Palle's guide to archery.

[Macilrille]

The Song of the Bow.

This here guide is supposed to perhaps inspire, guide or help you. There are people much more well-versed in EB than I, but I still think that I might have something to contribute on the matter. Horse-Archers I know next to nothing of, so this is merely built on my experience with Romans and Germans in EB. For though the bows of the Romans has become significantly less lethal than in Vanilla, they still pack some punch and can help you greatly to win your battles if used correctly. Personally I never have an army without 2- 4 missile units in them, whether or not it is ahistoric, it is not as if the AI behaves historically. For used as described here, archers can have a disproportionate effect on the outcome of the battle for their relatively small number. An effect that does not go down by adding more and more, for Archers are no good on their own, only as Combined Arms with infantry and cavalry will they work. But then they work well!

What of the bow?
The bow was made in England:
Of true wood, of yew-wood,
The wood of English bows;
So men who are free
Love the old yew-tree
And the land where the yew-tree grows.

What of the cord?
The cord was made in England:
A rough cord, a tough cord,
A cord that bowmen love;
And so we will sing
Of the hempen string
And the land where the cord was wove.

What of the shaft?
The shaft was cut in England:
A long shaft, a strong shaft,
Barbed and trim and true;
So we'll drink all together
To the grey goose-feather
And the land where the grey goose flew.

What of the mark?
Ah, seek it not in England,
A bold mark, our old mark
Is waiting over-sea.
When the strings harp in chorus,
And the lion flag is o'er us,
It is there that our mark will be.

What of the men?
The men were bred in England:
The bowmen--the yeomen,
The lads of dale and fell.
Here's to you--and to you!
To the hearts that are true
And the land where the true hearts dwell.

That was by Arthur Conan Doyle and I heartily recommend the book it is from, “The White Company”.

Now for our use of the bow, which might make us as expert as these English bowyers were…


Archers can generally be divided in two sorts; crap archers and good archers, each has its use. Of course you want the good ones, but if you find yourself stuck with the crap ones, knowing how to best employ can still help swing the battle your way.

Crap archers are Toxotai, Skutjonez and Sotaroas, there are probably more, but as I have never played the eastern factions I am unfamiliar with their units. It seems to me that most of theirs belong in the second group, being…

Good archers: These are Medininkas, Numidian Archers, Syrian Archers (? I think), Persian and Heavy Persian archers and most of all the scary Toxotai Kretakoi. The latter is the reason I made an unhistorical early Roman invasion of Crete in my last campaigns, I wanted those Cretan Machineguns…
Again there are probably more, but these are the ones I know.

We start with the good archers and assume they are the most numerous.
Usually I line up my Toxotai Kretakoi behind my infantry, their range enables them to hit enemy missile troops before these themselves get into range and hiding behind the infantry keeps them from being ridden down or need to flee if an enemy gets too near. You can thus take off Skirmish mode and fire uninterrupted by running away and rain down volley after volley on the enemy. Medininkas are tough in melee as well, so them I often have in the front line with Skirmish mode off as well. I want to lay down uninterrupted covering fire, not spend time running about.

Now, the Vanilla advisor would repeat 100+ times that you could weaken the enemy centre with missiles and then push through with a charge. I never found or find this to work. What I do instead is to prioritise my targets, what you want to take out with archers is the low-armour-high –lethality units of your enemy. These will often be enemy archers and slingers (especially HAs) that are covered from your cavalry, or elite units with little armour such as Falxmen, Galatian Wild Men, Gallic Swordsmen and German Slagonez and Wargonez. Especially you want to target “Scare” units such as Wargonez, Gaesetai, etc (or Eles with flaming arrows, but that is so rare I will not include it here, I am long-winded enough as it is).

If none of these are around or your cavalry can ride down enemy slingers and archers with no interference from nasty pointy things, what you want to target is enemy infantry and cavalry that you can actually harm. Never waste shots on heavily armoured enemies except in the circumstances I describe below where you want to push their morale over the Breaking Threshold. Medium phalanxes and hoplites are targets, but others are better, you will form an idea by trying. I cannot recall the specific order in which I take down enemies except on the battlefield and it changes with the situation.

Low priority targets are enemy skirmishers with javelins (except if you deploy Eles yourself) and heavily armoured units. Archers, even the formidable Toxitai Kretakoi that inevitably kill between 1 and 2½ times their own number each battle I do, are not AP, shooting at heavily armoured opponents if other targets are present is a waste and should be punished accordingly by a more difficult battle. Slingers are another story, they have AP, but are still more effective against less armoured opponents.
Ideally you would flank the enemy with archers to your left so they could shoot from the non-shield side, but that is only really possible in Bridge Battles- and there you can cut down up to 30 % of the enemy force on the bridge. Instead in normal battles, you just pick your targets and lay down fire, whittling them away.

-If you attack and the enemy has few missile troops, wait till almost finished before you charge your infantry and cavalry in. If he has many missile troops, charge in ASAP and use flaming arrows on your archers from the moment the infantry impacts, as described below.

-If you defend, well… you will not get the chance to use up all ammo before contact, but fear not, your archers can still attrit an advancing enemy or his supporting missile troops. Thus still saving your infantry some blood.

Now, we assume you have fired most of your ammo and is ready to enter Phase Two of the battle, the main charge, with flanking, etc. At this point (right after contact) you pick some wavering enemy units (look for those scared by “Scare” units, attritioned badly or Exhausted) or one or more enemy units thinking that “Defeat is a Certainty”, then open up on them with flaming arrows. This will often cause them to Rout and you can shift targets, often the Routing unit’s neighbouring unit will get second thoughts of the sensibility of this battle when their friends flee and a volley of flaming arrows might be just the thing to break them and make them join their friends’ “tactical retreat”. Then you shift to the next, etc, soon the entire enemy line is routing, though often if you have done right you have run out of ammo before this happens.

Defending is the same, pick a wavering enemy unit and fire burning arrows at it.

Crap archers are employed much as “Phase Two” of good archers. Basically you shoot only 30- 50 % of their arrows before charging, if any. The trick is that Good archers can be a dangerous weapon on its own with the rest acting like support for much of the battle (a bit like US artillery in WWII), before shifting to the infantry as the main killer and the archers as support. While Bad arcjers is mainly support, for flaming arrows scare equally much whether it is a reluctant hunter dragged from his native woods to wage war with his bow or a professional Cretan with years of campaigning behind him (and a feathered bed…), firing them. So if you have Toxotai or Sotaroas or Skutjonez, charge the enemy and let flames scare their waverers.

Do this and your archer, despite being relatively few in number, will have a disproportionate effect on the outcome of the battle.

That is the long-winded, but basic guide to archery in EB. At least as I see it, there are probably refinement that others can add and I probably even use some without thinking about it, but this is what I could come up with fast between 00.10 and 01.32 Saturday night while waiting for my ferret to burn off energy so I can sleep…

[Cambyses]

Nice guide - especially re target selection, but you did miss one point, archers are MUCH more effective if they stand on a hill. Especially in a fight against an opponent's own missile troops. Conversely they are almost entirely useless when shooting uphill, so dont even bother doing so, unless they are are meant to only function as a screen.

A good general will also have a lot of thought as to when skirmish mode is appropriate or not. Especially bearing in mind:

1. Running away from charging enemy cavalry turns them into pursuing cavalry, which have no charge bonus when combat is joined.
2. Drawing an important cavalry unit away to its isolated death only works if your executioner troops (esp heavy spearmen) can actually reach the fight without getting drawn a long way out of position themselves.
3. You probably dont want to find your archers in a toe to toe fight with enemy infantry. Even when they have run out of arrows. Shooting, distantly followed by rear and flank charges is what they do best.
4. Moving around near enemy troops with skirmish mode activated is a real pain in the ****. And is especially annoying in seige battles.

You mentioned horse archers. Effective use of them is a whole different thread really. But the main thing is again height advantage and making sure you are always shooting at an unprotected part of your opponent. As such they need to be moving around a lot, which conveniently also makes them much harder to shoot.

Im not too sure on the historical realism of large scale fire arrows by the way. But someone more expert tham me will need to comment on that...

[Macilrille]

Thanks, yes hills makes a difference. It is such a basic thing that I forgot to include it

1 and 2 I do not do, it will interrupt my covering the enemy with arrows. I make a point of shooting him to bits with no interruprion of volleys. Not running around. That being said, enemy cav will often attack anyway and run into my infantry in front of the archers.

Medininkas can go toe-to-toe with all but heavy infantry, but it is best to avoid it until they have shot all they have. Edited to add that what I do is to have every third unit in the Inf line a Medininka, so they can shoot max range and still be covered, when I do not keep them behind the line, it varies from battle to battle.

I keep my archers in their place in the formation, so they are covered by infantry and I rarely have Skirmish mode on then. As I said I want nothing to interrupt my "machineguns".

Flaming arrows are IMO highly unrealistically effective in scaryness, it is as if you are shooting small canisters of white phosperous, not flaming sticks, at the enemy. While the reality is that it is but a flaming stick and its most effective use is to set thatched buildings or dry grass on fire, neither of which it can do in RTW/EB.

Thanks for the input.

[antisocialmunky]

Its pretty much like that except you should save arrows for shock cavalry asm ost of them have no shields and go down pretty quick.

[Cute Wolf]

Personally, I still think most "crap" archers (sotaroas, skutjans, toxotai) are more useful than slingers in one condition:
-> When you can't get any of them... (slingers are still better for the low - end result, they has AP, more ammo, and fire faster than most, but if available, nomadic / archer spearmen / high end archers are also good, but that's because their secondary use...)

Btw, there was no longbowmen in EB... and they can't use sharpened stakes too...

[Macilrille]

ASM says

Its pretty much like that except you should save arrows for shock cavalry asm ost of them have no shields and go down pretty quick.

That is not my experience, most shock cavalry I face have heavy armour (Catas and Comp Cav), and as arrows are not AP, I save my arrows for priority targets.

[Tabeia]

Hmm, archers are nice. But I think it gets too easy to defeat the AI using them, so I only use archers against enemy horsearchers or elephants.Or if I really want to destroy the AI quickly.
I have a historical question although, what kind of bows did the Cretans use?
I mean, they're just as effective as the eastern archers who use composite bows.Did they have composite bows too? Long Bows? Or they were just good at shooting?

[athanaric]

Good guide.

The latter is the reason I made an unhistorical early Roman invasion of Crete in my last campaigns, I wanted those Cretan Machineguns…

I see we are of one mind I invade Krete early on with almost any faction, especially the Romans (even Suebi, though later of course).


Some additions:

When defending a city from stone walls, archers are much more effective than usually. Archers on a stone wall can even decimate phalanxes from an awkward angle or heavily armoured units.
If your archers are standing on a wall, put guard mode "on" to prevent them from running after targets.
This way, you can customize your targeting. I recommend targeting any infantry that is dangerous on walls first, like axemen or specialized assault infantry. Siege/sally guides are a chapter of their own, though.


For "Eastern" Archers:

Apart from the obvious choices, there are some interesting cases:

Ethiopians are one of my favourites. Their range (179) is hardly above average, and they are unarmoured. Still they have decent shields, very good stamina and AP clubs to boot. Very versatile.

Saka Foot Archers with their superior range (209) should not go unmentioned. Put on stone walls, they are your resident machinegun corps.

Sabaean Archers are, for their price, relatively mediocre. They have nice big shield though.

I mean, they're just as effective as the eastern archers who use composite bows.Did they have composite bows too? Long Bows? Or they were just good at shooting?

A legitimate question, which I want to ask as well. IIRC there was a discussion of this topic somewhere on these fora, and hopefully a team member or a historian can answer this...

[WarpGhost]

I'd like to make some additions to your guide; not based on how to use them, but rather a more detailed run-down of archers, as I have more experience with the various types. I also heavily favour archers over slingers, because I tend to find them more reliable and flexible than slingers.

Rather than looking at archers as weak and strong, I look at archers with regards to their role capabilities first, rather than their raw archery potential. Then I start weighing up their relative quality, but generally speaking, Im of the school of thought that an archer is an archer regardless of their relative archery skill, and can be made to work by methods such as you pointed out.

I look at archers as light and heavy (I will also cover Slingers out of a sense of completeness). I dont cover horse archers, as they are a different ballgame, and I dont have the experience with them.

Light Archers are archery units that have little protection, mainly from armour/shield and to a lesser extent defence skill, and limited melee weapons. This may not seem an important trait, but it defines two additional capabilities: archery duelling capability and tactical flexibility. Light Archers are the sort of troops that are vulnerable to enemy missile fire, and have limited flexibility in terms of utility beyond simply shooting the enemy. They need to be kept behind your lines (both to shield from missiles and melee raids); for this, they are highly cost-effective and perfectly capable (some more than others). But this is the ideal situation, and on the battlefield, conditions are rarely ideal. There are always situations when they will need to operate beyond cover or to support your troops without missile fire (flanking, or countering enemy flanking, or simply adding their weight to a fight). In this, Light Archers are weak.
Now dont get me wrong, some are actually quite capable melee fighters, and/or have longer range than targets they are going to bombard, but they are liable to suffer heavy losses if seriously engaged, so need to be sheperded carefully and only committed under already favourable circumstances. This doesnt make them cost-effective or indeed necassarily very effective period, and this places a heavier burden on your other troops. Troops that are already liable to be under a heavier than normal strain if you need archers for these extra jobs!
Here's a brief run-down of the Light Archers available; its roughly in order of (IMO) effectiveness, but more a guideline than set in stone, because you're only ever going to have a more limited choice than presented here and against variable opponents:

Indians/Numidians/Ethiopians (excellent shooting, morale, and their armour-piercing weapons make them lethal in melee, but still fragile), Caucasians (awful melee, but the best pure archers in the game), Arabian Archer-Spearmen (excellent shots and come with spears, which un-modded are better than most swords due to possible EB team oversight), Saka/Scythian/Saka/Mardian/Subeshi (all steppe archers are excellent shots with the longest range, and come with swords rather than knives), Persian Archer-Spearmen/Baltic/Dacian (mediocre archers, with spears), Persian/Sabean (mediocre shots, with knives), Germanic/Celtic (poor archers with spears but *smaller* units too), Hellenic (poor, knife-armed and in *small* units)


Heavy Archers are archers that come with heavy-duty protection as well as their bows. They also have good morale and all have a proper melee weapon and usually a better skill with it, so they are able to stick it to the enemy properly too. They’re more costly, but essentially you’re getting an archer that has none of the weaknesses of their lighter brethren. That makes them very flexible when you need to be mobile or aggressive, and hard to beat in a missile duel without either greater numbers and/or your own Heavy Archers. If you can afford these guys, and have them available in the right area (not an issue in multiplayer, obviously), there is little reason to use lighter archers, but chances are you still wont have many units of Heavy Archers, so it is still important to use them wisely.
In order of (IMO) effectiveness, here’s a run-down of what I call Heavy Archers; bear in mind, when I say something isn’t good, its still probably better than average of their lighter counterparts:

Bosphoran (Tons of armour, lethal sword, and great shots with tons of ammo, their only weakness is relatively mediocre range), Cretans (longest range in game and best skill alongside Caucasians, sword is decent and their armour is good though slightly better on the Mercenary version), Imperial Eastern Archers (good shooting and slightly better protection/melee than Cretans), Persian Heavy (excellent shooting, but their protection/melee/morale is fairly weak, though still good), Dacian Elite (essentially Bosphorans, but with barely more armour than light archers), Syrian (2nd best protection, but weakest shooting/melee/morale in class)



Slingers aren’t really archers, but they are the comparable missile unit. They tend to sacrifice range, accuracy, and aren’t quite so good are shooting over intervening troops/terrain, but their rate of fire and armour-piercing capability. That latter capacity makes them much more dangerous than their low attack ratings suggest, as they only count half the enemy’s armour rating when they hit (though shields still work to full effect) They also all come with a shield, which makes them slightly better in a missile duel, though their armour is still generally minimal. But two things you should always bear in mind with slingers is that they all come in small units and (with two exceptions) they have poor morale, and this limits their potential especially when they start taking casualties.
Here’s a rough guide to them in order of (IMO) effectiveness:

Balearic (the best, with the most sling attack, above-average range, good morale, and an armour-piercing sword for melee), Rhodian (well armoured for slingers with excellent range, good morale/sling attack, but knives make them very poor in melee), Eastern/Hellenic (widespread, and a good sling attack makes them very effective, though knives leave them hopelessly weak in melee), Celtic/Dacian (low sling attack and minimal protection, but their swords give them a little utility in melee), Arabian/Sheperd/Numidian/Ascenii (minimal sling attack and knives for melee make them the weakest)

[athanaric]

Minor correction:

Cretans (longest range in game and best skill alongside Caucasians, sword is decent and their armour is good though slightly better on the Mercenary version)

Actually, Saka Foot Archers have the best range (and IIRC same attack as Kretans). See my post above.

[WarpGhost]

Minor correction:

Actually, Saka Foot Archers have the best range (and IIRC same attack as Kretans). See my post above.

Better range, I'll concede, by 7.4m; steppe archers are all virtually identical, and Saka/Cretans is a pretty rare matchup so I dont see the point splitting hairs. But they're still inferior in attack rating; Cretans and Caucasians are the only ones to reach the heady heights of 6.

[Macilrille]

This is exactly what we need to make more people archery experts. Thanks.

Cretans are machineguns, I love them

[Amoxcalli]

In my Baktria campaign, I've found that Saka Early Nobles are monstrous early game archers. Sure, they're not technically Archers, but they have good range (I don't know any numbers, but from my experience, it seems to be more or less the same as Persian Archers), excellent attack (being 7, which is more than most skirmishers, at many times the range), excellent armour (for early game standards, anyway) and good movement, being mounted. Sure, they're only half the number of regular archers, but the fact that they're easily twice as effective (provided you can get them into good firing position) and can be used as medium cavalry when they've run out of arrows.

For pure foot archers, I've found to Caucasian Archers to be just perfect. As Hayasdan, you can actually use them in more than a support role. A stack of 8 to 12 units of Caucasian Archers can deal with most troops the enemy throws at you (at M/M anyway). Just be sure you've got a unit or two of half-decent melee troops for emergencies.

Also, I've found cavalry to be far less a nuisance then expected (compared to vanilla RTW as well). Everything bar the most heavily armoured (namely cataphracts, but a few Bodyguard units fall into this category as well) cavalry will be easily routed by concentrated (Eastern) archery (around 6 units normally does the trick against Medium Cavalry and some heavier cavalry. As few as three will do against Light Cavalry).

Lastly, I have bad experience with Slingers. How do they work? They always seem to kill themselves. I've maintained two units of Eastern Slingers in an army sent to conquer the Persepolis valley. They have never seen combat, nor endured enemy missile weapons, yet they're both at half strength, after only three battles? I mean, sure, one or two casualties due to careless shooting, sure, but more than 40? It doesn't make any sense.

Just my two cents.

[Tabeia]

This never happened to me using slingers, they seem to be pretty effective, on the contrary.

About horse-archers, they're like archers but 10 times as effective.They don't need support as they can run away from melee, they can flank the enemy and thus bypass the shield defense and they're pretty decent at melee(not the lighter ones, but the bodyguards, but the lighter ones can chase down routing enemies)
It's not even funny using them against the AI, but it's pretty interesting to face some horse-archers without your own HA's.I personnaly like to kill them using siege engines, hiding in a forest and them ambushing them or sending some unit as bait, and encircling them.
I've read that Alexander the great used this tactic against them in the Battle of the Jaxartes(Read it at livius) and it worked.



About the cretans bows I hope some EB member with better history knowledge than me can solve this question. But I will search the forum a bit to see if it's already covered.No luck using google.

[WinsingtonIII]

I think there should be three types of archers not two.

First off, I would keep the crappy archers distinction, these being, obviously, any bad archers, such as Toxotai.

The second category is good, but light, archers. I'm just going to call them good archers because that does not reflect on their melee capabilities. These are the Saka foot archers, the Caucasians, and others like them that are superb ranged archers, but are poor in melee.

The final category is heavy archers. These are the Cretans, the Syrians, the Bosphorans, the Heavy Persians, etc. They are generally good archers at range (although they may not be as good at the "good archers" are) but they also wear armor/carry a good secondary, and are good in melee.

As you can see, I've sort of just combined Macilrille's idea with some later ideas on the board. I do this because I think there really are these three types. Sure, the "crappy archers" are light and poor in melee, but they are also bad at range as well, so to lump them with the good at range archers doesn't make sense. The "good archers" will rain death upon your foes, but they will be devastated in melee, so placing Saka foot archers in the same category as Syrians doesn't make sense from a battlefield role perspective. The "heavy archers" are defined by their melee capabilities, and although most of them are very good at range as well, they may be outranged by the weak in melee Saka foot archers or some of the other "good archers."

Additionally, there are some specific units that I would say overlap the boundaries of multiple categories. Archer-spearmen are often only mediocre archers at range (with the exception of the elite Baltic ones, Medininkas I believe they are called), and I may even place them in the "crappy archer" category, but they also have decent melee capabilities, though, again, they are not particularly great in melee. Maybe there should be an additional category for archer-spearmen, as they fulfill a very specific battlefield of being decent in melee against cavalry and decent archers at range. A jack-of-all trades, but master of none, so to speak.

I have to go to class now, but when I get back I'll post what I believe the proper battlefield usage is for each type of archer. Also, quick question, does anyone think I should add a fourth, "archer-spearmen" category to reflect their unique nature, or just lump them into one of the three?

[Macilrille]

I have asked on H-War, but judging from the skins/animations ingame, they use composite bows like easterners.

I would class Archer-Spearmen with Heavy Archers, but that is probably because I have only met the elite Baltiv variant; the Medininkas, and as Sweboz you got to love those...

[Amoxcalli]

@WinsingtonIII

Yes, I think you should make a separate category for Archer-Spearmen. From a Baktrian perspective, I feel Heavy Persian Archers are completely different from Persian Archer-Spearmen on the battlefield. I'd say the former are best used as Archers primarily, and should only see combat when absolutely necessary, while the latter are quite useful as flanking wings.

[athanaric]

Amoxcalli:

Saka Early Nobles have 6 attack and 201 m range. This is the best value for HAs and they are only equalled by Yuezhi Early Nobles and the Saka Early Bodyguard (Spatahaura Hadabara). The downside of this is that they carry only 30 arrows, unlike other HAs who carry 40.


WinsingtonIII:

Personally, I would group Medjinikos and Arabian Archer-Spearmen with "good archers", and classify those as "mostly poor/unimpressive in melee" , because the two aforementioned cases are quite good vs certain enemies (i.e. HAs, skirmisher cavalry; the Arab Archer-Spearmen are the perfect counter for the Bedouin light cavalry).

[WinsingtonIII]

So, I spent most of my classes today thinking about this, and I think I'm just going to write a little guide of my own, if that's OK with you Macilrille (a decent amount of information will probably overlap with yours, my main difference is in the distinctions I give different archer types and how that determines their battlefield role).

And so, without further ado, I present:

Winsington III's EB Archery Guide

Now I don't claim to be a particular expert on archers in EB, but I think I've got a solid enough base to lay down some basic distinctions and pointers here. If anyone has any comments or criticisms, I am totally open to them.

The basic format I'm going to use here is to list what I consider to be the four types of archers in EB and talk about the battlefield role for each. Keep in mind that these are "ideal types" in that each individual archer unit may overlap into multiple categories.

Types and Usages

I break the archers in EB into four categories, being as follows:

A. Bad Archers

The name says it all, "bad archers" are bad. They are not particularly good archers at range, and they are even worse in melee. They also have poor morale, and some of them even have inexcusably small unit numbers. The only upside to these guys is that they're cheap and are produced in fairly low MICs, generally. Examples include: Toxotai (Hellenic Archers) and Sotaraos (Celtic Archers).

Battlefield Role

The only real use for these guys is in the role of cannon-fodder or possibly as very bad ranged support if you are really desperate. Their main use, as stated, is soaking up enemy missile fire, because frankly, you could care less if these guys bite it. For this purpose, place the "bad archers" in loose formation in front of your main line. You're trying to make the enemy waste missiles without hurting your main infantry, so you have to put them in front of your main line, otherwise the enemy will just shoot your main infantry line. The loose formation is to make them last longer under fire, because that's the whole point of them anyways. That being said, I would personally turn off skirmish mode, although it's not essential. By turning off skirmish mode, you get more control over your units, and you can also try the interesting tactic of letting the enemy charge into your loose formation "bad archers." Yes, your archers will be devastated, but remember, these guys are cheap. The benefit of this strategy is that it makes the enemy waste their charge and allows you to exploit them with a counter-charge. The major risk you are running here is the morale penalty that will occur if your "bad archers" route, which is very possible.

If you choose not to absorb the charge with them, merely pull them back behind your line and have them fire at the most vulnerable enemies. They may not accomplish much, but their main purpose of dying under enemy missile fire has already been accomplished.

In regards to targeting, these guys are bad, so targeting and selecting who they fire upon (more on this later) is not essential, you could leave on fire at will if you're lazy. I would still recommend targeting, however, as you might as well get the biggest bang for your terrible archer buck.

Due to their bad morale and melee skills, using "bad archers" to flank or plug gaps in the line should only be considered under dire circumstances. They will die/rout quickly and kill few enemies.

A Note on Slingers:

I often prefer to use slingers instead of "bad archers" to fulfill the role of cannon fodder. They are also very cheap and widely recruitable, and they have the advantage of having more ammunition, and its armor-piercing. Use them in the same way as "bad archers" to soak up missile fire, but remember that you can target armored units with them and expect some results, which gives them a big advantage over "bad archers."

B. Good Archers

"Good archers" are light archers that are not armored or good in melee, but they are exceptional ranged units that can cause vast casualties with their arrows. The steppe foot archers with the longest range in the game are included in this category. Examples include: Payai Dunai (Saka Foot Archers), Kasatim Numidim (Numidian Archers), and Kovkasi Lernain Netadzik (Caucasian Archers).

Battlefield Role

Since the primary strength of these units is in their ranged weapons, you should not be wasting them by throwing them into melee (where they will generally fare poorly), or using them as cannon-fodder. Deploy "good archers" behind your main infantry line, with skirmish mode and fire at will off, and in tight formation. You don't want to needlessly lose these guys to cavalry, so protect them behind your infantry. Skirmish mode will just make your life difficult and prevent your archers from laying down constant fire, and fire at will will waste arrows on phalanxes.

As mentioned, you want "good archers" to be firing constant volleys at vulnerable enemy units. Do NOT waste their arrows on heavily armored units such as phalanxes, most "civilized" heavy infantry and some heavy cavalry (including bodyguards). On the other hand, do not waste arrows on weak/useless units that are not a threat, such as skirmishers, bad archers, or Pantodapoi. Ideally, you want to target dangerous units that wear little/no armor, such as Gaesatae, Drapanai, and other "barbarian" shock infantry (especially if they are "scary"), light cavalry, some medium cavalry (both of which are dangerous primarily due to maneuverability), and some medium and light infantry (if they aren't too armored). Caucasian archers have a particularly high attack and may be able to take down more heavily armored units, and with a few chevrons, any of the "good archers" can start to be used more effectively against armored units, but this still isn't their strong suit.

Usually, it is best to simply keep "good archers" behind your infantry line for most of if not the entire battle to protect them from melee attack. Ideally, you want to place them on higher ground than your infantry line so that they can shoot over and into the enemy line without killing too many of your infantry. If you have the situation under control, you can send "good archers" out around the enemy's right flank and rear (where their shields are negated), and fire from there. But remember, for the most part these guys are bad in melee, so using them to plug gaps or flank isn't really worth it in all but the most necessary situations.

C. Heavy Archers

"Heavy archers" wear armor and carry a good secondary melee weapon (usually a sword) with which they are skilled. They also may carry a shield. Generally, "heavy archers" are also "good archers" in that they are quite effective with their bows as well, and remember, since they are archers, their primary usage should still be as archers, not as melee troops. They are also generally more expensive than any of the other archer types, but may make up for it with tactical flexibility. Examples include: Thureopherontes Toxotai (Bosphoran Heavy Archers), Thanvare Parsig (Heavy Persian Archers), and Toxotai Kretikoi (Cretan Archers).

Battlefield Role

Although "heavy archers" can handle themselves in melee, throwing them into such situations should not be a priority. Deploy "heavy archers" in the same fashion as "good archers," behind the infantry line, with skirmish mode and fire at will off, and in tight formation.

For the most part, use "heavy archers" the same as you would "good archers," targeting dangerous but vulnerable troops and remaining behind the infantry line. However, the much greater melee capabilities of "heavy archers" means that if you see a gap open in your line and you do not have proper infantry to plug it, you should not be afraid to throw the archers into melee, as they will fair decently and actually kill enemies. Additionally, "heavy archers" can be useful as melee flankers once they run out of arrows, particularly those such as the Dacian Elite Archers that carry high lethality longswords. That being said, you should still bring reserve infantry and flanking infantry with you, and not rely solely on "heavy archers" for these roles, as even these archers will generally not perform as admirably as dedicated infantry. They merely give you much more tactical flexibility in difficult situations.

The main advantage of most "heavy archers" over "good archers" is their increased versatility due to their melee abilities. In some cases the extra cost incurred by "heavy archers" may be worth it, when it is less expensive to use a "heavy archer" until to fulfill the role of a "good archer" and a reserve infantry unit than it is to buy/maintain one of each unit type. However, it is often more effective to buy a "good archer" and a reserve infantry unit separately, if you have the money. Cretan Archers and other "heavy archers" that are exceptionally good at range are the exception to this rule, but they are still going to cost you much more than a "good archer" will, and if all you are doing is using them as a "good archer" and not taking advantage of their melee abilities, this may be wasteful (again, Cretans are excepted from this because they are supremely good). I guess what I am trying to say here is that I am going to pick Caucasian Archers over Heavy Persian Archers any day, and with the money I save I can buy a reserve infantry unit to plug gaps in the line.

D. Archer-Spearmen

"Archer-spearmen," as suggested by the name, carry spears in conjunction with their bows. This gives them a particular advantage against cavalry in melee that no other archers enjoy. These troops are also generally decent archers at range, and some could be classified as "good archers" as well. Unlike "heavy archers," these troops do not wear armor, and as such are not as good in prolonged melees versus infantry. Examples include: Medininkas (Baltic Archers), Nizagan-i Eranshahr (Persian Archer-Spearmen), and Giusim Aravim Tsfonim (Arabian Light Archer-Spearmen).

Battlefield Role

"Archer-spearmen" offer multiple tactical opportunities to employ. Therefore, I have a couple different strategies with them.

I will sometimes employ archer-spearmen in front of the infantry line, in tight formation, with both skirmish mode and fire at will off. This is particularly useful if the enemy holds a cavalry advantage over you, although it can be used in other situations as well. As before, target dangerous and vulnerable units, but let the enemy charge into your archer-spearmen, ideally with their cavalry, as their spears will kill horsemen easily. Then counter-charge with your infantry line, allowing your archer-spearmen to pull out of melee and resume firing. Later in the battle, your archer-spearmen can be used to flank or plug gaps in the line, but again, only if you do not have dedicated infantry more suited for the job.

A variation on the first tactic is to employ the archer-spearmen on the flanks, again with tight formation and skirmish mode and fire at will off. This works best when the enemy has light and medium cavalry that you don't want to be bothered by. Pick off the cavalry at range, and then let them charge into and die on the spears of your archer-spearmen on the flanks. Send support units once melee is engaged if necessary.

Finally, archer-spearmen can be deployed in a similar manner to "heavy archers" or "good archers" and used similarly. See above for details. It should be noted that they generally won't perform as well in melee against infantry as "heavy archers," but will be better against cavalry.

The cheaper nature of archer-spearmen as compared to "heavy archers" means that they are a very sound choice for an early-game Baktria or Saba, as you're poor and need versatile troops that can perform multiple battlefield roles, and these guys can do it.

Conclusion

Remember when reading this that some archers will fit multiple descriptions, for example, pretty much every "heavy archer" is a "good archer," but not vice versa. I hope I gave a decent description here, I am so sorry that it is so so so so long. I was not expecting that. Also, I don't really like fire arrows, so as you notice I didn't talk about them. Since I don't use them I don't think I can give advice about how to use them. Well, I hope you enjoyed and if you have any comments or criticisms, let me know.

[WarpGhost]

Lastly, I have bad experience with Slingers. How do they work? They always seem to kill themselves. I've maintained two units of Eastern Slingers in an army sent to conquer the Persepolis valley. They have never seen combat, nor endured enemy missile weapons, yet they're both at half strength, after only three battles? I mean, sure, one or two casualties due to careless shooting, sure, but more than 40? It doesn't make any sense.

Slingers are more prone to friendly fire in my (admittedly limited) experience, as they need to be spread apart both for more elbow room to actually release their shots and so they dont put a slug in their neighbours neck (they fire on a lower arc). I dont have much experience with them, but I have found them to be more finnicky with things like that.

As you can see, I've sort of just combined Macilrille's idea with some later ideas on the board. I do this because I think there really are these three types. Sure, the "crappy archers" are light and poor in melee, but they are also bad at range as well, so to lump them with the good at range archers doesn't make sense. The "good archers" will rain death upon your foes, but they will be devastated in melee, so placing Saka foot archers in the same category as Syrians doesn't make sense from a battlefield role perspective. The "heavy archers" are defined by their melee capabilities, and although most of them are very good at range as well, they may be outranged by the weak in melee Saka foot archers or some of the other "good archers."

Well, I disagree on the splitting 'crappy/good' archers because I think all archers can be made useful, and because part of that is recognising what situations they do and dont work. Just as significantly, due to EB recruitment systems, you may not have much/any access to 'good' archers, so light/heavy remains most relevant. Which are best can be judged certainly, but it isnt entirely relevant it cant be an absolute judgement (I personally dont use Hellenic Archers if I can avoid them, but I dont necassarily have the choice).

Additionally, there are some specific units that I would say overlap the boundaries of multiple categories. Archer-spearmen are often only mediocre archers at range (with the exception of the elite Baltic ones, Medininkas I believe they are called), and I may even place them in the "crappy archer" category, but they also have decent melee capabilities, though, again, they are not particularly great in melee. Maybe there should be an additional category for archer-spearmen, as they fulfill a very specific battlefield of being decent in melee against cavalry and decent archers at range. A jack-of-all trades, but master of none, so to speak.

Not quite true on their shooting potential; Arabian Archer-Spearmen are actually excellent shooters as well as the spearman capability, its why I rated them so highly. But I dont believe archer-spearmen deserve a seperate catagory, because they're still in essence the same as poorly protected archers with maces and swords.

I would class Archer-Spearmen with Heavy Archers, but that is probably because I have only met the elite Baltiv variant; the Medininkas, and as Sweboz you got to love those...

I actually missed out Frontiersman, but I would still rate them light (and inferior to Arabians because theyre still only pretty average shooters). Their melee potential is greater than most light archers, but they're still poorly protected (especially at range), and their morale whilst the best of the lights, is also IMO the least important of the 4 criteria (shooting/protection/melee/morale).

EDIT: Wisington posted his last whilst I was writing mine, havent had a chance to read and respond to it yet.

[WinsingtonIII]

Well, I disagree on the splitting 'crappy/good' archers because I think all archers can be made useful, and because part of that is recognising what situations they do and dont work. Just as significantly, due to EB recruitment systems, you may not have much/any access to 'good' archers, so light/heavy remains most relevant. Which are best can be judged certainly, but it isnt entirely relevant it cant be an absolute judgement (I personally dont use Hellenic Archers if I can avoid them, but I dont necassarily have the choice).

I agree with what you're saying in that bad archers can still kill poorly armored units, but they cannot do it with the effectiveness of good archers, mainly because they have less range, but also because they may have lower attack values. Saka Foot Archers really are better at range than Toxotai because they have much greater range and greater attack. So even if you use both of them effectively and target the correct units, the Saka are going to perform better. Realistically I put ONLY Toxotai and Satoraos in the bad archer category (and maybe the German archers, but I don't recall if they have spears), because they are truly terrible. The middle of the range light archers such as the unarmored persians are part of the good archer category, even though they are not great. It's not absolute, it's just that the very lowest of the low get put in the bad archer category. The geography is of course a huge deal from a campaign perspective. In Western Europe, all you're going to have access to is bad archers, and I guess in that context you could use them in fashion of good archers, but don't expect much. I would pick slingers instead. Put them in loose formation and it significantly cuts down on friendly-fire.

The distinction I make between archer-spearmen and all other archers is that they can handle light and medium cavalry well. Numidian Archers with their clubs aren't going to do so well against cavalry. That's what distinguishes archer-spearmen from the other light archers, even those light archers that carry a decent secondary. And as you'll read in my (ridiculously long, sorry about that) post, these types I put forward do not have firm boundaries. An archer can be an archer spearmen and a good archer, or not.

[WarpGhost]

Dont apologise for the long post; it shows how much you thought about the issue.

I find loose formation can actually be quite good at helping crappy units absorb a charge, because the gaps and enemy tight formation minimise the charge attacks they make.

The distinction I make between archer-spearmen and all other archers is that they can handle light and medium cavalry well. Numidian Archers with their clubs aren't going to do so well against cavalry. That's what distinguishes archer-spearmen from the other light archers, even those light archers that carry a decent secondary.

I actually did a quick little test, facing Numidians and Arabians against Germanic Light and Cappadocian Medium cavalry, and found the Numidians to actually be better than the Arabians (the Arabians couldnt beat the mediums where the Numidians did, though that may have been due to general kills against the Arabs). Obviously, this superiority only applies to Indian/Ethiopian/Numidian archers, but nonetheless I still am not moved to seperate out archer-spearmen in my own estimation.

Also, 'bad archers' do not have inferior morale to most 'good archers' (both mostly have 8-9/low); the main problem there is the smaller unit size. But I dont dispute that they're pretty crappy either way.

[Macilrille]

/me is happy, others will read our thread, digest and learn from it and become better players. This is what it is all about :-)

[WinsingtonIII]

I find loose formation can actually be quite good at helping crappy units absorb a charge, because the gaps and enemy tight formation minimise the charge attacks they make.

Oh yeah, I totally agree, that's why I suggested using bad archers that way. You break up their charge, the enemy line loses cohesion, and you get the benefit of a counter-charge. Plus, a smaller number of the men in that unit get hit by the charge. Realistically you can use any cheap, widely available unit in this role, such as bad archers, slingers, cheap skirmishers like Akontistai or Jugunthiz, or even levy spear units, although I would stick to missile troops so that they can shower the enemy with fire before they charge into you. I find this tactic works especially well with "barbarian" factions because the main strength of your infantry is in their charge and they tend to carry secondary javelins. This means that the enemy not only wastes their charge, they are getting peppered with javelins as they do it, and your troops get the benefit of their good charge. With some "scary" infantry involved, this can be enough to cause a quick rout. Obviously you shouldn't use this against phalanx based armies, as charging headlong into sarissas is not the best idea, it's better to let the phalanxes come to your units and leave them in guard mode. This is getting a little off-topic though.

I actually did a quick little test, facing Numidians and Arabians against Germanic Light and Cappadocian Medium cavalry, and found the Numidians to actually be better than the Arabians (the Arabians couldnt beat the mediums where the Numidians did, though that may have been due to general kills against the Arabs). Obviously, this superiority only applies to Indian/Ethiopian/Numidian archers, but nonetheless I still am not moved to seperate out archer-spearmen in my own estimation.

Interesting. I didn't have enough time to do any tests, so I'm glad that you did. I was merely going by my campaign experiences, but obviously I guess I never had an army in which I could compare Numidians and Arabians side by side, and I assumed that the spear would be better against cavalry. The Numidians advantage against the Cappadocians may be due to the fact that Cappadocians are a fairly heavily armored medium cavalry (if I remember correctly, I'm not on my computer that has the unit list on it right now and I can't find the unit list that was reloaded on the forum recently, despite my searching for it), and their mace is armor-piercing while the spear is not. I remember one battle I had as Saba against the Ptolies where my Arabian archer-spearmen absolutely saved me from the enemy Prodomoi (I had essentially no cavalry), they held them at bay from the rear of my line, enduring multiple charges, and then picked them off at range rather effectively. Of course, maybe Numidians would have done just as good of a job. Also, I did mention that your archer-spearmen shouldn't be taking on cavalry one-on-one ideally, if you flank the cavalry with another unit that's preferable. This test does raise questions about the archer-spearmen category but I still feel like there should be a distinction between light archers that have essentially no melee abilities and light archers that fair decently (if not well) in melee, such as archer-spearmen and Indians, Ethiopians, and Numidians. Because while my Arabian archer-spearmen held Prodomoi at bay and saved the battle for me, I sincerely doubt light Persian archers could, despite being decent archers.

Also, 'bad archers' do not have inferior morale to most 'good archers' (both mostly have 8-9/low); the main problem there is the smaller unit size. But I dont dispute that they're pretty crappy either way.

Sorry I didn't look this up I merely assumed. But anyways, my main distinction between bad and good archers was, as you said, unit size, but also range and to a lesser extent attack.

/me is happy, others will read our thread, digest and learn from it and become better players. This is what it is all about :-)

Me too! This has been a useful and interesting thread. I'd like to hear what you or anybody else thinks about the basic tactics I put forward in my absurdly long post. Improvements or individual/situational strategies would be welcome.

[Teucer]

Just read through this guide... good stuff. It would be pretty sweet if someone wanted to compile a chart showing the ranges of each unit, but I suppose I can always go look it up myself.

One question I have (and pardon me if it was answered and I missed it) regards the Sardinian/Nuragic archers. Has anyone had much success with these guys. I think I remember them being a bit longer range than other 'western' types, but I could be wrong. Do they work well as wall defenders, or is their range too short for use in sallies?

[athanaric]

Just read through this guide... good stuff. It would be pretty sweet if someone wanted to compile a chart showing the ranges of each unit, but I suppose I can always go look it up myself.

Found one, courtesy of bobbin (slightly edited by me):

Archers:
Saka Foot Archers 209m, 25 arrows, 5 attack <---They have the longest range in the game.
Toxotai Kretikoi 201.6m, 35 arrows, 6 attack
Paya Hinam Dunai Purma (Subeshi Archers) 198m, 35 arrows, 5 attack
Mardian Foot Archers 198m, 35 arrows, 5 attack
Levantine Saggitarius Auxilia 198m 35 arrows, 5 attack
Sarmatian Foot Archers 198m, 35 arrows, 5 attack
Skuda Fistaeg Fat Aexsdzhytae 198m, 35 arrows, 5 attack
Thanvare Pârsig (Elamite Archers) 198m, 35 arrows, 5 attack
Giusim Aravim Tsfonim 196m, 25 arrow, 5 attack
Syrian Archers 192.5m, 25 arrows, 4 attack
Thanvare Payahdag, 192.5m, 25 arrows, 4 attack
Medininkas 187m, 25 arrows, 4 attack
Thureopherontes Toxotai 180m, 35 arrows. 5 attack 
Caucasian Archers, 180m, 28 arrows, 6 attack
Komatai Agrianai 179.5m, 25 arrows, 5 attack
Ethiopian Archers 179.2m, 25 arrows, 5 attack
Nizagân-î Erânshahr 175m, 25 arrows, 4 attack
Numidian Archers 170m, 20 arrows, 5 attack
Indian Longbowmen 170m, 16 arrows, 5 attack
Sabean Archers 170m, 25 arrows, 4 attack
Komatai Toxotai 160.2m, 15 arrows, 4 attack
Lankininkas 160m, 15 arrows, 4 attack
Nuraghi 157.3m, 15 arrows, 3 attack
Skudjonez 143m, 15 arrows, 4 attack
Sotaroas 143m, 15 arrows, 3 attack
Toxotai 143m, 15 arrows, 3 attack

Slingers:
Rhodian Slingers 195m, 30 bullets, 2 attack
Shubân-î Fradâkhshânâ, 185m, 30 bullets, 2 attack
Sphendonetai 185m, 30 bullets, 2 attack
Balearic Slinger 175m, 20 bullets, 3 attack
African Slingers 162.8m, 25 bullets, 1 attack
Arab Slingers 162.8m, 25 bullets, 1 attack
Iaosatae, 162m, 35 bullets, 1 attack
Komatai Sphendonitai 148m, 25 bullets, 1 attack
Iberian Slingers 148m, 25 bullets, 1 attack
Accensi 133.2m, 25 bullets, 1 attack

One question I have (and pardon me if it was answered and I missed it) regards the Sardinian/Nuragic archers. Has anyone had much success with these guys. I think I remember them being a bit longer range than other 'western' types, but I could be wrong. Do they work well as wall defenders, or is their range too short for use in sallies?

Only archer-spearmen with shields, and yes, their range is better than that of other Western European archers, their morale is not though. Make good garrison troops due to low price and high versatility.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Weird, when i changed the range of Cretan Archers in Vanilla then I had an error which said that 190 is the maximum range for arrows.
So, how come Saka archers can have the range over 200m?

[athanaric]

Dunno, but other mods have higher ranges, too. FATW has up to 225 m for Elven Archers. Perhaps you can ask Aradan, who's a team member of that mod (and of EB).

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Would the exe make a difference? BI allowing loger ranges?

[vartan]

/me is happy, others will read our thread, digest and learn from it and become better players. This is what it is all about :-)

Just read it. Very happy.