What is the obsession with archers?

[russia almighty]

Why am I guessing that the archival version would be impossible to find, unless you hunted the fringes of torrents, or went 007 in some archives building in Iran?

[craziii]

my main complain is that in 1.1, alot of the archers in the east only carry like 15-20 arrows. I am not talking about the elite archers.

[hoom]

Well, I'm having no particular complaints with the strength of archers in my Baktria campaign.

I have even defeated two units of Argyraspide Seleukid mail veil guys primarily with the archers (2/3 casualties).

Not shooting from dead on in front of the enemy is a big thing.
Get in behind or round the side & you can do some big damage quickly.

Against those plentiful eastern unarmoured units its almost like the good old days of Shogun:TW with Samurai Archers slaughtering rank on rank of Ashigaru

Edit: I think the effectiveness or otherwise of archers has a lot to do with unit size too.
4 units of 160 soldiers all shooting arrows is vastly more arrows than 4 units of 80 + similarly more targets, so there is more percentage chance of getting a hit & with more hits per volley, higher chance of kills.

[Hax]

my main complain is that in 1.1, alot of the archers in the east only carry like 15-20 arrows. I am not talking about the elite archers.

Carrying arrows can get quite bulky after a while, especially when you're carrying more than ten. I believe the eastern archers have at least 30+.

[General Aetius]

Archers are awesome, especially horse archers. As a HA general all you have to do is shoot all your arrows into the enemy and then hurl your heavy cavalry in and the enemy crumbles. foot archers are useful from city walls or in defencive battles when there is plenty time to finish all your arrows on the enemy.

General aetius