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
Printable View
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
Play as Parthia, and field an entire army of horse archers. Then you'll see what arrows can do!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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) ...... ;)
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!
Speed. Fast troops and fast commands, that's the counter. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
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.
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.
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.
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)
Thats actually quite funny, as I was thinking only yesterday that perhaps archers were a bit overpowered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrowmaker
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zatoichi
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!!! ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Sinner
*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).
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:
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.
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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Zatoichi
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:
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.