"Melee" archers

By this I am referring to units such Ottoman Infantry, Byzantine Guard Archers, and Norse Archers.

In my current Byzantine campaign I have just gained the ability to recruit guard archers; however, I'm not sure whether they are worth it since their missile stats are the same as Trebizond archers and they are more expensive; also, since in my view the main purpose of foot archers is to counter horse archers, I'm not sure how helpful it would be to have all my archers weighed down by armour that would make it much harder for them to keep up with the cavalry.

Anyone have any opinion on these sorts of units? Is it worth building archers that can fight in melee?

It depends on the campaign your playing.

As Scotland or Denmark I would say yes without hesitation. However as Byz I would stick to my Trebizond archers.
Where they would prove useful with extra armour, Ie in seiges I migh consider using them, but on the open field I would still stick with your Trebizonds. If only for the reasons you've already stated.


Just my 2c

I like to have those types of archers hold a front line, then drop back and let the heavy infantry take the charge, then flank. Its always fun.

Armored archers do very well vs unarmored archers or horse archers though, so their armor still comes in VERY handy. For the Byzantines, the Guard archers will do wonders again countless Turkish light horse archers.

Bottomline: Armored archers are very well worth the cost.

They are very good for defending walls! First they let their arrows rain down on the approaching enemy and when they climb up the wall they pull their swords and slay the rest of them to pieces.

I mostly left a few units of Norse Archers to defend my castles in my denmark campaigns.

Did you run any tests to see if the the more armored archers who have high melee capability are any faster than the regular slobs? Even the fastest foot archers are never going to keep up with your cavalry.

In my current game with the Danes I always recruit Norse Archers when I can. As mentioned above, they are the perfect wall defenders in a siege, and the defense rating helps if they're targeted by enemy missile units in open field battles. Norse archers do a little more attack damage than peasant archers, and they're not outrageously expensive. For the Danes I think they're a no-brainer choice, since the alternative (peasant archers) are a weak unit.

The stats for the two Byzantine archers are a lot closer together, the Byzantine Guard unit is expensive, and you have horse archers for open field battles. So in that case, I'd mostly use them for just for garrison/wall defense.

Just did a test on custom battle; in a footrace on grassy plain, the trebizond archers are slightly faster, however surprisingly they also tire slightly faster than the guard. For me stamina is more important than speed, since in my experience horse archers tend to scurry away from foot archers before they can get more than a couple of volleys away, aiming to tire them out chasing them.

However, my conclusion is that despite their advantages guard archers probably aren't worth spending the extra money on upgrading to an archery range. For those factions where the only other option is peasant archers it's clearly another matter.

Byzantine Archers always remind me of Elven archers in Lord of the Rings :beam:


Ill use any archer...a archer that wont flee in terror when attacked is even more valuable to me.

They cost too much, but they are usefull for putting on the walls of your settlement because they can Stand and fight. This is the best way to use Melee Archers because, a lot of the time you have to worry about the ladders or towers dropping off infantry and killing your archers.
I tend to prefer putting my infantry all near the gate or opening because this is normally where the main fight is going to be and you have a better chance to rout the enemy.

Guard, Norse, Highland/Highland Noble Archers, Ottoman, or any of the others with decent Melee stats are perfect for this reason, so that you don't have to put ur DFK (or equivalents) on the walls to prevent Murder of ur Missile dudes..

Building expensive melee archers isn't always very practical because a standardized army is far better than one which includes a huge roster of units - for practicalilty's sake. For retraining, or organizing (like when you have to put 55 spearment, with 40 spearmen to , make it 95 etc etc...) it sucks when you can't have like ,,, 5 units of Trebizond archers that you make into 4 (after the batlles).. rather than , 2 Guard archers, 2 treb, and 1 peasant archers = you can't really re-organize as easily.

Hello,

I feel I must wade in here as a massive fan of these kinds of units. Both the guard archers & the Ottoman guards are superb in my book. I love archers & have loads in my armies - I'm not such a big horsie fan.

But, we all know, mostly archers can make your army brittle. These kinds of units are a perfect fit for this position. Also, as I have noticed they look cool as well!

Henri

I consider them situational. For the Byzantines, I generally run all-cav armies, so no foot archers show up at all. I use guard archers for wall defense; all the reasons they are spectacular at this have already been mentioned. However, there are times when you need an infantry army, and in this case I'll bring them. I'd rather spend the extra on the guard archers so that if they do wind up in melee I won't take horrendous casualties that need replacement.

For other factions who don't have as much of a choice of troop types, definitely get them. Venetian archers rock!

Regular, unarmored archers are very vulnerable to cavalry. Even a weak, light horse archer unit can do them serious damage in a short time. For instance, if a bunch of foot archers get too close HA and too far from any protection, I don't hesitate to alt-attack and destroy them with melee.

Another thing: Skirmish is useless, imho. All you have to do is get them moving and they stop firing. Armored archers can turn skirmish off with greater safety.

A big factor that no one's mentioned is that more expensive, armoured, professional archers have decent morale.

Your bog standard peasant or militia bowman has 3 morale whereas a Norse, Trebizond or Yeoman archer has 5. Byzantine Guards, Scots Guards, Aventuriers, Noble Highland Archers, etc. have a whopping 9 morale to match that of regular heavy infantry.

So you're really paying for the fact that the better archers have the cohones to stay in the ruck and not bugger off sharpish at the merest sniff of a horsie, or go all limp as soon as the enemy ladders hit the walls.

Are Yeomen better than Retinue? I havent really used Retinue Longbowmen to find out. It seems alot more ppl mention Yeomen more than Retinue but as Retinue are avalible after Yeomen I would of thought Retinue are better?

Aach, that's what makes the Scots' Noble Archers so great. They have good morale, good firey arrows for burning siege stuff and sticking armored types, and they have good armor and defense. Useful on the field and very useful to defend in a siege assault. It is not difficult to get them up to a silver chevron and they can be recruited and retrained easily. Also, they are "noble" so you don't have to worry about them embarrasing you by exhibiting ungenteel behavior and upsetting the natives when you travel on crusades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by St.Jimmy

Are Yeomen better than Retinue? I havent really used Retinue Longbowmen to find out. It seems alot more ppl mention Yeomen more than Retinue but as Retinue are avalible after Yeomen I would of thought Retinue are better?

---

retinue are better

I'd recommend Guard archers over Trezibond just cause of the better morale that makes all the difference,and the extra armour comes in handy as well.I commonly use Byzantine Ha's and Guard archers together,and the extra morale means that you can depends on them to fight in a pinch if the enemy has light infantry,but it shouldn't come to that unless you are hugely outnumbered,instead the opposing force should rout from the missile fire they get coming up the field.

Posted by Old Geezer - "...Also, they are "noble" so you don't have to worry about them embarrasing you by exhibiting ungenteel behavior and upsetting the natives when you travel on crusades..."

I love this & never a truer work spoken !!!

Henri (noble)

Even more good stuff about the Scots' Noble Highland Archers. Their stats indicate that they have ap arrows and secondary weapons. Norse Archers don't have either. They ought to be able to thrash the Mongol foot archers if these stats are true. I don't remember every allowing any Mongol foot archers to get close enough to them to have a shootout.

Let's not forget the Genoese Archers who have IIRC a 9 missile and 9 melee factor (but no ap arrows or secondary melee weapon). They also have good armor and defense.