It's important to remember wider context when considering the value of unit upgrades. The battlefield isn't isolated, nor are all battles the same. If casualties can be replaced very easily then preventing deaths is a little less important. If you're frequently outnumbered or outclassed extra accuracy can help balance the odds a fraction. Accuracy comes into play in every battle, whereas armour only counts when something is attacking the unit and there are battles where bows can be kept completely sheltered. If you make an army with many samurai archers and want them as melee backup then armour has more worth than accuracy. There's a psychological element too; some people want to minimalise their losses, others are keen to cause as many kills as they can. It's all swings and roundabouts, many situations where one or other can provide a slight edge.

[...]

Nowake, the idea behind focusing fire is twofold. Firstly it greatly increases damage against the target, even if all arrows at launched at the same time. It's very easy to get the units shooting in a staggered pattern too so waste is minimalised. Secondly, the fewer men enemy missile units have the less damage they can cause; once a unit reaches around 30% left it becomes relatively safe to ignore. Thus reducing them quickly lowers friendly casualties. My goal in a missile duel is to remove enemy units from the equation as quickly as possible, not by wasting arrows routing them but by reducing them to a minor pest. Then I've got more arrows and men to use them against the enemy infantry.

It's a common MP tactic.

Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Rhino View Post
As a general thing - does anybody know why archer units have to turn to face a new target that is within their fire arc? was this a conscious decision by CA to reduce focus fire micro? Whatever the case it is a pain in the backside!! :)
I heard that is an engine hangover from ETW/NTW. Gun units have to line up neatly to fire.