I disagree. We are by no means missing the point. While flanking fire as a tactic is useful, both archers and horse archers can still be used effectively without it. In fact, with my play style it has very little effect. I tend to always leave my foot archers behind my line infantry (usually shield infantry, I might add) because they are not really fast enough for me to use for effective flanking. By the time I can get them into a position to lay down flanking fire on enemy infantry, the fight is won or lost already. Horse archers I use to send out in advance of my main army and harrass the enemy as they approach. Yes, they will be slightly less effective, but will still be able to inflict some casualties.Originally Posted by Zenicetus
But as has been said, even without getting a bonus for flanking fire, both HA and FA will still be able to fulfill their primary function: killing at a distance.
The primary function of most shield infantry is to be the line infantry, the anchor for your army. The way it works with the shield bug, they are completely unable to fulfill this function. I learned this to my detriment when a bunch of peasants attacked what I thought was my pretty solid defensive line consisting of Urban Militia. I took it for granted that the UM would hold, and went on to the task of micromanaging my cavalry (another peeve, but I won't get started on that right now) to try to get them to charge properly.
The next thing I knew my UMs were routing and the peasants were raping my now unprotected archers.
There are far more factions that depend on properly functioning shield infantry than there are factions that depend on horse archers getting a flanking bonus.
To me, the shield problem is a way bigger issue and worth the side effects.
So please don't tell us we don't understand the problem.
We do.
We just disagree with you.
Bookmarks