was 2 forester warbands and a unit of light spearmen, I thought I was in for a clear victory, so I placed my phalanx at the end of the bridge with my slingers either side, and awaited the rush to sure death the Gauls were bound to make.
Oops.
I wasn't expecting the Gauls to use tactics, for goodness sake! I soon discovered to my cost that their archers have a better range than my slingers, and 2 units of archers concentrating their fire on my relatively tight formation was devastating. Oh, they did rush to sure death alright - unfortunately, it mine not theirs, as by the time they sent their spearmen over, I had about a quarter of my troops left, who strangely enough didn't want to stick around and find out what bit of tactical genius their general had in mind for them next (Throw down your weapons and walk slowly towards them backwards, lads! They'll never expect that!)
Yes, I know my tactics sucked, I just was expecting a more MTW style battle, where the enemy archers were a nuisance rather than a decisive factor. I'm not complaining, it's fun to get your backside handed to you once in a while.
Playing as the archerless Carthaginians has made me realise how much I was depending on archers to turn the tide in battles.
Now I use elephants for that.
I agree with the consensus here - archers in RTW are very strong, at least in SP against the AI. My impression is that, like cavalry, they are stronger than in MTW[1]. It seems quite perverse - historically, both archers and cavalry should be weaker in RTW than MTW. RTW would "feel" much better to me if the battle speed and combined arms balance was as it is in MTW. (And MTWs battles would have benefited from a bit more of the RTWs chaos and archer/cav oomph.)
[1]Against this, I like the effect that RTWs friendly fire has on discouraging SPers from relying on archers shielded by spears, although I don't particularly like the mechanism.
Uesugi Kenshin
11-02-2004, 23:24
The Hun, I will admit that I have some trouble against horse archer based armies, however, I have won significantly more than lost against them, because the light cavalry can pincer the horse archers and force them into melee. While the infantry is safely screened by some of my own archers and the light cavalry. You are right that they are annoying, but they never decimate me. Another thing to note the factions that are dependant on horse archers have horrible infantry and are thus horrible at taking cities. This is where my most decisive battles are fought, the horse archers only shine in giant set piece battles fought on relatively unbroken terrain.
I now run my archers/slingers/horse archers out in front of my armies to engage the enemy's melee troops as soon as possible. I protect my archers with some cav and often never need to engage in melee at all as the archers kill and rout units, the cav finish them off. Archers are way too strong.
I'd try fixing the anti-archer AI first before messing with the stats big time. Archers are stronger compared to MTW but the RTW AI is also much dumber compared to the MTW AI. It walks to the archers piecemeal whereas the MTW AI would assemble out of range then charge all at the same time.
I rarely run out of arrows in MTW. I always run out in RTW. You have an eternity to shoot the AI.
Also, experience is a very big advantage to archers this time around. In MTW, experience and weapon upgrades don't add to missile. Experience doesn't add to armor but upgrades do. In RTW, both missile and armor are affected by upgrades. However, missile is affected by experience but armor isn't. Defense skill rises with experience but it doesn't protect against missile attacks. So in MTW, there are 0 ways of boosting missiles but there is 1 way of boosting protection against it. In RTW, there are now 2 ways of boosting missiles but still only 1 way of boosting protection against it.
Doug-Thompson
11-03-2004, 02:18
The Hun, I will admit that I have some trouble against horse archer based armies, however, I have won significantly more than lost against them, because the light cavalry can pincer the horse archers and force them into melee. While the infantry is safely screened by some of my own archers and the light cavalry. You are right that they are annoying, but they never decimate me. Another thing to note the factions that are dependant on horse archers have horrible infantry and are thus horrible at taking cities. This is where my most decisive battles are fought, the horse archers only shine in giant set piece battles fought on relatively unbroken terrain.
True, there is no such thing as a good one-unit army, but most of the points made here are only true when fighting AI-controlled HA.
The points about sieges and flat, open terrain are not true.
Light cavalry aren't nearly as effective as they used to be in M:TW. A few good Saharan Cavalry in M:TW and you didn't have to worry about HA much, unless they were Szekely or something.
Foot archers aren't nearly as effective against HA as they were in M:TW either. In fact, I'm inclined to agree with my infantry-loving counterparts that foot archers aren't nearly as effective against HA as they need to be. And that's before you take Cantabrian circle into account, which makes HA virtually immune to foot archers.
I do wonder what effect, if any, fire arrows have on HA. Early, vanilla HA have rather skittish morale.
The only "faction that is dependent on horse archers" that is a regular, playable faction are the Parthians. They may have "horrible" infantry, but they also have cataphracts.
Sap a wall that's facing a good, clear boulevard to the city's central plaza. Run the cataphracts through the breach at a gallop. The heavily armored, relatively fast-moving cataphracts will take very few losses from towers. If the enemy has spears or axe units, take some Persian Cavalry with you.
Even better -- spies. Besiege a city. If the spy doesn't have the gates open, maintain the siege. Attack again next turn. The gates could well be open.
Say a spy has only a 24 percent chance of opening the gates on any given turn. That translates into a 42 percent chance that the gates will be open during one of the first two turns of the siege.
Finally, none of this takes into account the huge advantage that HA armies have on the strategic map. The plain truth is that, if you survive the opening moves as the Parthians, slower-moving infantry formations are virtually at the mercy of HA-based armies with a half-way decent spy network.
I've won three battles against two different factions in one turn with one HA-based army before. Thank goodness Parthians get to reload after each battle.
Red Harvest
11-03-2004, 02:22
[1]Against this, I like the effect that RTWs friendly fire has on discouraging SPers from relying on archers shielded by spears, although I don't particularly like the mechanism.
I do agree about this, but I think it could be implemented in a more logical fashion: like not firing at all if obstructed, and having very poor effectiveness when the archers lack line of sight to the target. I want the historical placement to be used for historically correct reasons. ~:cool:
Right now, a lot of the friendly kills are happening from adjacent units firing at routers or failing to stop firing when ordered, and that is just nuts.
A.Saturnus
11-03-2004, 02:34
I'd try fixing the anti-archer AI first before messing with the stats big time. Archers are stronger compared to MTW but the RTW AI is also much dumber compared to the MTW AI. It walks to the archers piecemeal whereas the MTW AI would assemble out of range then charge all at the same time.
Really? The MTW AI has never done that to me. Not that it didn´t charge, but never cared about the range of my archers. But what do I know, I just played maybe 1000 SP battles.
Red Harvest
11-03-2004, 03:25
I've seen the AI work both ways in MTW. If the AI thought it had the advantage, it would rush a full battle line at me, forcing me to withdraw my archers. In fact, I learned on map's edge to take them out of skirmish so that I could pull them back behind the line (because they would often end up routing away-with skirmish on expert-or turning sideways.)
On the other hand, I've seen the AI do piecemeal attacks in MTW that wasted good units to archer fire. Sometimes it would stack its units foolishly, but mostly on defense.
On average, the AI was more likely to do a full line attack in MTW than RTW from what I've seen.
Uesugi Kenshin
11-03-2004, 04:52
Doug-Thompson why do you think the cavalry archers are still effective in sieges and broken terrain? Cavalry archers often end up killing themselves if shooting in overlapping units and that is exactly what happens in sieges and broken terrain. The only effective use of archers in sieges is to put foot archers on the walls or use cavalry archers individually on the long streets leading into the city. A unit in phalanxe formation backed up by a screening unit of cavalry archers can hold a street against almost anything. The cavalry archer units shine in flat terrain in larg numbers.
Doug-Thompson
11-03-2004, 06:36
Doug-Thompson why do you think the cavalry archers are still effective in sieges and broken terrain? Cavalry archers often end up killing themselves if shooting in overlapping units and that is exactly what happens in sieges and broken terrain.
Not if you put the HA into big square formations, Uesugi Kenshin.
I always put HA in long, thin lines in M:TW. That was the only way to get decent firepower out of them.
Now a big square of HA fires just as effectively as long thin lines. Arguably, much more effectively because you can pack a massive number of HA per foot of front.
Friendly fire is only a serious problem with overlapping units.
It makes no sense whatsover that overlapping units of, say, three ranks each will have many more FF casualties than one unit that's six or more ranks deep. That's the way this game plays, however.
So, the way to use HA is to put them in big blocks with plenty of space between them. They don't have to keep an unbroken front because the gaps are covered by fire. That means they actually do quite well on broken terrain, because they don't have to keep any kind of formation with other units.
Also, HA now fire on the move, and in all directions. Again, that helps out on broken terrain.
As for HA being ineffective in sieges, you should quote yourself more carefully. ~;)
You said that factions with good HA have lousy infantry, and that lousy infantry can't win sieges. That's true. However, my argument was that the only playable faction that really depends on HA -- Parthia -- also has cataphracts, and that cataphracts can more than makes up for lousy infantry in the limited circumstances of a siege -- sometimes.
Really? The MTW AI has never done that to me. Not that it didn´t charge, but never cared about the range of my archers. But what do I know, I just played maybe 1000 SP battles.
It might not be the range of the archers, really. The MTW AI just assembles a little farther from you before attacking. When they attack, they usually charge especially under archer fire. If you shoot them, they will charge. RTW AI rarely charges. It allows you to keep shooting at it. When they do attack, they walk towards you piecemeal.
It must be awfully slight... My own archers are deadly, yet my side is the one taking the penalties on VH. To my way of thinking that shoots down the difficulty level as being the culprit (pun intended.) A single unit of my own archers causes grievous damage in only a few volleys--usually enough that the targeted unit is no longer a melee threat (so I swap and decimate the next unit.) I have not heard if missile attack is given a +7--it sounds as if it is only applied to base melee attack/charge values. Even if the battle line marches straight for mine, I can usually destroy the melee effectiveness of 2 enemy infantry units per archer unit deployed. The depleted enemy infantry units usually rout as they meet my line or shortly thereafter. From what I have gathered, archers were not that effective during this time frame.
Blaming it on VH fails for the same reason as it does when cav are discussed. My own light cav are still decidedly lethal despite VH, and like archer volleys, they tear up infantry. Infantry...now they suffer on VH, especially the smaller phalanx units.
I don't think the base level archers are all that powerful, but the many, many special units get range and missile attack boosts that often result in 10% casualties per volley at range (I've seen 15% before with equal sized units.) Want to place any bets on how likely that was in the RTW time period? If it had been so, armies would have rapidly converted to a heavy reliance on archery and been successful. Afterall, who would want to stand in a dense packed infantry formation so that archers could mow them down, while they could do nothing in return? No, archery must have been much less effective.
Ahh.. somehow I got it that your units were being wasted by the AIs... my bad.
On the 'archery units were more effective'.. maybe...
A few points obfuscate...
The Parthians at the time (as modeled in RTW) made great use of horse archers and were very difficult to deal with in ancient battles. Descriptions of these battles indicate that the Parthians were very good with bows on horseback.. so this argues that bows were effective tools overall. The issue may be with armor piercing power. That I could believe..
Another point is just a general observation made by many military historians: Hannibal on a few occasions demonstrated the effectiveness of cavalry when used correctly against infantry based tactics, and this did not push the Romans to highly develop their cavalry wing. That didn't happen until 350ish AD under more intense pressure from groups who proved to the Romans beyond a shadow of a doubt that well used cavalry can trump well used infantry.
There is also tradition to consider. Just as our current military has an understanding of warfare based on past experience, so did the Romans. If they didn't make big use of archers, it could just mean that they were successful enough without scads of them. Agincourt is proof that they can be mighty effective though.. (and yes, I know the British longbow is quite a development from Roman times.. but it is a bow!).
Finally, it is also possible that the use of the pilum delayed development of archery until later. Javelin and pila attacks were know to be quite effective and frightening. And given the standard 'engage with pila' then charge tactic used by Roman legions, I can believe they had that part down to a fine art. It is also important to note that many Roman enemies used javelins rather than bows. So a legionarre that understood the employment of javelins could pick up thrown ones from the enemy and easily use the enemy's javelins with proficiency. That may have something to do with it also.
I agree with the consensus here - archers in RTW are very strong, at least in SP against the AI. My impression is that, like cavalry, they are stronger than in MTW[1]. It seems quite perverse - historically, both archers and cavalry should be weaker in RTW than MTW. RTW would "feel" much better to me if the battle speed and combined arms balance was as it is in MTW. (And MTWs battles would have benefited from a bit more of the RTWs chaos and archer/cav oomph.)
[1]Against this, I like the effect that RTWs friendly fire has on discouraging SPers from relying on archers shielded by spears, although I don't particularly like the mechanism.
Interesting.. I have no problem preventing friendly fire casualties with my archers behind my infantry line. I micro them. When there is sufficient distance between my infantry and the enemy, I set them on 'fire at will'. When the AI has closed to charge distance, I take them off 'fire at will' and hit 'backspace' to get them to stop firing at their current target.
Works like a charm. Haven't had more than 3 or 4 friendly fire deaths in a few weeks now.
I've seen the AI work both ways in MTW. If the AI thought it had the advantage, it would rush a full battle line at me, forcing me to withdraw my archers. In fact, I learned on map's edge to take them out of skirmish so that I could pull them back behind the line (because they would often end up routing away-with skirmish on expert-or turning sideways.)
On the other hand, I've seen the AI do piecemeal attacks in MTW that wasted good units to archer fire. Sometimes it would stack its units foolishly, but mostly on defense.
On average, the AI was more likely to do a full line attack in MTW than RTW from what I've seen.
Is so agree, and wish the RTW AI would do full line attacks also.
I do agree about this, but I think it could be implemented in a more logical fashion: like not firing at all if obstructed, and having very poor effectiveness when the archers lack line of sight to the target. I want the historical placement to be used for historically correct reasons. ~:cool:
Right now, a lot of the friendly kills are happening from adjacent units firing at routers or failing to stop firing when ordered, and that is just nuts.
I just don't have this problem (see two posts up). My commands are very specific for archers/javelin users though.. first take of FAW, then hit backspace.
The only thing that buggers up that sequence is if one or more of your units has run out of ammo.. then you must do this individually for each archer unit that still has arrows. They simply won't come off FAW if one of them is out and you pick the whole group and try to turn FAW off. I finally figured that out last week (you can also control click just the ones that have ammo then press FAW once, but under battlefield conditions I find the other easier and less error prone). That is an interface flaw I hope they fix.
Red Harvest
11-03-2004, 15:05
Not if you put the HA into big square formations, Uesugi Kenshin.
I always put HA in long, thin lines in M:TW. That was the only way to get decent firepower out of them.
Now a big square of HA fires just as effectively as long thin lines. Arguably, much more effectively because you can pack a massive number of HA per foot of front.
Friendly fire is only a serious problem with overlapping units.
It makes no sense whatsover that overlapping units of, say, three ranks each will have many more FF casualties than one unit that's six or more ranks deep. That's the way this game plays, however.
So, the way to use HA is to put them in big blocks with plenty of space between them. They don't have to keep an unbroken front because the gaps are covered by fire. That means they actually do quite well on broken terrain, because they don't have to keep any kind of formation with other units.
Yes, this is one of the major shortcomings of RTW (that I forgot to list earlier.) Proper archery formations are not necessary and are in fact discouraged. Oblique fire is not discouraged as it should be either. Foot archers should be pretty tough on horse archers when trading volleys...but that is not the case either. It is depressing, and I doubt CA will actually fix it.
Every time I play a faction without archers, I end up missing them 5 turns into the game. I just attribute it to my severe case of Agincourt syndrome.
Yep, then after those 5 turns, I always find one of my generals on a boat heading to crete.
I've attacked an all Phalanx Macedonian army of around 15 units. They just sat there while 2 units of Cretain archers reduced each and every one of those 15 units to less than 10 men, one unit at a time.
For some reason, the Macedonians chose this moment to run to my lines, got half way, turned round and routed off.
and there was me, a bit nervouse as to wheather i'd win or not when the battle started.
Archers? Sure, especially if you're controlling a faction that lacks well armored, decent infantry and/or cavalry. It's obvious CA incorporated these ridiculously overpowered elite archer units to offset the heavy infantry of Roman, Greek and Carthaginian cultural factions.
On the whole I think archer units are overpowered in RTW. In fact, they are so overpowered that I find it hard to resist using them even when I don't need them! I am getting surprising if not crazy kill ratios with basic archer units in RTW, a stark contrast to the kill ratios I got with the average archer unit in MTW. Not that you couldn't have archers wreak havoc on the enemy in MTW but the results could vary wildly between battles and depended heavily on the types of archer units involved. It also doesn't help that the tactical AI in RTW has a tendency to do nothing when being rained on by your missile troops for an extended period of time. At least in MTW the AI would try to prevent attrition losses caused by missiles by closing the distance and rushing your main line.
Uesugi Kenshin
11-04-2004, 04:23
Doug-Thompson, yeah that si pretty much it.
warlordmb
11-04-2004, 11:47
The other thing that units in MTW did when under missile fire was open into loose formation. That doesn't happen in RTW unless it is a skirmisher unit under fire.
Maybe CA should incorporate this in the next patch.
I still believe that archer unit sizes should be reduced, again as in MTW.
There would be certain exceptions such as the Parthians who were totally reliant on Cav and HA.
So, Infantry/Archer would be:-
Standard 40/30
Large 80/60
Huge 120/90
Anybody else agree???
I am starting to think that it isn't so much that archers are over powered, just that they have too many arrows. This is even more the case for a civ like the Parthians or Armenians that rely on cav archers. I am currently playing an Armenian campaign and if I go into battle with all cav archers in roughly equal number of companies as the enemy I can just decimate them with very few losses. I never run out of ammo so I never need to engage the enemy in melee. I think if all archers had about the same ammo as peltasts do then this would be different and more realistic. Then I could soften the enemy up and maybe with concentrated fire I could eliminate a few choice companies, but ultimately I would have to engage in melee to win. This is probably how it should be and it is how MTW was.
Archery is fine.
Forester Riflemen are exceptional (smith + 2 * temple = missile 22!). Legolas doesn't appear to be in the unit.
Thankfully none of the hovertank factions have missile temples.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.