archers the weakest arm

[led pighp]

i can win w/ just massed inf, out manuever w/ just cav, but u can't win by out shooting your enemey. at some piont u have to fight or fall back. i understand combined arms is the way to go, but are archers the weakest and most costly troops to train and not battle winning in aand of themselfs? i find that archers only shine when the battle is won and i'm fighting off the reinforcements.

[BDC]

I find them good when defending on a hill, can win battles sometimes... Specially Longbowmen.

[mystic brew]

Well, first thing I always do is to take them off fire at will.

You can't win a battle based on body count alone. I'd rather break one unit of 100 than take 5 men off 10 units. Use massed volleys and you can decimate one wing before you smash it with a counter. Break off, hold fire, rinse and repeat.

Only AP archers can really win a battle in SP. Concentrate on their most powerful units, the one's that can break your lines in melee. If you cut a unit in half, you essentially disable that unit.

in bridge battles don't use massed volleys. let one unit enfilade the bridge with a direct firing line. Let them fire at will, cutting down the troops until all arrows are gone, then rotate another unit into position.

In SP the archers single greatest attribute is to kill a limited number with virtually no loss to themselves. If your defensive line is solid enough, as the enemy probes for weak points, you can seriously weaken the enemy before contact is ever made. and then you can chase down the exhausted enemy forces when they break.

[Dhepee]

The trick with archers, though, if you are on the offense is to get close enough to use them well. I usually break them off into a seperate unit, and then as my foot and cav are engaging I let them fire massed volleys into the general's unit to try and bring him down, or at least weaken the unit to the point where my hand-to-hand units can take him out.
The problem with them on offense, and the reason I don't use them much, is that it is hard not to take friendly fire casualties.

[Revenant69]

Dont forget one thing taht archers are good for (besides killing from far away). If they cause enough casualties with their arrows, say they take down a unit to 50% of its strength, they will essentially inflict a morale penalty on that unit. I cant remember what the morale penalty for Worried by too many casualties is but the important thing is that these morale penalties add up to a rout (eventually).

Arquebusiers are the epitome of this. They dont do much damage but their morale penalty on the enemy is devastating. Dont always judge units on how much damage they can do, judge them on how much of a morale penalty they can inflict on the enemy.

In this respect spanish jinettes are wicked, their volleys will take the unit down to 50% in no time and if you have 3 jinettes converging from 3 sides on that unit - INSTA ROUT. I have done this to CMAA and other nasty Catholic stuff.

[ChErNoByl]

In mp, it usually just is mine + the enemy archers shooting at eachother. We keep shooting until our cavalry finally make contact with eachother and we send the rest of the troops in. So, i find archers pretty useless except as targets for the other archers to shoot at, unless i can find a way to kill the archers without using my own archers.

[Dhepee]

I think that archers are hard to use effectively, and often seem useless, but then again that is what the French thought before Agincourt.

[mystic brew]

which is where pavises come in, Chernobyl

but in MP it does seem redundant to have many archers. Horse archers are handy, or jinettes, bu tnot much else.

[ChaosLord]

Archers are most useful when on the defense. Especially if you're facing a large force. Reinforcements after you rout the main army can be scared off with just a volley. This way your melee troops have a chance to rest as well. Archers are also needed to deal with pesky horse archers, they can't win a battle versus archers.

On offense the only real use I would say would be luring the enemy and dealing with HA. I especially like hyrbrid units such as Bulgarian Brigands and Futuwwas. Sure the costs are high, but you can flank with them to minimize casualties.

But I dunno, I guess it depends apon how you fight as well. I've won countless battles because of having archers, they're just too much a part of my strategy. All melee armies are dull anyway. Course, I don't play MP so i'm only talking about SP.

[ToranagaSama]

Lots of people think Archers are weak, but they're not

The thing with Archers is that in order for them to be VERY effective, you have to use them with a STRONG tactic along with GREAT technique.

As someone has already pointed out, Fire-At-Will will NOT achieve great results. Archers need to be used with Player directed Fire. This is the first thing.

Second, Archers should ALWAYS and CONSISTENTLY be firing at something, unless the Player is deliberately conserving their Arrows.

IMO, this means that Archers should be put on Hold Position; and they need to be Protected

If they are not put on Hold Position, then EVERY time an enemy unit gets within a certain distance to them they will STOP firing and attempt to Retreat to a safe position where they will try to start firing again (given they are set to Fire-At-Will).

This is EXTREMELY wasteful

Given that time in any battle is comprised of 100% [Battle Time], and that (Archer) Fire Time is a percentage of Battle Time, then the nearer the ratio of Fire Time to Battle by Archers is to 100/100 the greater the effectiveness of Archers. (Hope I wrote that comprehensibly.)

For example, generally, Archers who only Fire 25% of the Battle Time will be less effective than Archers firing 75% of the time (25/100 vs 75/100). Of course, Valour effects this equation, but given units of equal Valour....

Obviously, I've given this some thought, and started experiementing with techniques to give my Archers Maximum Fire Time/Battle Time.

Hold Position allows Archers to maximize their time, because they will just keep firing until they're all slaughtered; but, obviously, they are *quite* vulnerable on-the-field at this setting (to Slaughter and disruption).

Consequently, they need Dedicated Protection. I generally, assign of a unit of Spears, 1 for 1, with the *main* purpose of protecting my Archers. 2 Archer units, deserves 2 Spear units and so on. The exception is in how you place your units on the battlefield. (A single Spear unit can protect 2 Archers if they are placed one behind the other (stacked).)

I ALWAYS place Spears in Front of Archers.

What I call the Run-Thru technique is wasteful (in my style). Run-Thru is when you place your Arches in front of Spears (or whatever), Get off a few volleys and when the enemy gets close, you retreat the Archers thru your Spear units which engage the advancing enemy unit(s).

As you can see this minimizes Fire Time.

The Spears used for protection in front of the Archers are ALSO put on Hold Position for two reeasons: 1) I don't want them retreating. I want them to stay put right in front of the Archers; and 2) I want the Spears to fight to the VERY last man and NEVER flee.

I keep an eye on the Spear unit(s), if that unit(s) begins to weaken and/or is getting slaughtered, then I know its time, and *have* the time, to either pull my Archers back to safety w/o losing any; or, MORE appropriately, bring an additional unit to aid in their protection. This can be repeated several times, as necessary.

All the while, my Archers NEVER stop firing, unless I choose for them to do so. (In a long battle, preserving Arrows can be important, but that's another thread.)

2/3 units are the core of my Army, and I build my Army around them. 3/4 Valour Archers can be TOTALLY devastating if used effectively. Garnering 100-200 kills per unit regularly WITHOUT losing a single man; and this is the KEY factor

The longer you keep your Archers safe (and preserve them), using them effectively, they simply just keep getting better and better. Their Valour *can* rise battle after battle w/o losing a single man.

NO other unit type can boast this, as ALL other units MUST engage the enemy in order raise their Valour.

Whaddaya think?

~ ToranagaSama

P.S., the poster who mentioned Morale is absolutely correct. Archers are the only unit that can effect the Moral of an ENTIRE Army. Before your Army contacts the enemy, Rain some Arrows upon some poor Peasant unit, see the Peasants become decimated and watch them Flee. The moral of the Entire Army recieves a Negative effect upon Morale. I call it the Fear Factor. (Historically accurate&#33

Or, with high enough Valour Archers do the same, but upon the opposing King or Knight unit. The Knights might not flee as easily as Peasants, but the effect can be equivalent (or greater).

[mystic brew]

you just described almost to the word the way I use my archers As an Englishman with stories of Crecy, poitiers and Agincourt in my brain, I do enjoy a good archery victory.

The one query i have is about your 'fire ratio'. Longbows and archers are gonna run out of arrows damn quick if you're in a protracted engagement. I like to cease fire as soon as I've done the job that needs doing. let the light cavalry do the donkey work. That way you can use these important troops to break up a subsequent attack. I very occasionally end up with any ammo even conserving ammo...

[Qilue]

Another use for archers is to take out the enemy general, especially those 9 star byzantine Napoleons. With him dead, the whole army is on the verge of breaking and a sudden charge can generate a mass rout. Hopefully and usually, they keep on running.

[PrinceApple]

Archers are pathetic. Because of high armour of most h2h units and inadequate arrow speed, archers cannot hit shit. In 15k the morale is so high that the amount of casualties they can inflict on someone who is rushing you is so minimal you are better off having that extra combat unit. Sure there are methods to beat a rusher, but 15k games are based not on skill but on who has the numerical and qualitative advantage. And you are just kidding yourself to think you could shoot a unit down to 50% against a skilled player, maybe a newbie but definately not anyone who's been playing for a decent amount of time. I'm not gonna just let you stand there and shoot my unit down to 50% am I?

[bighairyman]

you ppl are probalry forgeting that archers are support units. think of them as marines, while the infanties as the tanks. archers support your infanties(tanks) in battle.

archers can't fight head on, their use is to hide behind some infaty and shoot away. the #1 reason why i love to play as the nglish is because of the longbows, these guys kill the most ppl in my army. so the moral is if you use archer or any missle units correctly, they are deversating.

and i know i probabaly spell a lot of words wrong

[Si GeeNa]

Wonderful post TS... Knew that if anyone was going to put effort into thinking things through, it would be you.

I have to say that i favour the Egyptian and Turkish hybrid units. They can often give a clobber after their ammo is exhausted. Even if their ammo is not finished, offer the enemy cold steel if they move too close or the crisis is at hand to exploit. That is the advantage of hybrids, they require less protection usually. (Of course, nothing protects them from cav 'cept spears)

i dont play MP, so most of my experience is gained vis-a-vis the AI. The AI tends to play a less than intelligent game. Their Archer units are always on Skirmish mode, meaning that any cav sent against them will tend to charge home into their rear. Effectively, signalling Rout for the Archers.

Dont place ur Archer on Skirmish... unless you are going to keep a constant eye on their front. Its better to place them on Hold Position and if they are ever contacted, they at least delay the enemy for a while longer than the above approach. Of course, this may not be historically correct method of employing the Archers.

Archers are not the weakest arm. They might end up that way if you are not employing them to the best of their abilities. Exploit their ability of creating damage at a distance, Always.

Place them on high ground

Protect them with spear/melee troops

Direct volleys towards one target unit

Just some principles to guide their usage. If you are not familiar with their use, then use them as a peripheral role. Their exclusion might mean un-necessary losses sometimes.

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] (DEATHby_Disease @ Sep. 11 2003,21:01)]Archers are pathetic. Because of high armour of most h2h units and inadequate arrow speed, archers cannot hit shit. In 15k the morale is so high that the amount of casualties they can inflict on someone who is rushing you is so minimal you are better off having that extra combat unit. Sure there are methods to beat a rusher, but 15k games are based not on skill but on who has the numerical and qualitative advantage. And you are just kidding yourself to think you could shoot a unit down to 50% against a skilled player, maybe a newbie but definately not anyone who's been playing for a decent amount of time. I'm not gonna just let you stand there and shoot my unit down to 50% am I?

1) I'm NEVER kidding myself
2) If I make a statement, that means I've done it REPEATEDLY, unless otherwise indicated

There's something the newer Org members should be aware of, the Main Hall is for General MTW conversation and where you discuss the Campaign game. Jousting Fields was created to constain discussion regarding MP.

This was done to eliminate confusion in threads where Issues have different relavencies regarding the two types of play, Campaign and MP.

I've notice this happening more and more over the last 2 to 4 weeks or so.

The value and manner of use of a particular unit differs between Campaign and MP, sometimes, considerably. The games have different objectives and consequences.

Sooo, sir, regarding the topic of the Main Hall, the Campaign Game:

1) Why in heck would you use Archers in h2h?? I NEVER have the intention to, and seldomly the need.

2) Rushers are disdainful SCUM OF THE EARTH and do not exist in the Campaign Game. So, I have no regard whatsoever.

3) Why do you play a game NOT based on skill?

4) BTW, hit any unit, Campaign or MP, with a couple of unified vollies from 4 (or above) Valour Archers and ahhh...that unit is DECIMATED

Of course its all mitigated by the number of Archer units and the quality of the target.

Furthering this issue, your premises leans on the un-reality that you are ALWAYS aware of what's happening to ALL units at EVERY moment AND you IMMEDIATELY re-act accordingly correctly and quickly.

Perhaps, one may wait until the midst of battle when the confusion is at its highest to unleash one's Archers. Your premises is that you will ALWAYS be aware of When, Where and What.

I mean ahhh, really, have you NEVER had a unit hit with a couple of Archer volleys before reacting? Which is not to say that your unit was decimated as a result, quite the contrary. The point is that, if you can admit to this experience, then you must admit that a couple of volleys from MUTIPLE High Valour Archers can Decimate.

If NOT, then, sir, we are playing different games. Which, btw, we are

Jousting Fields---this-way--->

[desdichado]

longbows saved my bacon plenty of times in my first campaign. To make up for my less than skilful command of h2h (against almos and feared aum and naptha) units I used to concentrate fire on unit that was one in from the flank. If I could weaken and even rout it this left the unit on far end of line unsupported and vulnerable. Easy to rout and then you're halfway to crushing the flank of opposing army - mostly thanks to missile fire.

TS, great post and mostly agree with what you write except getting a unit of peasants to rout won't have an effect on elite units like knights and fmaa/cmaa etc. I think.

To continue your theme of fire time, I think it is useful to have your archers in front of your spears when advancing against a stationery enemy. This enables archer to come into range first and maximises fire time before your h2h units make contact with enemy and hopefully reduces ff casualties.

On defense, your theory is correct imho.

I always go into battles with missile troops if I can and hate it when I lose my missile troops through a mistake and can't reinforce before next battle. If opposing army has missile troops of their own they can just sit back and shoot you up without fear of retaliation which is reason enough to take missile troops, simply to counter opposing archers.

Also on morale, I think there is -2 penalty whenever a casualty is caused by missiles (which is why jinettes work so well, couple of volleys and then charge while target uinit still has morale penalty) so if you time things right you can rout units with fewer casualties in your h2h units.

Just my 2 cents worth anyway.

[Jxrc]

Playing most of the time as a catholic faction, I use the basic archers or genoese archers as follows :

- defense in a small battle : peppering the enemy unit most likely to rout first (peasants, camels, UM)
- defense large battle : I use only only against horse archers or mounted crossbowmen.
- attack enemy has no archers : use them to get the IA to abandon the high ground, lure them into charging, etc...
- attack enemy has archers : getting rid of enemy horse archers or peppering the enemy unit most likely to rout first (peasants, camels, UM).

As for crossbowmen, arbalester, etc. Find a good fat unit of engaged heavy calvary fire at will ...Use bolts against unamoured units only if nothing else is available.

Longbowmen are a great unit since they can be used for any of the purpose.

[Quokka]

Longowmen are incredible.

I use lots or archers in my armies. They are perfect for defense and if they aren't needed for attack, I don't choose them in the 16. Like others have said the beauty of Archers is that they rarely take casualties and can get high Valour quickly. In one (Spanish) game I had 6 units V6 Archers that were helping me repel massive rebellions of Byzantines. They were basically slaughtering 500-600 Varangians and Kats each year, until they ran out of protectors. I ransomed them back though.

[squippy]

I disagree with some ofg TS's position, and thgat of some other commentators. I play SP only, always use fire at will, and always use skirmish.

As I see it the archers are primarily tactical units. Nobody is willing to stand for long under an archery barrage, so once the missile duel begins the contact zone of the battle has been pretty firmly fixed. Thus, bringing archers into contact defines the battle.

Secondly, I think they are not so much units aimed at doing damage as aimed at harrassment. I just let them pop away from behind my lines and forget about them. They seldom inflict friendly fire this way and do cause significant casualties to an enemy closing in.

All points about fire time I agree with, but I am not averse to putting archers in the fonr and allowing them to fall back - but usually only if I have more archers in a more orthodox position (behind my foot) so that the unit chasing my lead archers comes under from the second archer rank. Both will then be drawn up in double row formation in long lines across the back of my whole fighting line to provide fire support.

When attackeing, I often create sub-groups of an archer and a spear unit in foot first double line and use them for probing; as above the missile duel defines the battle zone and I use these combos to choose my place to fight.

Lastly, I never try to win a battle or inflict serious casualties with archers (as opposed arbs). Their purpose is primarily tactical. If I'm faced by an opponent looking to arrow skirmish, I'm going to steam spears through them and try to get them bunched up in their own foot.

[katar]

ToranagaSama

take his advice, he has it right.

i only play SP.

no skirmish, but do keep them on hold position.

concentrate all fire on one enemy target at a time, get them reduced by 30% and then move onto the next target.

any enemy unit that has a good charge bonus eg knights, should be removed from the face of the earth as quickly as possible.

on ocassion i use large groups of archers offencively, keep them on hold formation with fire at will off;

6 - 8 units, with each unit in 2 lines.

i tend to keep the formation 2 units wide and 4 deep (best way to concentrate fire on a single target, and it helps me keep them mobile).

when enemy units get a lot of arrow hits they go to loose formation, when this happens you should switch to another unit still in close formation to maximise your firepower.

you are also better of concentrating your fire on bunched up units as any arrows that miss your target will probably hit some of the adjacent units.

when enemy units decide to attack the archers, DO NOT make all of you units withdraw in the same direction, have some run directly backwards with the rest running to the left and right.

the enemy unit will focus on one target, leaving all units to the sides free to resume fire against that unit, i`ve used this tactic against infantry charges of up to five units.

don`t try it against cavalry, it will ruin your day
always try to decimate the cavalry before you try this on infantry.

as regards other archers, they are rarely as focused in such an encounter, and can be easily overwhelmed by 8 units firing three or four volleys at them.

important note; have a well defended spot for your archers to withdraw to.

even on offencive i can my spearmen (who are nicely rested due to the archers doing all the prliminary fighting) formed in a nice defencive spot, as a base for any offencive attacks by my archers.

well ... that`s the mad way I fight .... SOMETIMES

[The_678]

I never used archers and was very disapoint4d with them when I first got the game. Then I played as English and got Longbows. They Kick Ass I once fought a battle againt the papacy and had no casualties because my Longbows wre defending from the top of a hill in front of my Inf line. It was awesome. I use Longbows all the time now.

[Fortebraccio]

As soon as Arbalesters are available, I stop employing foot archers. I respect British Longbowmen, as they are quite devastating, but a massed volley of arbalest bolts can stop a heavy cavalry charge cold. As for conventional foot archers, probably since I quickly stop to employ them I have never enjoyed their high valour enhanced performances...I'll give them a try in a custom battle.

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] ]Nobody is willing to stand for long under an archery barrage, so once the missile duel begins the contact zone of the battle has been pretty firmly fixed.

The line above belies your tactics and why you disagree. (IMVHO) To be MOST effective, I don't believe you are using the proper tactics and nor taking full advantage of your archers. Which is not to say that your aren't having success. I thinking from a perspective of achieving the greatest effectiveness.

First, getting into an Archer Duel is a waste of Arrows If you cannot use your Archers to deliver a CRUSHING blow, or (more usually) a *Sustained and Dibilative (sp?) high rate of casualties, then...ahhh...what's the point.

Obviously, in your circumstance you are engaged with the AI in an Opening Move of 'Feel em Out'.

Not my game (at least not with Archers).

Second, your comments seem to indicate that you're engaged in a sorta of Stand-Offish mindset looking to inflict a few casualties, before you send in the troops and the main battle begins.

Unless Terrain strongly dictates, or I'm extremely outnumbered and am in a defensive mindset, I refrain from Stand-Offishness.

Normally, I will hold my Archers, *until*, I see advantage in their use. This doesn't mean, particularly, delivering a decisive blow, but, rather, a blow to gain *Advantage* (with Sustained Debilative fire).

Using Chess venacular, such could occur at the Opening, just after the Opening, during the Middle Game, during the End Game, or at the Close. No matter, the Intention remains the same.

Like I began my original post, .... a STRONG tactic with GREAT technique....

The manner in which you describe your usage, and similarly so have a couple of posters, is in a Stand-Off with opposing armies facing each other STACTICALLY (or Stationary) with little initial maneuvering. I'd imagaine that once the real battle begins, its basically, straight Charging(, at least, for the most part). To me, it seems, that many simply use Archers as a thing to do, while they figure things out. (JMO)

My game is all about Maneuvering, Manuevering, and Maneuvering. (More in the Japanese (Ran) fashion, than in the European Braveheart stand-off.)

All that being said, (with MTW) I used to do the same things, before I figured out more effective tactics. VERY much like what a couple of posters have said, *I'm* not going to just stand there (neither is the AI (unless it has brain freeze, which it does sometimes)). A Duel is exactly that--standing there.

---

Starting a few days ago, a few threads began generally dicussing Tactics and Army Composition (under a few different thread titles), out of inspiration I typed out a *long* post detailing my Army, composition, settings, positioning and use. I figure it was *much* too long and *involved* to post. I've only done this 3 or 4 times before , that is type and *not* post on this subject.

I'm thinking I just might post, if folks choose to wade through it, I believe it'd make for good discussion. I've taken a bunch of screenshots thinking to put them on my site which I never get around to putting up....

---

Gosh, I wish there were Campaign Multiplay....sigh....

---

Oh, just re-reading your post, my battles are *rarely* firmly fixed and I have no desire to harass the enemy. I've got one purpose, and that's to cut his freaking head off as expeditiously (and honorably) as possible

Quote[/b] ]Thus, bringing archers into contact defines the battle.

I'd be interested in your defining this a bit more. What exactly do you mean by ...into contact...? Hand to hand? or close enough so that they will fall under opposing fire?

Gosh, this post is becoming longer than I intended.

Thinking on your post a bit more, and given the AI is NOT on a hilltop (different thread, different tactics, different topic), a *Rise* is OK, yet is maintaing Distance in a Static/Stationary position (somtimes the AI does this), I presume this is what the circumstance you refer too (and I suppose your battles mostly develop this way?) there are a couple of basic responses:

1) As I believe you infer, a Player could advance their Archers (along with their entire Army) forward to get into Range (and closing distance), thus, also bringing one's Army/Archers under opposing fire.

or

2) Split your Army and engage in Manuevering and Flanking efforts. Given a full 16 unit stack (for discussions sake lets keep this example), VERY simply put, my Flanks are composed of Self-Contained Wings, the Main Body is composed of my Archers, their Protectors, Cavalry and *Reserve* units.

So, when facing a Static/Staionary enemy, I use 1 or both of my Wings to Maneuver upon the enemy, which, effectively, ends the Stand-Off and no Archer Duel occurs, while the Main Body including my Archers are preserved and, importantly, NO Arrows are wasted.

[When I mention Raining arrows upon Peasants units, I do so in an *illustrative* fashion to make emphasis. Its and old effective tactic, but I've since discovered that Arrows are too valuable to be wasted upon Peasants ]

All of the above is not intended as a critism, just an evaluation. I don't know how long or how much you've played TW, but I play this game wayyyyyyy toooo much. Soon after I started playing and getting a feel for the game, my tactics developed pretty much along the same lines, as what I preceive yours to be. As I played the game even more, my tactics continue(d) to evolve. (I get my enjoyment from outthinking the AI)

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] ]All points about fire time I agree with, but I am not averse to putting archers in the fonr and allowing them to fall back - but usually only if I have more archers in a more orthodox position (behind my foot) so that the unit chasing my lead archers comes under from the second archer rank. Both will then be drawn up in double row formation in long lines across the back of my whole fighting line to provide fire support.

I understand fully, and appreciate the sophisticated usage, but the fact remains that such tactics, while effective, reduce Fire Time/Battle Time. That time the Archers spend falling back reduces Fire Time.

If one is utilizing the Game Clock where the Battle while end when the clock runs out, then every moment not Firing is Lost Time.

Of course, Lost Time can be made up by achieving a High Kill vs. Volley ratio (Numbers killed per Volley); this is where Valour becomes a factor (which is the determining factor to the Kill/Volley equation).

I believe your described tactics would be best utilized with V4 or better Archers; and would be much less effective with V2 or lower Archers; the success of V3 Archers is much dependant upon a Player's skill level. Of course, the purpose in the above is to Maximize the use of Archers.

NO argument that the Archer Decoy tactic is an effective battle winning strategy.

Yet, in the Campaign Game, what you is important is a Campaign winning strategy. A strategy that will carry Benefits forward to subsequent Battles.

So in that vien, again, first, why put your Archers at risk by placing them unprotected in the Front where you might lose a couple? Keep this up over a few battles with the same Archer unit and before you know it most of your original unit will be gone and opportunity at possible Valour Benefits will have be lost.

This is a MAJOR point

One needs to look on the WHOLE as a Campaign, rather than on the INDIVIDUALISM of a single Battle.

---

If any of the CA guys are listening, if you get my Take, the above NEEDS to be Impacted more into the Campaign. There s/b more Emphatic consequences Individualism (as described above) that is focusing more upon single battles and neglecting to view Battles as just a part of an *evolving* Whole. Conversely, there should also be greater, though probably more subtle, consequences to effectively implementing a Strategic Campaign with regard to Battles.

Of course, this would only further serve to separate the Campaign game from MP (in its present incarnation).

---

Didn't anyone notice, I don't seem to know which forum Hall I'm in. [Hmmm...which Emoticon means embarrasments???]

---
Time to order Lunch later....

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] ]...6 - 8 units, with each unit in 2 lines....

You'd get KILLED doing this against a Human player; and possibley against the AI utilizing the MedMod.

Gotta adopt some Rules to even things out for the AI.

Anything more than 3 or 4 units is TOTAL overkill. I limit myself to 3 and normally have only 2 units of Archers. Somtimes, I might squeeze in a unit of Crossbows or Horse Archers, but I consider the horse to be part of my Cavalry contingent.

ALL of my comments are based upon 2 or 3 units of Simple Archers unless otherwise indicated. Campaign Game only.

[Hikarr]

Strategic long-term planning, gotta love it =)

Faced with an overpowering defending enemy army,
without archers, you would shoot them up and then
retreat and do it again, treating it like a strategic win
even though the game thinks you lost the tactical battle?

Or would you just soften them and give it a try?

Personally it'd depend on who the generals are.
Vices can be really bad on a warrior king running away,
so he might try and make a fight of it and then pull back.

But a commando general doing a war of attrition would
shoot them up some and launch a small charge against
the enemy general's unit if the archers didn't slay him.

[katar]

Quote[/b] ]You'd get KILLED doing this against a Human player; and possibley against the AI utilizing the MedMod.

I AM using VI plus medmod 2.04, on hard.

only play SP campaigns, but what you say is totally true against most human opponents i`d be toast.

Quote[/b] ]Anything more than 3 or 4 units is TOTAL overkill

it`s a tactic i rerely employ, but sometimes i do, just for the hell of it.

my usual attacking army consists of 3 archers (just the basic ones unless i have access to something better), 7 feudal sargents, 3 knights and 3 swordsmen.

[Dhepee]

Just a couple of questions for you ToranagaSama, because I only do SP so I don't get to see a lot of different battle styles. When you talk about creating flanking units vs. the main body, how do you set up the composition? I usually use a wall of spears with some CMAA's for my main body that will cover my archers while they fire into the enemy's main body and I use cavalry in my wings and not much else. This is where I am right now:
In a 16 unit army, English:
Wings Each:
2 Chivalric Knights/ 1 Chiv Knight 1 Royal Knight
2 Chivalric Sargent
Total of 8 for both wings
Main Body:
3 Archers
3 Chivalric Sargents
2 Feudal Foot Knights or CMAA

Sometimes it works better than others.

I've been working on using one wing to attract the AI's attention, get them to move their line, and once it starts moving position my main body so that it now lies across their flank. Essentially if you drew lines through the flanking body and the main body it would form a right angle with the enemy moving towards the flankers while my main body advances on their flank |_, with the horizontal as my main body and the vertical as the flankers.
I hold my second flanking unit in reserve on the now uninvolved side, but far enough back so as to not attract attention. At this point, as soon as I am in range with my main body, I start pouring missiles into the enemy's main body, and let the spears and CMAA's advance. Once the enemy begin to waiver and I see a rout of a unit or two I send in my other flanking unit, held as the reserve, against their rear. At this point the diagram would be |_|, with the flankers vertical the main body horizontal, and the enemy in the middle. Sometimes I will make the wing that I hold back all cavalry, and the wing that I use to attract all foot. I still haven't come to a conclusion on that yet.
Based on this thread I am going to mix things up a little bit though. I am think of sending my archers with the second flanking unit, and having them wait to start their volleys until there are at the enemy's rear, and then using the hold button, and no fire at will, pour volley's from all of my archers into the enemy's strongest remaining units.
It sounds like a lot of people use their archers at the beginning of the battle, or very close to it. I wonder what would happen if you use them at the end - especially in a battle that has reached somewhat of a stalemate - to tip the balance in your favor and push a several waivering units into rout in a very quick fashion. What I am still trying to do, however, is create a good balance for my wings and mainbody. I am also playing with using the ctrl-drag method of elongating or shortening my lines.

[The_Emperor]

In my view archers are essential and TS is Spot-On

Archers have the best advantage in that they can inflict major casualties without recieving any in return, (while they are out of range and protected)

In most of my battles the archers account for more kills than any other unit on the battlefield My archers have often inflicted over 100+ casualties per Unit of archers in most of my major battles

Not even the best Royal Knights can kill 100+ men of high quality enemy troops, in ONE battle and not lose a single man

When the archers have served their purpose I withdraw them and then bring on the Cavalry reinforcements... Then I chase the battered enemy from the field

Archers come into their own in defence, and as someone once said... Attacking wins fights, But Defence wins wars