archers who needs them :)

I recently saw a medieval archery desplay recently and was lead to believe that archers were quite powerful especially by the middle ages. I wonder whether this is accurately reflected in the TW games as bowmen tend to be very weak?

Play as Parthia, and field an entire army of horse archers. Then you'll see what arrows can do!

I just won a battle vs the Egyptians with my Hoplites and archers plus a little Cav work.

Basically I just setup my hoplites in a very subtle bowed formation and my 5 units of archers (2 of them Cretian) behind them. My cav just were there to cover the flanks, not for fighting unless needed. They advanced and got cut down so that barely any of them reached my lines. Most of my casualties were from friendly fire.

Archers of the RTW period were not generally decisive...heavy infantry was. There are some VERY powerful archer/slinger units in RTW. Seeing one or two on the field is enough to dictate how you fight the battle at times. The base units don't seem unreasonable, but the ones with high missile attack values seem over the top. I don't see much loss of killing power/accuracy with distance.

There's also no counter for an all archer army - you just get pwned left right and center before you even get within melee range.

I wouldn't say that. An all melee cavalry army would surely destroy an all archer army. But things are never that simple.

Personally I'd say onagers are perhaps more to be feared. You can predict what archers will do, but you can never tell where that firepot is heading. I remember one game I did, my first shot of the battle.... landed a firepot right on the enemy general killing him. And I wasn't even aiming at him!

I think that the efficiency of archers really depends on the user. They are pretty useless if you don't use them wisely. If you play on a computer with a bit lower specs, you might have trouble to get them in the right place at the right time and they appear rather useless. If you have them where they really can wreak havoc, you will think they are to strong. So my point is, the balance of the archers will be very difficult since they depend a lot on the user (leader) ...... ;)

Originally Posted by Colovion

There's also no counter for an all archer army - you just get pwned left right and center before you even get within melee range.

Speed. Fast troops and fast commands, that's the counter.

Originally Posted by Arrowmaker

I recently saw a medieval archery desplay recently and was lead to believe that archers were quite powerful especially by the middle ages. I wonder whether this is accurately reflected in the TW games as bowmen tend to be very weak?

Thats actually quite funny, as I was thinking only yesterday that perhaps archers were a bit overpowered.

This was the result of a rather stupid error I made in my ongoing war with Eygpt. Well two errors in fact, which compounded each other.

The first was my rush to try and capture Damascus before a Senate order expired which caused me to send an army to seige the city without waiting for it to be properly formed. The attack went badly due to a lack of missile troops and I got my nose badly blooded.

The second was to try and correct this by sending an archer heavy force forward to join it ready for a second attempt. The Eygptians seeing this force approaching didn't wait for it to reach them but counter-attacked pouncing on it well clear of the walls and out of reinforcement range of the main body.

My first impression was 'Oh shit!' but I realised my only hope was to command the army myself. From memory it consisted of three cohorts of obsolete roman infantry (Hastatii), nine cohorts of archers, six of velites, one Equities and my new and untried General fresh from Rome.

I figured I'd just go down fighting. Drew up the infantry in a single line on the highest rise I could find massed the archers in three ranks behind them and stuck the velites on the flanks just to widen the front slightly.

The cavalry were held in reserve.

What happened was not what I expected.

The Egyptians attempted to outflank my line on both flanks with cavalry and chariots and the velites took a bit of a pounding so I had to launch occasional counter-attacks with my cavalry to fend them off.

But apart from a couple of units of Desert Axemen the attack on my front just never got to close. The nine units of archers just slaughtered anything that came within range. Nile Spearmen units just withered and died where they stood, and I watch several charges by Desert Cavalry just baulk short of my line run off leaving piles of dead horses to mark the limit of their charge.

It looked like they were being mowed down by machine guns. My biggest concern was their bowmen but as it happens most of those died before they could deploy because the AI always advances them in close order and those that did fire seemd to aim at the infantry cohorts where I could afford to take casualties.

I actually slaughtered an Eygptian army of almost a 1000 men, some units even broke, reformed and came back for a second dose. After which taking Damascus was a walk over.

Basically, all the units are well balanced, you need to find the right balance for you. I prefer to have heavy infantry to form a center line, with archers or slingers behind them and then war dogs, light cavalry and heavy cavalry on the flanks. I see the benefits of horse archers, but I never seem to have a place in my strategy for them, because if attacked by archers I either form a testudo formation or use light cavalry to run down the horse archers. Use trial and error to find your own style.

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

Basically, all the units are well balanced, you need to find the right balance for you. I prefer to have heavy infantry to form a center line, with archers or slingers behind them and then war dogs, light cavalry and heavy cavalry on the flanks. I see the benefits of horse archers, but I never seem to have a place in my strategy for them, because if attacked by archers I either form a testudo formation or use light cavalry to run down the horse archers. Use trial and error to find your own style.

A HA based army like Scythia would handle this army with little effort.

I lost a bridge battle the other day because I was still in MTW mode - I've only had a couple of bridge battles in my campaigns in RTW so far, all except this one on the offensive. I was Carthage, and had a couple of slinger units and a couple of mercenary hoplites - I was sending this band up as reinforcements when a Gaul army decloaked and attacked me (my army had finished its move on a bridge). Anyway, when I saw all I had facing me was 2 forester warbands and a unit of light spearmen, I thought I was in for a clear victory, so I placed my phalanx at the end of the bridge with my slingers either side, and awaited the rush to sure death the Gauls were bound to make.

Oops.

I wasn't expecting the Gauls to use tactics, for goodness sake! I soon discovered to my cost that their archers have a better range than my slingers, and 2 units of archers concentrating their fire on my relatively tight formation was devastating. Oh, they did rush to sure death alright - unfortunately, it mine not theirs, as by the time they sent their spearmen over, I had about a quarter of my troops left, who strangely enough didn't want to stick around and find out what bit of tactical genius their general had in mind for them next (Throw down your weapons and walk slowly towards them backwards, lads! They'll never expect that!)

Yes, I know my tactics sucked, I just was expecting a more MTW style battle, where the enemy archers were a nuisance rather than a decisive factor. I'm not complaining, it's fun to get your backside handed to you once in a while.

Playing as the archerless Carthaginians has made me realise how much I was depending on archers to turn the tide in battles.

Now I use elephants for that.

I agree with the consensus here - archers in RTW are very strong, at least in SP against the AI. My impression is that, like cavalry, they are stronger than in MTW[1]. It seems quite perverse - historically, both archers and cavalry should be weaker in RTW than MTW. RTW would "feel" much better to me if the battle speed and combined arms balance was as it is in MTW. (And MTWs battles would have benefited from a bit more of the RTWs chaos and archer/cav oomph.)

[1]Against this, I like the effect that RTWs friendly fire has on discouraging SPers from relying on archers shielded by spears, although I don't particularly like the mechanism.

The Hun, I will admit that I have some trouble against horse archer based armies, however, I have won significantly more than lost against them, because the light cavalry can pincer the horse archers and force them into melee. While the infantry is safely screened by some of my own archers and the light cavalry. You are right that they are annoying, but they never decimate me. Another thing to note the factions that are dependant on horse archers have horrible infantry and are thus horrible at taking cities. This is where my most decisive battles are fought, the horse archers only shine in giant set piece battles fought on relatively unbroken terrain.

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

[1]Against this, I like the effect that RTWs friendly fire has on discouraging SPers from relying on archers shielded by spears, although I don't particularly like the mechanism.

I do agree about this, but I think it could be implemented in a more logical fashion: like not firing at all if obstructed, and having very poor effectiveness when the archers lack line of sight to the target. I want the historical placement to be used for historically correct reasons.

Right now, a lot of the friendly kills are happening from adjacent units firing at routers or failing to stop firing when ordered, and that is just nuts.

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

I agree with the consensus here - archers in RTW are very strong, at least in SP against the AI. My impression is that, like cavalry, they are stronger than in MTW[1]. It seems quite perverse - historically, both archers and cavalry should be weaker in RTW than MTW. RTW would "feel" much better to me if the battle speed and combined arms balance was as it is in MTW. (And MTWs battles would have benefited from a bit more of the RTWs chaos and archer/cav oomph.)

[1]Against this, I like the effect that RTWs friendly fire has on discouraging SPers from relying on archers shielded by spears, although I don't particularly like the mechanism.

Interesting.. I have no problem preventing friendly fire casualties with my archers behind my infantry line. I micro them. When there is sufficient distance between my infantry and the enemy, I set them on 'fire at will'. When the AI has closed to charge distance, I take them off 'fire at will' and hit 'backspace' to get them to stop firing at their current target.

Works like a charm. Haven't had more than 3 or 4 friendly fire deaths in a few weeks now.