placeholder
Printable View
placeholder
I have recently acquired Chosen Archer Warbands in large numbers in my Dacian campaign... and I am amazed at how good these things are. After examining their stats in more detail, I am wondering if perhaps they are the best foot unit in the game. They are probably the best foot archers out there (Long Range and a higher missile attack than even Creshian Archers) and their ability to actually engage in melee is massive.
10 Attack / 11 Defense / 5 Charge / 12 Missile
Compare this to:
Hastati - 7 Attack / 14 Defense / 2 Charge / 11 Missile
Principes - 7 Attack / 16 Defense / 2 Charge / 11 Missile
Triarii - 7 Attack / 17 Defense / 7 Charge
Early Legionary Cohort - 9 Attack / 17 Defense / 4 Charge / 13 Missile
Legionary Cohort - 9 Attack / 22 Defense / 4 Charge / 13 Missile
While all of these units have a higher defense, they will take significant casualties from the long-range Chosen Archer missiles well before they reach melee. Add to that the higher attack and charge than ALL of them (except Triarii charge) and Chosen Archers will kill faster as well. This doesn't even take into account the bonus for woods and snow (probably applied in a good 2/3 - 3/4 of the battles fought in Europe). Praetorian and Urban Cohorts have a high enough attack to probably beat them, but both of these units take two turns to produce.
So... essentially we have the best archer unit in the game which can also beat everything but the most elite Roman (and Greek) foot units in melee combat. Is there another unit that could possibly be more useful?
[edit]
Just noticed Pharoah's Bowmen, which beat Chosen Archers on Missile and Defense. However, they are weaker on attack and charge, they take two turns to train and their maintinance fee is almost twice as high. That raises another benefit of Chosen Archers, a relatively low upkeep fee. They essentially cost the same as Auxilia and Hastatii and are far cheaper than even the basic Early Legionary Cohort, let alone the very expensive elite units of the other factions.
Well, there is one note on engaging missile types in melee: after shooting for a while they become quite tired. Being tired lowers their attack and defense considerably.
Tin, check out the Gallic Forester Warband. They're even better. I'm not at home to doublecheck, but if I remember correctly, base stats are something like 11 melee, 7 charge, 15 missile, 3 armor, 5 defense skill, long range missiles, hide anywhere, excellent morale, all the usual archer stuff (flaming arrows, can sap, etc), and they don't suffer from the "may charge without orders" bit almost all barbarian units have.
That's true, but they will also have numerical advantage since they already peppered their enemies with multiple volleys of arrows (which are damn powerful too)... I think these units are pretty much ultimate all-arounders, only thing they miss is shield. Forester warbands are still better archers though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
Z.
lol, damnit thats why archers were getting pwnd XD. bastards :furious3:
Alright, so let's figure this out. Which 'melee foot archer' unit is the best? The three main candidates seem to be:
Chosen Archer Warband - Cost: 700/180 - 1 Turn Production
10 Attack / 11 Defense / 5 Charge / 12 Missile
Expert in Woods, Bonus in Woods & Snow, Good Morale, Good Stamina
Forester Warband - Cost: 960/200 - 2 Turn Production
11 Attack / 8 Defense / 8 Charge / 15 Missile
Hides Anywhere, Bonus in Woods & Snow, Excellent Morale, Good Stamina, Fast
Pharaoh's Bowmen - Cost: 680/330 - 2 Turn Production
9 Attack / 13 Defense / 4 Charge / 14 Missile
Bonus in Desert, Good Morale, Good Stamina, Can Sap
Forester Warband seems to be the winner on stats, but it has an increased cost and 2 turn production over the Chosen Archers. In addition, the Chosen Archers' extra defense might give them the edge in a ranged dual. So... opinions?
just to clear some things..defense is not adding to ranged defense..only shield and armour protects from missles, the defense value is only used in melee.
Beside the pure stats maybe you also count in the unitsizes..afaik the pharaos are 60/120/240 scaled while thje forester are 40/80/160..if i am correct remembering.
I'll take the forester anyday. Had a few encounters with them, but I havent; used them as Gaul yet. I play on Medium difficulty, large unit size and here was my experience...Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
When I was playing Germania, I had two Chosen archers that approached a single unit of Forester for a typcial archer duel. It was level ground and good weather. There is no question in my mind that had it been one on one, the Foresters would have taken the day. Since my Chosen's were the ones approaching, the foresters did get off the first volley that initally killed 12 guys! Best first volley I ever seen. The Foresters did terrible casulties to my Chosens. Both my units were down to half strength by the time the last Forester fell. Even with the better armour, the higher missle attack of the Forester is deadly.
Why not have Cretan archers in here also?Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Right now, "Good Stamina" means they all tire MORE rapidly...BUG. ~:eek:
One turn production for chosen archer warbands is probably the key factor. You can build far more of them... Otherwise I would pick the Forresters on stats + upkeep (I can keep more around than the Eggy unit.) If you need a unit with armour though to exchange missile volleys, the Eggy's get the nod.
All three are incredibly good units which are kinda different:
The Forester is a fast-high attack archer while the Pharaoh's is a slower and better at taking hits, with the Chosen somewhat a mix between them with a weaker ranged attack.
Both the Forester and the Chosen can approfit of the +3 experience or +3 weapon bonus, while I'm not sure what the egyptian temples offer the Pharaoh's...
OA
Anyone else get the feeling that these elite archer units are sort of like an MTW equivalent of chivalric men at arms and arbalesters all rolled into one?
Any idea what the armor stats are on these guys? If appearances are anything to go by, the Foresters will be lower on it than the Chosen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Szun
According to the Unit Guide, they all have the same number of men, that's why I didn't include that.
Cretan Archers aren't built for melee at all and their missile attack is lower than all three of the ones I listed. Cretan Archers are pretty much just vanilla archers with perks. For reference purposes though:Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Rusher
Cretan Archers - Cost: 550/200
6 Attack / 5 Defense / 3 Charge / 11 Missile
Bonus in Woods, Vulnerable to Missiles, Good Stamina, Fast, Can Sap
I don't have the temple list handy, but what temples do the Germans get? As Gaul, I've got Patavium with the Sacred Circle of Epona (+3 experience) and Weaponsmith (+1 heavy/light/missile/armor) cranking out Forester Warbands every other turn. Each one gets on a boat just outside Patavium, ships down to Ariminium, and upgrades at the Sacred Circle of Abnoba (+3 missile weapons). So, I'm getting Foresters with 3 higher melee/defense, 1 higher armor, and 6 higher missile as soon as they've finished production. The two turns plus one turn to retrain is a factor, but damn they cause casualties!
Germans? Freyja (+15 happiness +15 growth). Donar (+15 happ, +2 xp), Woden (+15 happ +3 xp), with Donar being redundant.
The best war temple is the Mars temple of the Brutii. 3xp and 1morale probably beats 4 morale (+3 att +3 def +2 morale vs +8 morale). Though no in depth studies have been made yet.
In general, archers are quite powerful in this game. The enemy should engage the archers with as many units as possible if it is taking fire, unless they're in a city, when they should retreat to the town square and take up defensive position. The towers (level 3) are not worth defending because:
A. The human player will have onagers that take towers out
B. Running into towers without defense causes enough casualties as it is: adding an infantry/archer unit for extra defense doesn't cause more casualties due to arrow fire from the tower.
C. If a tower is defended, no player likes to fight on the walls because it costs casualties. But even if he did, the arrows stop firing once troops engage in hand to hand on the walls.
The main effect of towers is therefore OUTSIDE the walls, when the enemy are approaching and did not take them out using onagers.
So to sum up, CA made some errors of gaming judgement. They assume certain things are worth doing because they are in the game (ie they CAN be done). This is understandable, but leads to faulty AI choices which can, will be, and are exploited. Is there a time when the AI should defend its towers?
Is charging into enemy archers a good strategy every time?
See these questions are quite hard. But they should have an answer.
War temples between nations do not differ in the slightest. Just so you know.
I was comparing a violence temple to a battle temple. Violence wins. So war temples do differ.
Forrester war band is awesome and the best archer unit in my mind but the 2 turns you need to train them is what makes chosen archers a better unit, i would still chose forresters though :D
You cant forget, the Spartan warriors. I'd rather have them than these warbands, with my milita spear throwing calvery anyday. :bow:
I don`t understand that.Quote:
B. Running into towers without defense causes enough casualties as it is: adding an infantry/archer unit for extra defense doesn't cause more casualties due to arrow fire from the tower.
you are talking about a stone wall, are you?
Only trouble with 'dual role' troops (they would have been classed as proper skirmishers in MTW) is that they're up front at the start of the battle trying to get their arrows off. However, doing that means that they're also getting peppered (unless your playing single player AI who didn't bring any). Therefore, even though they have kewl dual-use capabilities, the enemy archers are killing your expensive troops, and your letting them! - so when they eventually get to melee they may already be under half strength.
That's only true if the enemy archers outnumber you. Lately I've taken to packing 8-9 Chosen Archer Warbands in each of my Dacian armies. Any enemy archers that get within range drop to 30 men or less within moments, with minimal casualties on my side. I've been using the Archers to hold the front line... turned off skirmish and turned on guard. Shoot as much as possible until the enemy closes to melee. Let the archers absorb the melee hit and hold the enemy line, then charge Chosen Swordsmen through them into the enemy line and flank with any unengaged infantry/archers or cavalry.
The Chosen Archers can easily hold up long enough against full legionary cohorts that escaped the arrow barrage and keep them pinned while my flanks do their work. I'm almost praying I get assaulted in a captured Roman city... I would love to see my archers defending the walls. Pouring death onto the enemy and then slaughtering them if they scale the walls.
While my Gauls were conquering Macedonia, I was besieged by the Macedonians right after I had captured Thessalonica from the. I sallied, put my 4 units of Foresters on the ramparts, and unloaded. Their entire army retreated from the field the casualties were so high. Those phalanx units were too slow to get out of archer range. They didn't even do the "sit under fire until destroyed" bit; they started pulling back immediately.
Totally unfair. It only takes one turn to produce an auxilia archer, though it does take two to produce Pharoah's Archers who have similar stats. That's why I went into the stat sheets and changed the "2" to a "1". ~D Man it's tough goin' up against the Gauls, now.Quote:
Forrester war band is awesome and the best archer unit in my mind but the 2 turns you need to train them is what makes chosen archers a better unit, i would still chose forresters though :D
well a well placed calvary charge and even war dogs make pretty quick waste of archers ;) and almost everything else ~:cool:
You have to watch out for some of these elite archer units, Slackker. If they are in skirmish mode, they'll try and run, which is fine, but if they are not in skirmish mode, they can cause a surprising number of casualties. I've had the foresters stand up and beat a general with bodyguard in a melee slugfest. They took heavy casualties doing it, but they won.
Only the temple of Imhotep at the highest level gives Egyptians combat-bonus (+2 experience).Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleander Ardens
~:confused: Those Spartans have low armour ratings, making them excellent pin cushions for high end archer units. ~:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Siris
If you want berserkers Donar isn't redundant. Woden gives you naked fanatics (and Gothic cav?). Freyja makes screaching women.Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsmountain
I recently began a campaign as the Germans and while I can't yet raise chosen archers they look to me to very good units. Rather like janisaries.
he's in love with the greek cities ;)Quote:
Those Spartans have low armour ratings, making them excellent pin cushions for high end archer units.
You get chosen archer warbands the earliest, too, dont' you?
I'm playing Germania now. I took Alesia from the Gauls around 255 BC and they had already built the level 2 temple of Abdenola and the prereq building for Chosen Archers and a blacksmith upgrade or two.
I can now crank out gold weapon CAWs, which are a very nice complement to German spears.
The range is the key, since it keeps the enemies missile troops from taking free shots at the spear line. Also helpful to soften up those big stacks of Principes and Hastati.
I would never think to use CAWs as melee troops except in an emergency, however. Not very cost effective.
archers are overpowered and nobody complaints! why? archers should suck and spears should rule! archers should not be armor piercing, spears should. arrows could NEVER pierce a shield, spear could practically always pierce the shield. This is messed up!
I wouldn't say that nobody has complained that archers are overpowered... We have discussed this to death several times and it is obvious that most people find archers to be too strong (meaning a nerf would be accepted).Quote:
Originally Posted by jerby
Given hte fact that we play with rather small armies each unit has to be effective, and since CA couldn't reproduce the disruptioneffect more profoundly archers simply had to kill more... Too much we can agree.
And spears weren't all that great at penetrating shields either, a onehanded spear is going to have hard time penetrating a typical non-wicker shield, and if it did penetrate it would do so slowly (it would go through but would need a further push to get at the man behind) and the other warrior would be able to avoid it. Now the spear would be stuck and your weapon useless... Not good since the enemy would now have the initiative. Yes his shield would be useless but what good does that do you if you are dead or mortally wounded?
And arrows could never penetrate shields? Let me give you a little pointer... Carrhae. There the Roman legionaries found out that the Scythians could indeed penetrate the shields with their arrows so their had to layer them double.
carrhae needn't have happend. read the lines.
also the pilum as an example had a lot of mass focused at a small point-> lots of force on a small surface. and arrows wouldn't do much better against shields. according to discovery channel almost an entire line of units would go down on two salvo's of pila. roman infantry shields could barely deal with pila. Iron shields could not be too thick so they could have been penetrated, but not so easily as wood. leather would be ripped trough, but leather and iron would be a very tough mix.
in rtw every cohort carry's two pila and kill with them at most 15 men--> 40x2=80
it's not that good. archers on teh other hand kill less men in one salvo ( about 5) but have much more ammo. it's historic but unballanced.
so you shouldn't make archer ammo less don't take it that way!
in reality romans wouldn't have equipped their legions with 10 kg of pretty much useless equipment, as it is in rtw.
and the last part, 'bout initiative. if the spear is stuck in the, the oppenent will not have the initiative-> you'l be standing 20 m away! I'm talking 'bout throwing spears here.
got me on carrhae there, i'll give you that. weren't it the Persians btw? and if the persians had used spears in stead of arrows do you really think the romans had suffered less casualties?
I don't know why I wrote Scythians... :dizzy2: :dizzy2: It was of course the Parthians. Must have had a small stroke or something.
You never said you talked about javelins (throwing spears), so naturally it seemed odd.
Now to the point.
There weren't a single iron shield back then, not even covered shields. The closest we come to that is the Aspis (better known as Hoplon) which was covered in bronze.
The Roman Scutum was made of laminated wood, covered with either canvas or hide. Had it been covered with iron it would have been impossible to carry around in battle.
The pilum was not the machinegun of the ancient era, it was 'merely' a superior heavy javelin with a better chance of killing an enemy or unbalancing the shield. At Pharsalus Caesar suffered very light losses against the superior pilathrowers in Pompey's army, something like 4-500 out of some 22000 (Pompey had 45000). Also the pilum had a short enough range that a unit could not throw all its pila in a single volley, rather the first few ranks had to do it. Then more pila would be thrown when the lines pulled apart (the lulls in battles), some were even thrown over the heads of those in front. So it would be a gradual attack rather than a withering hail of missiles.
Now I intend to modify the game after the patch to have much less power of the archers and more to the javelineers (and possibly the pila). That has long been my goal.
So I agree that javelins are woefully underpowered in the game, but I don't find the pilum to be that underpowered.
started own topic in colluseum. seems a bit off topic in here.
Yeah i was talking about stone walls with the enemy on approach. Also getting a bit off-topic there.Quote:
B. Running into towers without defense causes enough casualties as it is: adding an infantry/archer unit for extra defense doesn't cause more casualties due to arrow fire from the tower.
To get back to Chosen Archer Warbands, due to the primary/secondary attack bug, Pharaoh's Bowmen are the strongest. Together with the Good Stamina bug, no real tests can be performed until this game is properly patched.
I had the most difficulty with the Egyptian axmen. They seem to have advanced armor and weaponry early in the game. Also the legionary cohorts were pretty pesky. Once I got war elephants and I used them in combination of scythed chariots I was pretty immortal. It was like running over weeds with a lawn mower.
someone said he goes into iberia and get bonus +3misile attack from spanish temples.i say to him that dacia can go to macedon to take +4,+5 missile attack!
the Chosen are beter for ONE reason:-They are built in 1 turn. :duel:
In stratigic use wise Forester is probably best due to the ability to hide anywhere (if ur smart with the use anyway) and the high charge also helps a ton since u usually won't use archer as a melee line but rather as a last line rush.
However Forester cost a ton and takes two turn AND takes quiet a while for the Gauls to aquire (I took out the Julies and the Senate by the time I got them XD....)
I don't think that archers are overpowered.. rather that Javlins in general is under par (espically the pure javlin throwers) ... if anything the training/maintance cost of calvary is what's really over powered in the game... yes calvary were suppose to be very good, but they were also suppose to be very hard to train and maintain relative to infantry and also in RTW they melee a bit too well in most cases. (though hitting from horse back is definately strong due to height... should also make them a lot more prone to attack themself... espically in this age when there were no horse armor and horse gear weren't that perfected yet.)
it were the Parthians at CarrhaeQuote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Chosen Archers are clearly not the best foot unit. At least not in a direct unit vs. unit comparison.
I tested them against a vanilla cohort. European grasland, summer, AI used the Archers, which is admittedly a problem, best to test it MP, but I think it didn't too bad. Size was large.
In a first trial I let the cohort walk to the archers. Not sure whether the AI made use of the full range, but it had quite a few volleys. During that, the cohort lost 9 legionairies. When the archers started to pull back, I let the cohort run after them. At the map edge it came to melee and the cohort naturally won. I didn't use pila because the archers would always pull back out of range. 63 men remained.
In a second trial, I let the cohort run as soon as the archers began firing. The volleys only killed a single man. Again, at the map edge melee started which I won. 68 men survived. Not a big difference, but the number may be rather low because of unnatural behaviour of the cohort (they disengaged once).
I tried then what happens if I use testudo formation. The AI didn't even try to fire at the testudo. Ending the fight was complicated because the testudo can't reach the archers and the AI didn't attack. I persued the archers across the map until my men were tired. Then the AI charged the testudo. I lost quite many men, 38, I think that happened not only because they were tired but also because I didn't disband testudo formation. I'll investigate that further. But I still won.
Granted, testing anything against the AI is not very informative, but still, it seems obvious that any cohort will mob the floor with Chosen Archer Warband.
You can't let the AI have the archers and do a meaningful test. When I try this the AI usually runs them up to about 60 meters from my line, the stupidest thing it could do.
When this thread came out was prior to 1.2 patch. In 1.2 units started receiving their shield bonus while marching. 1.0/1.1 were bugged in that they were not getting credit for their shields while moving. A +5 difference in missile defense will make a big difference in losses to archery.
I won't defend chosen archers as being the best foot unit though.
in comparing all archer units, one key statistic has so far failed to be studied. I am, of course, referring to their range. Have a significantly longer range (say 4 to 6 ranks) allows suppression fire and allows for control over concentration of fire (due to the higher probability of multiple overlapping firezones). I sware Cretean archers have the longest range; any evidence to the contrary is welcome. Also worth noting may be the rate of fire and how much ammo each archer type carriers. As far as I can tell ammo count is the same, but firing rates differ somwhat.
Range is given in export_descr_unit.txt and is 170 for all 4 archers mentioned (pharaoh's, forester, chosen archer and creeesjaan aaarchers)
In Melee all except the cretans are roughly equal (1.2), but, since range is equal, speed becomes the most important factor. Ie whether they're fast or not.
Even cavalry (unless it is light) has trouble catching fast troops, in my experience.
A second look:
All have: LongRange, Flame (and 30 arrows/man)
Chosen Archer Warband - Cost: 700/180 - 1 Turn Production
10 Attack / 11 Defense / 5 Charge / 12 Missile
Expert in Woods, Bonus in Woods & Snow, Good Morale, Good Stamina
Forester Warband - Cost: 960/200 - 2 Turn Production
11 Attack / 8 Defense / 8 Charge / 15 Missile
Hides Anywhere, Bonus in Woods & Snow, Excellent Morale, Good Stamina, Fast
Pharaoh's Bowmen - Cost: 680/330 - 2 Turn Production
9 Attack / 13 Defense / 4 Charge / 14 Missile
Bonus in Desert, Good Morale, Good Stamina, Can Sap
Cretan Archers - Cost: 550/200 - mercs
6 Attack / 5 Defense / 3 Charge / 11 Missile
Bonus in Woods, Vulnerable to Missiles, Good Stamina, Fast, Can Sap
Then clearly shows Forester Warband the winner!
Not only do they hit with a missile attack of *Gasp* 15, they're also fast, they have the best morale, the highest attack and the highest charge value and can hide anywhere (!) well, they need long grass, but then again we all need grass... especially us dutch ~:smoking:
Remember, with a 50% or better unit production discount (due to ancillaries, traits), you get 2 year units built in 1 year as well.
When you train them in a city with temples of Nike, you get improved veterans who are better able to with stand archer fire. Plus, when attacking archers, you can have them break up the falanx and just run at the archers. This only works when the archers are in front of the lines though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
You can however dodge archer fire by breaking up the falax, losening the formation and having the Spartans run at the enemy formation only to fall back into a falanx when they've almost reached the enemy lines. It works well enough.
I really like the forester warbands ~:) , but the one turn creation of the chosen archers does give them that advantage in men. In the time it takes one to build a unit of foresters, two chosens will have been built, and as been stated in a previous reply, two chosen archer units can take out a forester unit and still have men to spare.... so toss up a coin and pick one, but id go with the chosen archers for campaign, and foresters for MP.
just my thoughts.... ~:handball:
Phalanks...i've even made a tacktic called "box form" simply place panklank all around ur general..no just..err i dont konw how say this nut they kick ass when u do it!!!!
What in Sam Hill is a panklank? Oh yeah, to beat your phalanx box, all I have to do is keep shooting with my forester warbands. ~;)
I didn't see factored in the faction specific enhancements gained by religious buildings. Better weapons and exp upgrade change the stats on these dramatically.
've tested many units against praetorian cohort and none or very few win against these elite roman troops, apart from spanish bull warriors (one of the most efficient? massive huge warriors with 2pvs & PA pilums ~:eek: ) and the most lethal chosen axemen from germany.
Chosen Archers from a fresh install have 7 armour (chainmail vest) and 4 defense skill. Out of the three, they have the second best melee capabilities plus if you remain in northern europe, you have little to fear with their added bonuses in woods and snow.
Egyptians fair a little better (14 missile/9 melee/7 armour/6 skill and 10 morale) but do have the drawback of time and penalties for snow and woods (both -2).
Cretans have absolutely no armour and only 11 missile.
Foresters have the highest missile attack rating (15) and also 11 melee. However, the battle modifier on their spear is less than 3/4 so it is ineffective against armoured infantry. Defense is poor (3 armour/5 skill) but they have the highest morale (12) and the best melee charge (8). In terms of engagement they can also hide "anywhere" and have the same bonuses as Chosen Archers.
If you were to alter stats and give all arrows the armour piercing ability, the foresters would win hands down. They function more like longbowmen; lightly armoured, long range, powerful shots, and (if there wasn't a bug) would have the highest stamina amongst all of the tree with the best morale.
I still prefer the foresters because of their hiding ability. Turning off skirmish and auto fire will allow you to wait for enemy units to be ambushed from behind while peppering them with the highest damage of all foot missile units.
Since this decision is really all about personal taste(reminds me I must fix something to eat), no unit will be a definite clear-cut winner.
However, I have seen Militia Hoplites make decent hell for Chosen Archers. :laugh4:
________________________________________________
Ooo. Thought it was all about foot archers. Spanish Bull Warriors are effective against most other heavier infantry but do lack luster when pitted against heavy archers. Praetorians can hold their own against most top level units and Chosen Axemen (if given 2 hitpoints) can definitely hard head-strong into packs of archers, cavalry, infantry, elephants, siege weapons, nuclear missile silos, etc.
Now, I like archers. I even love archers. But they aren't invulnerable. One of the reasons that they work so well against the AI is because it usually creates mediocre units (you don't fight Chosen Archer Warbands with Axemen) and because, well, the AI's an idiot (Once, it tried to send Bowmen across a river and killed them all, leaving the enemy phalanxes pincushions for my Bedouin Archers).
But as I said, archers aren't invulnerable, even elite units such as Chosen Archers and Forresters. Elite cavalry such as Cataphracts or Preatorian Cavalry can rip them apart in a single charge. And even if they survive the first charge, their morale usually plummets and they rout, making them perfect targets for cavalry. Even horse archers, especially Cataphract Archers, can use Cantabrian Circle to kill Chosen Archers with relatively few losses.
Also, although elite archers can fight well in hand-to-hand combat, I find it frustrating to waste them and having to retrain, losing time, money, and experience, especially with non-replenishable mercenary units such as Cretan Archers. Archers are meant to stay behind the lines and shoot at enemies while heavier units such as Chosen Swordmen do their work. When they run out of arrows, quick archers do a great job killing routing infantry. But archers should only be made to force an enemy line as a last resort.
Btw, Spartan Hoplites in loose formation will usually kill Chosen Archers, though at a steep cost.
The Spartan Hoplites have a low defense compared to other heavy infantry. The 2 hitpoints doesnt help enough against archer fire.
I dont think the chosen archers are 2nd best in melee, the foresters are at least as good.
The thing with both of them is that you need cavalry to kill them, for the simple fact that they outrun infantry, which is quite irritating considering they're firing long range.
Archers are not the strongest unit in the game, but they're a force to be reckoned with.
Pila were still mostly stopped by shields. The real advantage the Pila had was that the bronze point would pierce the shield and even if the man was not injured by the point that bronze would bend under its own weight lodging it in the shield. Now the infantry had to either take off the shield and remove it or live with an extra few pounds weighing down that shield arm.
Neither option was very atractive while more Pila are raining down on you.
Gameplay shows that pilas are really crashing weapon while defending. Just see what happens in defensive battle when you line your roman infantry (even hastati, no doubt about better units) on fire at will and wait for enemy infantry attacking - half of them is lost and retreated even without fight, holed by pilas
Mmmmmm Janisaries :D
Just checking, do Choosen archers have the very long range missles like cretans/Pharos/foresters?
Also, Why can I not create new topics in the SP RTW section? :(
Welcome, Siege Engineer. I believe the Chosen archers do have a long range, yes.
On the posting restrictions, they are because you have not yet been promoted from junior member to member. Have a look at this thread for more info:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=43835
I understand it can be frustrating, but stick around a while, make some posts in the frontroom or other open forums, and promotion will not take long.
if it would me,i will choose Forester warband as the best foot archer(use them as muskeeteer)why?,coz they can hide anywhere(a flexible tactical unit),best use in ambush(infantry can't catch them,coz their fast moving;light cavalry can't take them down easily coz their high melee ability and spear)Quote:
Originally Posted by Claudius Maniacus Sextus
but if you want a foot archer that will win the war,i will suggest CAW,first:
produce in 1 turn(like T-34 for Russia in WW2)
180 denarii upkeep(but you get good morale that archer auxilia ain't got)
7 armor compare to 3 armor of archer auxilia
:yes:
now i found out new attributes for comparison of three best foot archer unit,it is about their morale:
Chosen archer warband=8
Pharoah bowman =10
Forester warband =12
archer auxilia =4
cretan archer =8
Wait...Are we talking best foot unit in terms of cost effectiveness/Turn Production? Or best foot unit?
Spartans. Is their armor rating really that low? Even then 40 Spartans could probably take 80 chosen archers. How many spartans can you kill with a unit of archers from a range? Also my spartans can deaden a cav charge. Bowmen Arent as good as stopping cataphracts. Or chariots for that matter.
Best foot. The most cost-effective unit is discussed in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Afkazar
To be honest I find spartans riddiculously overrated, if I want two hitpoints I'll get myself some spanish bull warriors. The spartans seem to abandon the phalanx seeking hand to hand combat, only to be swarmed and wiped outQuote:
Originally Posted by Afkazar
plus, they just look silly
Listen, In terms of flexibility you want either spartans or urban cohorts. I dont understand how your getting Bull warriors > Spartans. If your spartans are getting swarmed you don't have enough of them. And if you claim they cost to much then you in the wrong thread.Quote:
To be honest I find spartans riddiculously overrated, if I want two hitpoints I'll get myself some spanish bull warriors. The spartans seem to abandon the phalanx seeking hand to hand combat, only to be swarmed and wiped out
Archers Cant damage most high armor units from the front. And they get eaten by Cav.
When Im looking at Best Infantry Im looking at a few factors
1.Vs other Foot Infantry. As the ground pounder you must be able to take the bulk of an enemy force.
Here Urbans and Spartans Win.Maybe Archers if they can encircle you.
2.Vs Cavalry. If your best unit gets eaten by Cataphracts what good is it?
Urbans and spartans again. Urbans can Hold up pretty good against the charge. Archers completely fail here.
3.Vs CrAzY units. Chariots and elephants can wreck alot of armies.
Spartans and Archers go here. Spartans can stop both units really well. Archers can make elephants run so they are here too. Berserkers eat urbans.
4. Defense. You cant get shot to death before the battle starts.
Urbans and to a somewhat less degree spartans. Also Its very easy to maneuver archers around phalanxs so spartans lose credibility.
5.Choke Points. Entrances to bridges, City Streets, Holes in gates.
Spartans are gods here. Hell any Phalanx will do good here.
these chosen archer warbands are exactly the same as venetian archers in m2tw (my favorite unit because of flexibility).
basicly after im done using the arrows they can charge the flank of rear of an enemy and change the tide of the battle.