archers who needs them :)

[A.Saturnus]

I did a little test with archers. How they fare against well armoured infantry. So I gave the AI two units of bowmen (large unit size - makes 120 per unit) against one unit of Principes on my side (82 men - makes a ratio of 3 to 1). Well, the bowmen eliminated the principes, but they took rather long. Usually when the ammo was down, there were about 5 to 10 principes left, which had to be taken on in melee. Considered the ratio, I wouldn´t say that´s an overly good result but certainly also not outragously bad. It depends on what you expect from archers.
Anecdote: in one trial, I didn´t select the right map (flatland) but had one with a few hills. So the bowmen had to go around a hill. This caused the two units to overlap each other. Result: they lost half of their number. By friendly fire. One guy even managed to shoot his general in the head from just behind him

[The Hun]

Yes archers are so good they even can kill themselves

[TheDuck]

I'm convinced that most of the high end archer units (you know, the ones you face most of the time) are overpowered. Why? Because in large armies I only need two or so to dictate the battle (in SP.) Same for when they are in the enemy's camp.

I can't just march up and endure the fire. In this time period I should be able to march through it with reasonably small losses (having effective units when I reach the enemy line.) Standing around in it would be stupid, but if I can close, I should not suffer. That is not the way it plays in my experience. (Suppose it would if I had desert axemen...grrr.)

Aren't you playing on VH battles?? Which might have a slight in influence on the outcome??

[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.

[Red Harvest]

Aren't you playing on VH battles?? Which might have a slight in influence on the outcome??

It must be awfully slight... My own archers are deadly, yet my side is the one taking the penalties on VH. To my way of thinking that shoots down the difficulty level as being the culprit (pun intended.) A single unit of my own archers causes grievous damage in only a few volleys--usually enough that the targeted unit is no longer a melee threat (so I swap and decimate the next unit.) I have not heard if missile attack is given a +7--it sounds as if it is only applied to base melee attack/charge values. Even if the battle line marches straight for mine, I can usually destroy the melee effectiveness of 2 enemy infantry units per archer unit deployed. The depleted enemy infantry units usually rout as they meet my line or shortly thereafter. From what I have gathered, archers were not that effective during this time frame.

Blaming it on VH fails for the same reason as it does when cav are discussed. My own light cav are still decidedly lethal despite VH, and like archer volleys, they tear up infantry. Infantry...now they suffer on VH, especially the smaller phalanx units.

I don't think the base level archers are all that powerful, but the many, many special units get range and missile attack boosts that often result in 10% casualties per volley at range (I've seen 15% before with equal sized units.) Want to place any bets on how likely that was in the RTW time period? If it had been so, armies would have rapidly converted to a heavy reliance on archery and been successful. Afterall, who would want to stand in a dense packed infantry formation so that archers could mow them down, while they could do nothing in return? No, archery must have been much less effective.

[hoof]

IMO, the AI in MTW did a much better job of dealing with human armies with archers than in RTW (on the offense). I have many vivid memories of the AI forming up en masse outside of archer range before charging me. I have yet to see that done effectively by the AI in RTW.

The frustrating thing is that it would be so much more effective in RTW due to the friendly fire issues. In MTW, it was very safe to have a wall of spearmen with your archers *behind* them (until the enemy mass hit your line). In RTW, placing archers behind another unit is a sure way of killing a bunch of your men except in very specific situations. This forces you to put your archers in front of your front line. If the AI did the "form up outside of arrow range then charge" maneuver from MTW, you would get only a couple volleys before being forced to retreat your archers behind your front line. The mass would then hit your front line, and you'd have a bunch of useless archer units for the rest of the battle.

In my experience, RTW AI armies tend to attack much more piecemeal, which allows you to tear them up. They'll charge a few units at your archer line, you pull them back, kill those exposed enemy units, rinse, repeat. Half the time, the lured enemy unit is the enemy General, which makes it even worse for the AI (apparantly the General unit gets so fixated on the archer unit they ignore the mass of spears that the archers just ran behind).

Of course, this is only on defence. On offence, I can pick apart the AI with archers just like in MTW. Actually, I find the AI in RTW tends to send cavalry after your archers quite nicely (one of the few good ways to minimize this tactic). Now if only it would figure out when the archers have reached safety and turn the cavalry around ...

[andrewt]

I've noticed that as well. My Cretan archers almost always run out of arrows because the enemy walks to them instead of gathering out of range and then running at them all at the same time. I get so much time to shoot and I could rout them one by one because they come close one by one.

Another reason that the higher level archers are very deadly is because they are supposed to be a counter against higher level units. However, many higher level units have better defense values because of defense skill or increased rank bonuses, both of which don't protect against archer fire. Units like armored hoplites do well against archers. Even standard hoplites can take a lot of archer fire. Of course, horse archers can move to their back where their shield bonus doesn't apply.

[warlordmb]

I thought I'd sling my pennies' worth in to the pot.

Yesterday I loaded the Total Realism 3.1 Mod by Gaius Julius. One of the changes it makes is to the size of archer units. (60 on Large instead of 80). When I read this it seemed to make more sense, particularly as this was the same in MTW. The other thing I realised was how dependent I had become on large numbers of archer units in my army creation. I had made a point of sending a spare family member to the greek city states to recruit 3-4 Cretan archers and then on to Scythia to grab a couple (at least) of horse archers.

I guess the point I am trying to make is this - if you are more into realism then drop the reliance on archer units. Combat in this time period was heavily reliant on infantry. Rome's military dominance was built on the effectiveness of her legions who were the best (overall!) heavy infantry of that period. It is really down to personal choice, so whatever tickles you is OK.

The size of archer units in Rome should be adjusted, in my opinion, to about two thirds, or smaller. A unit of 80 archers should not be able to destroy a 80 strong unit of say, armoured hoplites. It never happened back then. Missile troops played a supporting role to the real battle winners - the infantry. If archery units were really as effective as the game makes them do you think that Julius Ceasar, Pompeii, Marius and Sulla would not have adopted that into their military doctrine. These were the best Commanders of the First Republic and they relied on infantry, because that was how war was fought. Part of the reason was also because bow technology was not as advanced as some seem to think at that time.

Using the realism Mod 3.1 forced me to change my battle strategy. In this mod archer units are not available until after the Marian reforms. Instead, I have to make use of slingers which means putting them out in front of my main battle line (composed mostly, now, of Infantry cohorts) and relying on my infantry to slug it out. It is only my opinion, but I found it much more satisfying winning with infantry and not relying as heavily on archer units to shred advancing enemy formations. The other advantage to this new strategy is that I now rely much more on my cohorts to make better use of their pilum (again, this is far more historical). This mod has had tweaks to the effectiveness of javelin and other thrown missile stats making them more effective.

For anyone interested in a more historical battle experience, jog over to the TW Centre forum and have a peek at the R:TR Mod 3.1. I would recomend it.

However, realism is not everybody's style. If watching one of your archer units slaughter one of the AI's prime units toots your horn then that's fine. We all have our own playing styles. Me, I go for realism and that's because I have been a long time admirer of the Roman legions and this game is exactly what I've been waiting for since I first played games on a PC.

[The Hun]

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.

[Zatoichi]

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.

[econ21]

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.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

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.

[Satyr]

I now run my archers/slingers/horse archers out in front of my armies to engage the enemy's melee troops as soon as possible. I protect my archers with some cav and often never need to engage in melee at all as the archers kill and rout units, the cav finish them off. Archers are way too strong.

[andrewt]

I'd try fixing the anti-archer AI first before messing with the stats big time. Archers are stronger compared to MTW but the RTW AI is also much dumber compared to the MTW AI. It walks to the archers piecemeal whereas the MTW AI would assemble out of range then charge all at the same time.

I rarely run out of arrows in MTW. I always run out in RTW. You have an eternity to shoot the AI.

Also, experience is a very big advantage to archers this time around. In MTW, experience and weapon upgrades don't add to missile. Experience doesn't add to armor but upgrades do. In RTW, both missile and armor are affected by upgrades. However, missile is affected by experience but armor isn't. Defense skill rises with experience but it doesn't protect against missile attacks. So in MTW, there are 0 ways of boosting missiles but there is 1 way of boosting protection against it. In RTW, there are now 2 ways of boosting missiles but still only 1 way of boosting protection against it.

[Doug-Thompson]

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.

True, there is no such thing as a good one-unit army, but most of the points made here are only true when fighting AI-controlled HA.

The points about sieges and flat, open terrain are not true.

Light cavalry aren't nearly as effective as they used to be in M:TW. A few good Saharan Cavalry in M:TW and you didn't have to worry about HA much, unless they were Szekely or something.

Foot archers aren't nearly as effective against HA as they were in M:TW either. In fact, I'm inclined to agree with my infantry-loving counterparts that foot archers aren't nearly as effective against HA as they need to be. And that's before you take Cantabrian circle into account, which makes HA virtually immune to foot archers.

I do wonder what effect, if any, fire arrows have on HA. Early, vanilla HA have rather skittish morale.

The only "faction that is dependent on horse archers" that is a regular, playable faction are the Parthians. They may have "horrible" infantry, but they also have cataphracts.

Sap a wall that's facing a good, clear boulevard to the city's central plaza. Run the cataphracts through the breach at a gallop. The heavily armored, relatively fast-moving cataphracts will take very few losses from towers. If the enemy has spears or axe units, take some Persian Cavalry with you.

Even better -- spies. Besiege a city. If the spy doesn't have the gates open, maintain the siege. Attack again next turn. The gates could well be open.

Say a spy has only a 24 percent chance of opening the gates on any given turn. That translates into a 42 percent chance that the gates will be open during one of the first two turns of the siege.

Finally, none of this takes into account the huge advantage that HA armies have on the strategic map. The plain truth is that, if you survive the opening moves as the Parthians, slower-moving infantry formations are virtually at the mercy of HA-based armies with a half-way decent spy network.

I've won three battles against two different factions in one turn with one HA-based army before. Thank goodness Parthians get to reload after each battle.

[Red Harvest]

[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.

[A.Saturnus]

I'd try fixing the anti-archer AI first before messing with the stats big time. Archers are stronger compared to MTW but the RTW AI is also much dumber compared to the MTW AI. It walks to the archers piecemeal whereas the MTW AI would assemble out of range then charge all at the same time.

Really? The MTW AI has never done that to me. Not that it didn´t charge, but never cared about the range of my archers. But what do I know, I just played maybe 1000 SP battles.

[Red Harvest]

I've seen the AI work both ways in MTW. If the AI thought it had the advantage, it would rush a full battle line at me, forcing me to withdraw my archers. In fact, I learned on map's edge to take them out of skirmish so that I could pull them back behind the line (because they would often end up routing away-with skirmish on expert-or turning sideways.)

On the other hand, I've seen the AI do piecemeal attacks in MTW that wasted good units to archer fire. Sometimes it would stack its units foolishly, but mostly on defense.

On average, the AI was more likely to do a full line attack in MTW than RTW from what I've seen.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Doug-Thompson why do you think the cavalry archers are still effective in sieges and broken terrain? Cavalry archers often end up killing themselves if shooting in overlapping units and that is exactly what happens in sieges and broken terrain. The only effective use of archers in sieges is to put foot archers on the walls or use cavalry archers individually on the long streets leading into the city. A unit in phalanxe formation backed up by a screening unit of cavalry archers can hold a street against almost anything. The cavalry archer units shine in flat terrain in larg numbers.

[Doug-Thompson]

Doug-Thompson why do you think the cavalry archers are still effective in sieges and broken terrain? Cavalry archers often end up killing themselves if shooting in overlapping units and that is exactly what happens in sieges and broken terrain.

Not if you put the HA into big square formations, Uesugi Kenshin.

I always put HA in long, thin lines in M:TW. That was the only way to get decent firepower out of them.

Now a big square of HA fires just as effectively as long thin lines. Arguably, much more effectively because you can pack a massive number of HA per foot of front.

Friendly fire is only a serious problem with overlapping units.

It makes no sense whatsover that overlapping units of, say, three ranks each will have many more FF casualties than one unit that's six or more ranks deep. That's the way this game plays, however.

So, the way to use HA is to put them in big blocks with plenty of space between them. They don't have to keep an unbroken front because the gaps are covered by fire. That means they actually do quite well on broken terrain, because they don't have to keep any kind of formation with other units.

Also, HA now fire on the move, and in all directions. Again, that helps out on broken terrain.

As for HA being ineffective in sieges, you should quote yourself more carefully.

You said that factions with good HA have lousy infantry, and that lousy infantry can't win sieges. That's true. However, my argument was that the only playable faction that really depends on HA -- Parthia -- also has cataphracts, and that cataphracts can more than makes up for lousy infantry in the limited circumstances of a siege -- sometimes.

[andrewt]

Really? The MTW AI has never done that to me. Not that it didn´t charge, but never cared about the range of my archers. But what do I know, I just played maybe 1000 SP battles.

It might not be the range of the archers, really. The MTW AI just assembles a little farther from you before attacking. When they attack, they usually charge especially under archer fire. If you shoot them, they will charge. RTW AI rarely charges. It allows you to keep shooting at it. When they do attack, they walk towards you piecemeal.

[TheDuck]

It must be awfully slight... My own archers are deadly, yet my side is the one taking the penalties on VH. To my way of thinking that shoots down the difficulty level as being the culprit (pun intended.) A single unit of my own archers causes grievous damage in only a few volleys--usually enough that the targeted unit is no longer a melee threat (so I swap and decimate the next unit.) I have not heard if missile attack is given a +7--it sounds as if it is only applied to base melee attack/charge values. Even if the battle line marches straight for mine, I can usually destroy the melee effectiveness of 2 enemy infantry units per archer unit deployed. The depleted enemy infantry units usually rout as they meet my line or shortly thereafter. From what I have gathered, archers were not that effective during this time frame.

Blaming it on VH fails for the same reason as it does when cav are discussed. My own light cav are still decidedly lethal despite VH, and like archer volleys, they tear up infantry. Infantry...now they suffer on VH, especially the smaller phalanx units.

I don't think the base level archers are all that powerful, but the many, many special units get range and missile attack boosts that often result in 10% casualties per volley at range (I've seen 15% before with equal sized units.) Want to place any bets on how likely that was in the RTW time period? If it had been so, armies would have rapidly converted to a heavy reliance on archery and been successful. Afterall, who would want to stand in a dense packed infantry formation so that archers could mow them down, while they could do nothing in return? No, archery must have been much less effective.

Ahh.. somehow I got it that your units were being wasted by the AIs... my bad.

On the 'archery units were more effective'.. maybe...

A few points obfuscate...

The Parthians at the time (as modeled in RTW) made great use of horse archers and were very difficult to deal with in ancient battles. Descriptions of these battles indicate that the Parthians were very good with bows on horseback.. so this argues that bows were effective tools overall. The issue may be with armor piercing power. That I could believe..

Another point is just a general observation made by many military historians: Hannibal on a few occasions demonstrated the effectiveness of cavalry when used correctly against infantry based tactics, and this did not push the Romans to highly develop their cavalry wing. That didn't happen until 350ish AD under more intense pressure from groups who proved to the Romans beyond a shadow of a doubt that well used cavalry can trump well used infantry.

There is also tradition to consider. Just as our current military has an understanding of warfare based on past experience, so did the Romans. If they didn't make big use of archers, it could just mean that they were successful enough without scads of them. Agincourt is proof that they can be mighty effective though.. (and yes, I know the British longbow is quite a development from Roman times.. but it is a bow!).

Finally, it is also possible that the use of the pilum delayed development of archery until later. Javelin and pila attacks were know to be quite effective and frightening. And given the standard 'engage with pila' then charge tactic used by Roman legions, I can believe they had that part down to a fine art. It is also important to note that many Roman enemies used javelins rather than bows. So a legionarre that understood the employment of javelins could pick up thrown ones from the enemy and easily use the enemy's javelins with proficiency. That may have something to do with it also.

[TheDuck]

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.

[TheDuck]

I've seen the AI work both ways in MTW. If the AI thought it had the advantage, it would rush a full battle line at me, forcing me to withdraw my archers. In fact, I learned on map's edge to take them out of skirmish so that I could pull them back behind the line (because they would often end up routing away-with skirmish on expert-or turning sideways.)

On the other hand, I've seen the AI do piecemeal attacks in MTW that wasted good units to archer fire. Sometimes it would stack its units foolishly, but mostly on defense.

On average, the AI was more likely to do a full line attack in MTW than RTW from what I've seen.

Is so agree, and wish the RTW AI would do full line attacks also.

[TheDuck]

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.

I just don't have this problem (see two posts up). My commands are very specific for archers/javelin users though.. first take of FAW, then hit backspace.

The only thing that buggers up that sequence is if one or more of your units has run out of ammo.. then you must do this individually for each archer unit that still has arrows. They simply won't come off FAW if one of them is out and you pick the whole group and try to turn FAW off. I finally figured that out last week (you can also control click just the ones that have ammo then press FAW once, but under battlefield conditions I find the other easier and less error prone). That is an interface flaw I hope they fix.

[Red Harvest]

Not if you put the HA into big square formations, Uesugi Kenshin.

I always put HA in long, thin lines in M:TW. That was the only way to get decent firepower out of them.

Now a big square of HA fires just as effectively as long thin lines. Arguably, much more effectively because you can pack a massive number of HA per foot of front.

Friendly fire is only a serious problem with overlapping units.

It makes no sense whatsover that overlapping units of, say, three ranks each will have many more FF casualties than one unit that's six or more ranks deep. That's the way this game plays, however.

So, the way to use HA is to put them in big blocks with plenty of space between them. They don't have to keep an unbroken front because the gaps are covered by fire. That means they actually do quite well on broken terrain, because they don't have to keep any kind of formation with other units.

Yes, this is one of the major shortcomings of RTW (that I forgot to list earlier.) Proper archery formations are not necessary and are in fact discouraged. Oblique fire is not discouraged as it should be either. Foot archers should be pretty tough on horse archers when trading volleys...but that is not the case either. It is depressing, and I doubt CA will actually fix it.

[Sword]

Every time I play a faction without archers, I end up missing them 5 turns into the game. I just attribute it to my severe case of Agincourt syndrome.

Yep, then after those 5 turns, I always find one of my generals on a boat heading to crete.


I've attacked an all Phalanx Macedonian army of around 15 units. They just sat there while 2 units of Cretain archers reduced each and every one of those 15 units to less than 10 men, one unit at a time.

For some reason, the Macedonians chose this moment to run to my lines, got half way, turned round and routed off.

and there was me, a bit nervouse as to wheather i'd win or not when the battle started.

[Spino]

Archers? Sure, especially if you're controlling a faction that lacks well armored, decent infantry and/or cavalry. It's obvious CA incorporated these ridiculously overpowered elite archer units to offset the heavy infantry of Roman, Greek and Carthaginian cultural factions.

On the whole I think archer units are overpowered in RTW. In fact, they are so overpowered that I find it hard to resist using them even when I don't need them! I am getting surprising if not crazy kill ratios with basic archer units in RTW, a stark contrast to the kill ratios I got with the average archer unit in MTW. Not that you couldn't have archers wreak havoc on the enemy in MTW but the results could vary wildly between battles and depended heavily on the types of archer units involved. It also doesn't help that the tactical AI in RTW has a tendency to do nothing when being rained on by your missile troops for an extended period of time. At least in MTW the AI would try to prevent attrition losses caused by missiles by closing the distance and rushing your main line.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Doug-Thompson, yeah that si pretty much it.

[warlordmb]

The other thing that units in MTW did when under missile fire was open into loose formation. That doesn't happen in RTW unless it is a skirmisher unit under fire.

Maybe CA should incorporate this in the next patch.

I still believe that archer unit sizes should be reduced, again as in MTW.

There would be certain exceptions such as the Parthians who were totally reliant on Cav and HA.

So, Infantry/Archer would be:-

Standard 40/30
Large 80/60
Huge 120/90

Anybody else agree???