Do you really need archers?

[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

[Martok]

I have a feeling History Geek was referring specifically to vanilla archers, since I don't think anyone really questions the usefulness of missile units in general. If that is indeed the case, then I would have to agree they're of only limited utility in MTW.

Even setting aside the fact that they're (understandably) horrible in melee, vanilla archers just don't get enough missile kills IMHO. And I'm not talking about their inability to take down heavier units, either (which only makes sense that they can't). Even folks like peasants, militia units, and vanilla spearmen seem to be surprisingly resistant to arrows, despite the fact they're not armoured.

This is one reason I'm looking forward to trying out the next version of The Pocket Mod once it's released, as it will attempt to improve vanilla archers' lethality. Not that I want them to be overpowered, but I've always found it a little ridiculous that they inflict such a relatively low casualty rate, even among lighter, non-armoured units.

[General Dazza]

I haven't found them to be that bad. I tend not to use them that much other than when I play on early, as I prefer Xbows, but when I use them I find that they do their fair share of damage.

I always use melee units in any case, and I think they're very important in offensive battles. I find that the melee-only rush tactic is only good if you outclass or outnumber the enemy. My focus often is usually to use missile units (preferrably nmounted) to send out to cause the opposition to break up their formation.

Often you have to mindful of not exhausting your troops too, and often you can use melee units to draw out opposition units ands force them into an unsupported or tiring attack while conserving your own troops' energy.

And if you're attacking uphill I find missile units even more important. If you just bum-rush up-hill into enemy missile fire, and then get charged downhill by their troops, you're likely to lose in a battle if troops are even. But you can send missile unkits to the flanks to try and break up their line, and then bum-rush into an unset defensive line. You can use cav well here too.

I don't think vanilla archers suck - they play a valuable role IMHO. As a few people have said, it's about having flexibility.

[gunslinger]

Even setting aside the fact that they're (understandably) horrible in melee, vanilla archers just don't get enough missile kills IMHO. And I'm not talking about their inability to take down heavier units, either (which only makes sense that they can't). Even folks like peasants, militia units, and vanilla spearmen seem to be surprisingly resistant to arrows, despite the fact they're not armoured.

I agree that the kill rates seem a bit low, but I think that is a necessary evil since peasants, urban militia annd vanilla spearmen are all horrible units themselves. At the beginning of an early game, when you don't have jedi generals, high valor troops, or even churches for a little morale upgrade, you can hardly even get those troops to stand up and fight. I think the vanilla archers are "dumbed down" a bit to keep them from absolutely dominiating those other early units.