Question on Achers

[Yeos]

In my Romani campaign, I am expanding into Greek territory. So far, I only know that Kreten archer is a very good archer (hired them and just couldn't let it go) and Toxotai (or whatever you call them) are crappy archer simply because I used them once.

Now, my question is how to judge whether an archer is good archer or just crappy? Do you see the stat or do you just have to used them to know it good?

[gamegeek2]

Stats are often good for judging, but yes you should really play around with them before you judge.

[vartan]

I would be highly suspicious of anybody calling an archer "good" or "bad". Archer units should be compared using their melee stats, ranged stats, and other attributes. Some archers are better than others in melee, while some are better in range. Some are more armoured. Some are higher in morale and discipline. Some have spears. Some knives. Some shortswords. Some longswords. Sure, archers are usually going to fight ranged and not in melee, but just reminding y'all that no single factor can justify such human constructs as "good" and "bad". If you state where you are fighting and who you are fighting, you can easily be given a list of several optimal choices of archer for your specific situation by any competent member/player here.

[Yeos]

I would be highly suspicious of anybody calling an archer "good" or "bad". Archer units should be compared using their melee stats, ranged stats, and other attributes. Some archers are better than others in melee, while some are better in range. Some are more armoured. Some are higher in morale and discipline. Some have spears. Some knives. Some shortswords. Some longswords. Sure, archers are usually going to fight ranged and not in melee, but just reminding y'all that no single factor can justify such human constructs as "good" and "bad". If you state where you are fighting and who you are fighting, you can easily be given a list of several optimal choices of archer for your specific situation by any competent member/player here.

Oh....Ok, lesson learn..... nvr judge an unit by "good" or "bad"....... ^^

Okok... now I may be going into Carthage territory (north Africa) or Gaul soon, so I was thinking of finding a replacement for my roman skirmishers (I dunno the name), something that I can "soften" the enemy before combat. I was thinking of finding another local skirmishers for replacement but then I thought maybe I replace them with a archer instead.

[Unintended BM]

On one of my Sweboz games, I used two units of Germanic Archers for the entire conquest of Gaul. They're pretty crappy, but I wasn't really facing anything better than them, so they were very good.

Generally, if you're in an area where you can hire Kretan Archers, go for them, and if you aren't, go for the locals. When you're in the east, the locals are usually much better than toxotai, so it might be worth it to make a trip over there to pick up some Caucasian or Persian archers, otherwise, just use what's availiable. Rarely do archers make or break the battle, unless you're in the east, where archers are very effective against most things except cataphracts.

Also, I think Numidian archers are pretty decent, I could be wrong though. Celtic slingers are really good, I'd suggest using them as your skirmisher of choice in Gaul. That, or hire some Kretans before you leave to fight.

[gamegeek2]

Numidian Archers are available from a lv2 native MIC and are some of the best archers the Romans have early access to.