Printable View
Is it true that Carthaginians cannot build archers?
I am tired of my weakling slingers being used as pin cushins by Egyptian archers.
If find it extremely implausable that the Cathaginians, being both worldly and the superb traders they were, did not adopt this weapon.
Even at relatively early stages of development this should be available (though, at 219 BC I've not been able to build any). ~:confused:
I still don't understand why the hell the Britons have no foot archers when their light chariot units have bows. They didn't know they could also shoot while standing? Great game, but some of these mistakes are just silly. :dizzy2:
The obvious answer, even if to us it seems rediculous, is that they didn't use foot archers and neither did Carthage. Now as to why the Britons didn't use foot archers who knows maybe only people of high status could get their hands on a bow. The same strata of society that would use chariots. As for Carthage since they mostly used mercenaries in their armies if they couldn't recruit archers from peoples that lived near by then their not going to go all the way to say Egypt or greece to recruit some are they.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
I agree to some extent, but rather than arguing Carthage should have archers, I suspect the problem is more of the potency of slinger and archer units and the historical anachronism that it poses. The Balearic slingers were considered to have better range and efficiency than contemporary archers (according to the Romans and the Carthaginians who both employed them.) The Spanish Celt an Celt-Iberian cultures (who provided much of the Carthaginian forces) did not use archery for military purposes at the time, although they did use slingers, javs, and pila IIRC. So as Carthage, you need to buy every Balearic merc you can find, and this is historically justified. The other slingers are not very useful due to 33% less range and reduced killing power.
I was skeptical of the Balearics when I first came across them, but since then I've read enough references on them to be convinced that in a relative comparison to other slingers and other archers, they are not out of balance. (Balearics and Rhodians use rather massive lead pellets called "bullets" and these have some serious punch--more so than an arrow.) However, the overall potency of the slinger and archer units is high. That is why my contention is that RTW has thrown off the historical unit balance. Even two millenia later, firearms were not that effective at the same range. Elite archers such as chosen archers and the special Egyptian units, both with much extended range, really push the envelope. Even vs. unarmoured units, I find 15% *kill* accuracy at full effective range with the initial volley to be quite excessive. On one occasion I've seen 20% casualties inflicted by chosen archers against the same size unit, on level ground, with a single volley, and at max range--did I mention the unit was moving when hit? ~:eek: :embarassed: In the game, Balearics have the same *effective* range as "vanilla" archers. It is likely that their effective range should be higher than vanilla archers--worthy of debate. (IIRC one of the two consuls, Paullus, was hit by a slingstone at Cannae and ended up unhorsed/dazed as a result.)
There are important strategic limitations to relying on mercs like Balearics, and these are a bit of a handicap for both the human and moreso for the AI:
1. You can't necessarily get Balearics when you need them. You can't build them, so you are at the mercy of "Varius Digitus", the god of random number generation who determines when mercs are available.
2. You can't get them where you need them very easily. You don't get to choose what provinces they can be built in. Maybe half will come available on Palma. Getting them from Palma to anyplace useful is no mean feat. Cathage will be "out factioned" 4 to 1 on the sea (all those Roman factions just waiting to hit you over and over again.) So getting boats from point-to-point often requires a bit of planning (time) and perhaps a bit of luck.
3. They are expensive--so you might not have the money for them when they become available.
4. Your enemy will buy them from right under your nose. I often find that invaders will buy every merc available to balloon their force. It is one of the most logical strategic devices the AI uses and has historical context. It is important to see the enemy coming and buy mercs the turn before they arrive. I now snatch up mercs ahead of invading armies (in essence giving me a two unit advantage per merc: 1 more for me and 1 less for the AI invader.) I don't feel "cheesy" about this, because the AI is actually using mercs intelligently. :thumbsup:
I wonder about the Roman archer availability before the Marion reforms. The Roman armies of the Punic wars don't seem to have had much of an archery component. What they had apparently came from Cretan mercs and the like that they began using late in the 2nd Punic War. With "Rome" being in the name of the game, good luck seeing their archer availability limited to historical context.
what irrritates me is that javlines is less effective than archers. I dont know what historically correct, but I would expect that javavlin would cause more damage than a small arrow.
Because of this I find the skrimishers in rtw totally useless. Archers got both better range and cause more damage.
But I agree that it is silly that carthage dont have archers. It certantly makes it much harder for carthageinians ( I remember one time I was defending against the egyptians. I only had 2 archers unit in addtidion to my phalanxses. then The egyptians brought forth 4 pharahos bowmen and starting shooting my army to pieces. I manage to kill around 10 pharahos bowmen before my archers routed and left the bowmen free to destroy my army with arrows. I can only imagine how hard it must be against the egyptians with no archers at all.)
That's why the Sacred Band is so sacred, they're the only ones who can survive enemy arrows without their own supporting archers.
Good point, now I know why the calvary need such Long Shields.
Numidians can get Carthaginian Foot Archers. There is a unit in the game, but Carthage does not get it.
That is a good point. Javelin units don't cause all that much damage in comparison to archers. So are javs too weak or are archers too strong? My contention is that archery accuracy is much too high. Javelins are still effective for skirmishing against the heavy troops, esp. phalangites, and can be used to flank or wear down the slow guys. I'm not sure that javelin accuracy/effectiveness is too low. I could make a case for or against. Historically, javelins were more important in this time period than archers... But in RTW the long range stand off unit gets the nod.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unseen Potato
Part of the problem with javs in RTW is the friendly fire issue. Skirmishers cause more damage to your own army than to the enemy because they retreat back into your line, then skewer the man in front of each of them...and it is difficult to make them stop! This is a serious impediment to jav units, because now you have to employ them with minimal support to avoid FF casualties.
I like RTWs javelins. They murder unsupported phalanxes - I think even armoured ones - but can easily be run down by cavalry or by negligence. They have a short range (especially relative to the range at which they flee), so they are not that powerful unless you have the enemy at your mercy. They are a nicely balanced "auxiliary" unit. However, the superior range of bows makes bows much easier to use.
Balearic slingers are not a bad archer substitute for Carthage. However, I may be imagining it, but they seem more of a "direct fire" unit - you have to put them in the front line, whereas archers can shoot over the heads of friendly troops in front. If this is right, it again makes archers easier to use.
Having had a short blast at the Parthian campaign, I would venture that horse archers are probably the most powerful missile units in the game. In a Cantabrian circle, they are hard to hit and they can also rain death on any pursuers.
Both foot and horse archers make it a little too easy against the AI, so I would be inclined to tone them down a little. I also agree with Red Harvest, doing so would better reflect what I understand of the history.
if you want archers for carthage play rome total realism
The irony of that statement is that Carthage didn't use archers at all. So it's total (almost) realismQuote:
Originally Posted by Mikemyers64
im not historian or anything but i would think that carthage had a lot of archers to the point of where it was almost a standard in their army, now since there are not mercenary archers except for creten archers i think the mod makes up for this.
Time to use the create_unit cheat.
I'm not a historian either, but from what I've read so far, archers were not significant portions of Carthaginian armies. I have read that the Numidians had some bowmen, and that Carthage might have had some homegrown bowmen available at the very end of the 2nd war, levied from the Carthaginian population--implying that they were not traditional military weapons for Carthage? I have read that the Celt and Celt-Iberians (grouped as the Spanish) did not use archery for military purposes at the time. Roman armies at the time of the Punic wars do not appear to have had many archers either from what I've gathered, instead relying on mercs in the 2nd war (apparently Cretan archers were used by both sides as well as Balearic slingers.) At the time of the 1st and 2nd Punic Wars, missile fire in the western regions meant javelins, pila, or slings, in roughly that order with archery barely receiving a mention. Perhaps Kraxis or someone else with substantial historical knowledge can set things straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikemyers64
The problem as I see it is that early RTW western archers *should* be so ineffective as to be undesirable wastes of resources except for things like garrison duty or very specific circumstances. Later, they should begin to have some impact and therefore presence on the field. In the game you face many archer units early on that are quite formidable, and they will tear even balearic slingers to shreds. This aspect of RTW doesn't jive with what I've read.
Perhaps the problem is in the transition from early periods to late? Archery seems to have become more important later.
Hehe... You actually know more about this archery subject than me Red. I didn't know that the celtiberians and celts didn't use archery. Well I hadn't heard about archers from Iberia either so... well you get the point.
And I didn't know that the romans actually used some archers in late 2nd Punic War.
But I agree that archery was not a popular form of fighting for either of these three cultures, so there is nothing wrong directly with the fact that Carthage doesn't have any. But since the romans have archers I think it is fair that Carthage has them too, especially since archery is so strong. I don't know if the Iberian faction has archers. And since there is a unit called Carthagenian Archers... Well give it to those Carthies.
Actually Carthage does have archer units. Expensive ones ~:)
Or are those guys on the elephants just hurling obscenities?
That's a good point. Those are the larger African elephant types as well rather than the forest elephant units.. One thing I read suggested that the larger african elephants were used at Zama...don't know if they had turrets though. I suspect not because they were untrained beasts.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
The "Carthaginian archer" in the game files is given to Numidia...which seems a bit odd, but the reference I have seen to Numidian archers is actually "Moorish archers" from Mauritania.
As Kraxis says, the problem is that Carthage's enemies have access to good archers and that archery is relatively powerful. I would rather see archery toned down considerably especially in the early periods and restricted to appropriate periods (other than the special mercs who should be available earlier--but less deadly than at present.)
Kraxis, the Celt-Iberian reference I saw is in the Osprey book and says that while some arrow heads were found on the peninsula they were rare.
Some good points have been made on this thread. ~:cheers: I particularly appreciate the interest in historical accuracy. :book:
We don’t need a historian to tell us that the lords of and master traders upon the Mediterranean (until the Punic Wars), the Carthaginians, were in close contact with people from the east (I believe, though I may be mistaken, they were originally from Phoenicia), and thus had access to all the innovations appearing there, such as sophisticated missile weaponry.
Carthaginians did indeed employ archers even though distinctions are often not addressed in contemporaries’ accounts. Uniformity was probably lacking however, since they relied on mercs.
BCE Missile weapons:
Carthaginians relied almost exclusively on mercenaries for nearly all troops, including Balearic slingers (hardened clay pellets that could go through armour), Numidian/Moorish archers (where are they in the game?), Spanish Scutarii and Caetratii and other missile mercs.
Additionally, all these peoples (factions in the game) likely used any and all missile weapons available while under siege or while laying it (though few at this time had the tenacity, equipment and resolve of the Romans in this regard) sieges were in fact much too costly to pursue until the Romans began to adopt and popularize eastern siegecraft. What is more natural than aiming projectiles at enemies below you? And if this was the case, something plausible I think, then who is to say that they didn't employ "national" archers especially when defending their homelands?
Perhaps (this is not historically supported) the Carthaginians, descendents of the Phoenicians, may have even employed the incredibly advanced composite bow. We can’t be sure, but we can still make an educated guess that they did indeed adopt and incorporate archers, as at Cannae.
The above mentioned archer units (Moorish/Numidian and Carthaginian levies) should be added into the game. And I definitely agree that all missile troops be decreased in number (unit size), and especially effectiveness—the Egyptians are particularly ridiculous in this regard. Missiles certainly had a place in war during this time, but they were never remotely as decisive in the western Mediterranean as they are in RTW. Even at Cannae, their primary use by the Carthaginians (Iberian/Spanish archers or javelins?) came after the Romans were encircled--then they came in handy but that was after Hannibal had superbly manipulated his infantry and cavalry.
Infantry and cav (in that order) were the deciding arms of warfare during this time. And though I advocate toning down the power of archers and slingers in RTW, I still feel it an unacceptable oversight to NOT include Carthaginian archers.
Take it for what it's worth (from a historian ~;) ): answers are evident to all who choose to but search for them (though finding them during this period is a wee bit more difficult considering the few sources that are extent).
As far as I know there has been discovered no pictural or factual evidence for the use of bows by the Carthies in field battles, or at all.
In any case Warrior statues in Sardegna show also reflex-bows and very orientalized equipment, around the date Cathagian influence started to dominate it. Chances are very high indeed that they adopted it from them.
And as it was said before I simply can't imagine that the Charties didn't used "assyrian" style composite bows after they and their ancestor came so heavily in contact with it. But they did mostly so in sieges, using mercs, just like the Romans used mostly the arcuballista (~crossbows) and manuballista.
All in all a smallsized archer unit would be fine - but it shouldn't replace the Slingers and the Javelin-armed Skirmishers...
Cheers
OA
Sorry - I don't want to hijack this thread, but since we've got some historians here, I thought I'd ask...
How do the various bows fit into the weapon's evolution? I know a bit about the composite and the longbow, but what sort of bows would be used in the R:TW timescale, and how do they compare in range, power, reliability etc to the longbows used by the English at Agincourt, etc, in the middle ages?
Did bow technology actually go backwards?
While I would love the game to be truly historically accurate I do feel that it would lead to huge balance issues. As mentioned above the Carties were a merc based army. Although I never thought the Romans used many archers as I would used playing as a Roman.
From a gameplay point of view if the Carthies were to have a decent missle unit, you could pretty much call them an uber faction. Their sacred band and Elephants more that make up for those shortcomings. In fact I have had nothing but sucess playing them (using long shield cav) against all comers. Well Egyptians, Gauls and Romans. Oh and the Spanairds as well. Each faction I believe has its ultimate unit and your strats. should play to the strengths of these units. Sorry if that sounds a bit "all knowey".........
Anyway I love this game.....
My knowledge of this (which is probably wrong) is that once the Romans left Western Europe bows regressed a little, as composite bows ceased to be used and were replaced by worse shortbows. However, the longbow was a Welsh thing and was pretty good, the main advantage being it wasn't a composite bow: in the wet and damp north composite bows tend to fall to pieces as each bit changes size a bit as it gets wetter and colder, whilst longbows were much more reliable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fridge
To Fringe:
The technology of the composite bow spread very fast due it's intrinsic advantages and reached Central Europe at least 600BC. All great archery nations in the RTW timeframe used it, and develloped it further. There are many different variants of it, some with a simple shape (older Persian), triangular (Assyrian, Egyptian) or doublecurved with curved tips -Scyhtian- or straight ones - Parthian.
Warriors in other cultures with adverse fighting culture or climate used shelfbows of different types and shapes, among them the socalled Longbow. A cheap and simple weapon inhaerently inferior to a good quality composite it was used by low-level warriors to pepper the enemy. The increase in ranged combat due to the Roman advances and the Nomad incursions led to an increased use of archers in the Germanic tribes. The Goths, Lombards and others adopted the composite on all levels, while the Franks and Saxons did so only in the nobility, if at all. The poorer stratii of the society continued to use the longbow, although the lack of coordination of the single elements of the host made it as effective as isolated uncoordinated artillery fire.
Only the complete adoption of a common strategy built around massed archery could make it in good conditions against a surprised enemy a decisive force...
To come back to the topic: Archery needs an overhaul, EB will hopefully deliver it...
Cheers
OA