archers who needs them :)

[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.

[LordKhaine]

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!

[metatron]

Ah, the old Rock/Paper/Scissors dynamic...

But yea, anywhere from 2 to 5 units of archers can decimate an unarmored target. Legionaries are alot harder, but then again, I have been playing as the West. The East should have compound bows, no?

[bmolsson]

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) ...... ;)

[TopHatJones]

Archers are actually useful in this game, unlike MTW. I think it is more realistic this time around too. In MTW (not counting longbowmen) archers couldn't fire much further than I could throw a rock. They also never seemed to hit/kill anything! Even if they could they would get no more than 2 or 3 volleys before it was time to fall back due to their ridiculously short range.

I think it is realistic to practically destroy a single unit of 100 men, if they are being fired upon by 300 trained archers. No imbalance there either, 5 units of archers would put the hurt on 5 units of infantry, but the infantry would win in the end.

I like that there is more freindly fire when trying to shoot an enemy unit that is fighting a friendly unit because it is very hard to fire it just right to go over one group of heads and come down 10 feet further into another group! Its a kinda flat trajectory.

The problem is that when the archers should be firing in an arching, non-flat trajectory (like when the enemy is far away from the unit in front) the friendly fire is the same as if the units were in close combat....not cool.

Of course javelin throwers aren't nearly as bad as far as this is concerned...they are just right....except when they throw OVER the elephants!

[bmolsson]

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.

[Ptah]

Try fighting the "Warlord Style" Egyptians in MP - six chariots, and the rest are all Pharao's Bowmen.

Good luck trying to beat that without any onagers or weak cavalry.

[ToranagaSama]

Are you guys talking about MP or SP?

[Quietus]

Archers are great (I use 1 or 2, depending on the situation)! Especially when you outnumber the enemy. Just concentrate on one unit to rout and use that area as the place where you do a big flanking maneuver. You can sweep and devastate the enemy with this.

[*Ringo*]

I agree, archers are extremely useful. I used a unit of Cretian Archers for the first time last night, one unit managed to obliterate over 300 Hoplites (playing on huge unit size) but it's not just the number of kills, it's the morale bonus they give also. Troops under constant fire suffer a morale penalty, using tactics like these give you a real advantage. The 300 Hoplites killed were from three different units all of which routed at the first sign of my cavalry charge from the flanks, this left a gapping hole in my opponents front line... just big enough to fit my hardcore melee units through. Needless to say the battle was over very quickly after that. And all down to one unit of archers!

I also disagree that archer were useless in MTW, i would rarely consider going onto battle without at least 2 units of archers (in Early anyway) Later i would compliment them with crossbows. Not having them on fire at will meant you could use both very effectively to destroy armoured and unarmoured targets. Especially good at taking out light cav, i found.

Just my opinion but i like these men firing pointy sticks!


*Ringo*

[Sinner]

I'm now trying a basic 1:1 ratio of Legionary Cohorts - preferably Praetorian or Urban - and Archer Auxilia. I aim for 5 of each, but if after cavalry, the general and any siege engines I have spare slots, I add extra archers.

Although the large number of archers weakens my frontline when the close quarters fighting occurs, they've usually already tipped the balance and in a pinch can be used to flank and backdoor the enemy. A heavy cavalry presence is poised on each flank to keep the enemy honest, joining in the slaughter when the foe start to crumble.

[Zatoichi]

Yeah, I never leave home without 'em! I usually have at least 2 units of archers when going on an expedition - yes they require some micromanagement to avoid too many friendly fire casualties, but it's generally worth the effort. Another added bonus if you get the micromanagement wrong and they get accidentally mown down by enemy cavalry or shot to bits by the enemy archers (surely, that doesn't just happen to me?), they tend to be the most prolific healers after the battle, so the losses are never as bad as other infantry. They're also a must when defending cities, of course.