Do you really need archers?

[caravel]

What he said ^^^

Missiles are very good defensively and not so useful offensively. I could not imagine playing defensive battles without some missile units. They are vital for wearing down enemy units before engaging them in melee, this saves your melee units from taking massive losses.

[History Geek]

Yes, true, but if you had fast units flanking both left and right on the advancing enemy army, they'd break faster and thous wouldn't cause as many casualties anyway. Since only a fraction of the unit is fighting at any moment, would you rather have the enemy killed by arrow fire enroute to your position or captured after being forced to rout? And I think the morale penalty is quite small (-2 or some such) and has hardly won the day for me in any battle.

Bridges are offcourse a totally different matter

/HG

[caravel]

But what about if you hit them with several volleys from your arbs or bows and then hit them in the flanks? In any defensive battle melee troops will eventually become exhausted and battered if they are fighting totally unsupported by missile units. It's kind of like the Mongols deploying MHC without MHA. Instead of the MHA wearing down the enemy and the MHC going in for the kill when they're ready to break, the MHC would do all of the work and thus take many more losses, leaving less veterans to take part in the next battle. Apply the same to any other force. Combined arms tactics are almost always a winner.

Also if you're playing as the Turks or Egyptians some of those missile units such as the Futuwwa or Nizari come in handy when their ammo has run out as they will still be fresh and can be used as effective flankers to relieve your other troops.

[Noir]

Assuming that: the battle is to be taken in relatively even ground (no hills) and neutral weather conditions ie (good weather) then the following IMO apply:

The missiles role in an army is to: make skirmish (and so saving other units to take the first enemy fire) during the initial approach - take out expensive enemy melee units - act as tactical reserves.

If the enemy decides to deploy piece meal (because he has no melee strength) then the battle turns out into a lengthy missile skirmish, that sometimes can last till all missiles from both sides are out of ammo - then both armies can deploy the melee units so they don't take unecessary casualties.

More often a melee will be build up either from consecutive units joining an initial skirmish, ending up with both armies joining the fight or more consciously and "all at once" particularly if one is being outshooted.

This is the "main melee" phase that is often critical: the enemy may rout there and if he doesn't, then what is left out of that phase will determine the winner. Missiles should stay out of trouble until the main melee is resolved, as the more you have by the end of the battle the better your chances to win. This is more important in MP rather than in SP, but equally applicable.

A melee heavy army should do precisely what the OP states: rush - go straight for attack. A missiles heavy army by contrast has to stay out of decisisve encounters and inflict considerable losses to the key melee units of the enemy. If a melee heavy army "catches" a missiles heavy army on the run and early in the battle - that is usually indeed the end of the battle.

Now just to make it more complicated add terrain and weather: in desert a catholic melee heavy army is doomed versus a Muslim missile heavy army.

Where there is uneven ground (hills, slopes, gorges and the like) missiles become infinitely more important and this is usually how the SP game is played more succesfully ie by offensive defence: ie you wait on a province that gives you good high ground with a moderately good army to tempt the AI - then he attacks with all his might and loses due to the high ground: now you can occupy all his emptyied of troops provinces.

Armies should have a tip of unbalance (slightly more cavalry or slightly more missiles or slightly more swords) and that is enough to press each advatage usually you don't need an 100% army of melee to be better in MP (all the more so as this is risky if your opponent picks a counter army or a balanced counter army). In SP unfortunately most of the time you know what you are fighting - in MP you don't. So (in SP) you can go for an 100% melee or missile army and win even more decisively.

Many Thanks

Noir

[doctrellor]

What he said ^^^

Missiles are very good defensively and not so useful offensively. I could not imagine playing defensive battles without some missile units. They are vital for wearing down enemy units before engaging them in melee, this saves your melee units from taking massive losses.

What he said:

In addition... since I have been playing the Russian Steppes factions...I would always take a few, but specific types...

I NEVER build regular archers, nuff said... but...

out of all the early factions one can play, I'd say the Boyars are the best, and can kick some butt verses any Mongol units, since you'll be building them ASAP to get ready for the Mongols

For the factions, no matter if Lithuanian, Cuman, Keivan, Volga.. Horse archers will be a main gun....I do use mounted crossbowman often when they show up, and then switch to the "Elites" when they do...

But if I use archers, I use "elite" horse archers, for the speed and weapon...

That is why when I play the Novos, I have the King WITH the princes to form a big block of Boyars, supported with Armored Spearmen and a few other units to give it some punch.. and that stack usually has high morale, high command, very good defense and so casualties are few.

[Caliburn]

I find missiles vital in attack as well as defence. Though the enemy seldom really has a strong position, using missiles and cavalry can be used to force the enemy to react and lose some of his footing. Arbalests in attack are of course a boon, as the enemy has to either attack or take considerable losses before it is engaged.

After the main line engages the enemy, missiles can also be used to lower the enemy morale by running them around and letting them shoot the enemy's rear and even charge if they're of the stronger kind. It all depends on the tactics and how well the enemy reacts.

Against Horse Archers foot missiles are always a boon - both in attack and defence.

No, you don't need archers - I was happy using only mounted sergeants and Italian Infantry in one of my first campaigns... 8 dismounted and 8 mounted Chivalric Knights will be able to beat almost anything of course as well. I find Archers bring great flexibility to any army, though.

[drone]

When I play the Danes, I never use archers. A viking should meet an opponent face-to-face! That, and the early units rule, so archers are just a waste.

[Agent Miles]

As far as the original post, no, I don’t need the unit called “archers”. I’m not talking about arbs, or Janissary Infantry, just archers. My Early/Catholic stacks usually consist of a general, five Royal Knights, five spear units and five blade units. As soon as possible, I’ll cut these groups to four each and add three mounted missile units (Mounted Crossbows or Steppe Heavy Cav). Theoretically, an army of archers may outshoot an army of HA’s, except that the HA’s would ride them down in melee combat. Archers suck.

[Noir]

Originally posted by Agent Miles
Archers suck.

True -vanilla archers indeed "suck". Xbows and Arbalests and pavised versions of them, as well as hybrids such as Bulgarian Brigands and Trebizond Archers in vanilla are way more viable missiles as they have some melee staying power other than against cavalry charges -following the STW principle that made archers viable even after guns were available.

An army of archers would indeed lose to an army of HAs under any terrain possibly - but an army of archers (16 units) + 2 - 4 spears will slaughter in all probability the equivalent 16 HA's easily - especially if they can have high ground. HAs are so good though in flatlands/steppes as history demands, because they can encircle and move out of position the afformentioned archer + a few spears combo.

Many Thanks

Noir

[macsen rufus]

I do like missile troops, maybe it's the coward in me, but I like to see the enemy wilting away without my troops being touched

It's true that basic vanilla archers are a bit wimpy in melee, especially against cavalry, but if they are well protected by spears or backed up by spears they can skirmish behind, they can usually stay out of that sort of trouble. Where possible I prefer to get the more advanced types of bows, or "hybrids" (Ottoman infantry are about my favourite hybrids, tough in melee and with AP bonus).

At least in early, arrows turn cav into pincushions, and archers are a great boon when defending against HAs or jinettes. They are IMHO the best antidote to jinettes, as that horseflesh is a great arrow-magnet

Archers also tend to form a major part of any desert army I put together as well. Being very lightly armoured they can keep going in the heat and do a lot of damage, especially where the enemy field a lot of heavy infantry. Not to forget also (at least in VI, not vanilla MTW) they have flaming missiles for taking out wooden fortifications. Anything below a keep you can open up with a single unit of archers.

I also tend to use more archers (or Xbows, whatever) in defensive rather than offensive battles. With the choice of position, and the chance to get a height advantage, you really get the best out of them. Offensively, I prefer mounted missiles for the speed, again especially those that have some melee capability like boyars or steppe heavies (even teched-up mounted Xbows can be pretty handy when then enemy doesn't expect it. One of my best generals of any campaign ever was a 9 valour mounted Xbow unit, with weapon upgrades, who ate kataphraktoi for breakfast )

[Ironside]

As far as the original post, no, I don’t need the unit called “archers”. I’m not talking about arbs, or Janissary Infantry, just archers. My Early/Catholic stacks usually consist of a general, five Royal Knights, five spear units and five blade units.

Ever been to Leon?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Or for them who doesn't get it. Leon often ends up as Spain's jinette production center. Try beating 16 units of jinettes with an early catholic army without archers.

As mentioned, it's not always you need ranged units especially in offensive battles with only one stack (ranged units value increases considerble with the number of waves), but they're good for flexibility, weakening the elite units that need 2-3 to 1 odds to be beaten and wither the enemy front line, making it break faster. It's not always you can get the aviability to make a proper flanking and without any extra morale penalties, the enemy can hold for quite some time. Sometimes you can have enough firepower to make the battle almost over before it even stated properly.

Your regular archers doesn't have that long life time though as they are only good vs lightly to medium armoured targets and aren't good flankers, but they still have thier use early on.

[cosminus]

IMHO the arcers and arbs are unusefull in offensive battles. After High emerge I found my offensive armies didn't use too much arrows, so excepting bridge battles I skipped to use archery.
First of all because archery duel on offensive is almost a draw result, enemy being usual on higher ground, then if enemy have artillery they can shoot at my arcers, then the casualties inflicted is small if the enemy have good armor and my arcers do not have weapon improvement. When melee start, missiles causes also friendly fire. Therefore on offensive i tend to use only cav and melee units that will do A LOT of damage to enemies, and I'm using archers only in defensive battles.
Also in castle assaults I do not ever use archery units.
Sometime a go I did an experimental custom battle. One RK unit inside of a wooden castle and 6 pav arbs and 6 longbowmens as attackers. The Longbows deleted their ammo quick and killed few RK, the pav arbs after depleted the ammo kills NONE enemies. And the attacker lost many times more mens than the defender and also start routing (because of high casualties). So if for a wooden castle arbs proven unusefull, for masonry walls they will be only waste. Same for longbows, they arrows will never have the range to hit a defender inside of middle of a citadel/fortress with defensive walls improvements. IMHO