Palle's guide to archery.

[WarpGhost]

Lastly, I have bad experience with Slingers. How do they work? They always seem to kill themselves. I've maintained two units of Eastern Slingers in an army sent to conquer the Persepolis valley. They have never seen combat, nor endured enemy missile weapons, yet they're both at half strength, after only three battles? I mean, sure, one or two casualties due to careless shooting, sure, but more than 40? It doesn't make any sense.

Slingers are more prone to friendly fire in my (admittedly limited) experience, as they need to be spread apart both for more elbow room to actually release their shots and so they dont put a slug in their neighbours neck (they fire on a lower arc). I dont have much experience with them, but I have found them to be more finnicky with things like that.

As you can see, I've sort of just combined Macilrille's idea with some later ideas on the board. I do this because I think there really are these three types. Sure, the "crappy archers" are light and poor in melee, but they are also bad at range as well, so to lump them with the good at range archers doesn't make sense. The "good archers" will rain death upon your foes, but they will be devastated in melee, so placing Saka foot archers in the same category as Syrians doesn't make sense from a battlefield role perspective. The "heavy archers" are defined by their melee capabilities, and although most of them are very good at range as well, they may be outranged by the weak in melee Saka foot archers or some of the other "good archers."

Well, I disagree on the splitting 'crappy/good' archers because I think all archers can be made useful, and because part of that is recognising what situations they do and dont work. Just as significantly, due to EB recruitment systems, you may not have much/any access to 'good' archers, so light/heavy remains most relevant. Which are best can be judged certainly, but it isnt entirely relevant it cant be an absolute judgement (I personally dont use Hellenic Archers if I can avoid them, but I dont necassarily have the choice).

Additionally, there are some specific units that I would say overlap the boundaries of multiple categories. Archer-spearmen are often only mediocre archers at range (with the exception of the elite Baltic ones, Medininkas I believe they are called), and I may even place them in the "crappy archer" category, but they also have decent melee capabilities, though, again, they are not particularly great in melee. Maybe there should be an additional category for archer-spearmen, as they fulfill a very specific battlefield of being decent in melee against cavalry and decent archers at range. A jack-of-all trades, but master of none, so to speak.

Not quite true on their shooting potential; Arabian Archer-Spearmen are actually excellent shooters as well as the spearman capability, its why I rated them so highly. But I dont believe archer-spearmen deserve a seperate catagory, because they're still in essence the same as poorly protected archers with maces and swords.

I would class Archer-Spearmen with Heavy Archers, but that is probably because I have only met the elite Baltiv variant; the Medininkas, and as Sweboz you got to love those...

I actually missed out Frontiersman, but I would still rate them light (and inferior to Arabians because theyre still only pretty average shooters). Their melee potential is greater than most light archers, but they're still poorly protected (especially at range), and their morale whilst the best of the lights, is also IMO the least important of the 4 criteria (shooting/protection/melee/morale).

EDIT: Wisington posted his last whilst I was writing mine, havent had a chance to read and respond to it yet.

[WinsingtonIII]

Well, I disagree on the splitting 'crappy/good' archers because I think all archers can be made useful, and because part of that is recognising what situations they do and dont work. Just as significantly, due to EB recruitment systems, you may not have much/any access to 'good' archers, so light/heavy remains most relevant. Which are best can be judged certainly, but it isnt entirely relevant it cant be an absolute judgement (I personally dont use Hellenic Archers if I can avoid them, but I dont necassarily have the choice).

I agree with what you're saying in that bad archers can still kill poorly armored units, but they cannot do it with the effectiveness of good archers, mainly because they have less range, but also because they may have lower attack values. Saka Foot Archers really are better at range than Toxotai because they have much greater range and greater attack. So even if you use both of them effectively and target the correct units, the Saka are going to perform better. Realistically I put ONLY Toxotai and Satoraos in the bad archer category (and maybe the German archers, but I don't recall if they have spears), because they are truly terrible. The middle of the range light archers such as the unarmored persians are part of the good archer category, even though they are not great. It's not absolute, it's just that the very lowest of the low get put in the bad archer category. The geography is of course a huge deal from a campaign perspective. In Western Europe, all you're going to have access to is bad archers, and I guess in that context you could use them in fashion of good archers, but don't expect much. I would pick slingers instead. Put them in loose formation and it significantly cuts down on friendly-fire.

The distinction I make between archer-spearmen and all other archers is that they can handle light and medium cavalry well. Numidian Archers with their clubs aren't going to do so well against cavalry. That's what distinguishes archer-spearmen from the other light archers, even those light archers that carry a decent secondary. And as you'll read in my (ridiculously long, sorry about that) post, these types I put forward do not have firm boundaries. An archer can be an archer spearmen and a good archer, or not.

[WarpGhost]

Dont apologise for the long post; it shows how much you thought about the issue.

I find loose formation can actually be quite good at helping crappy units absorb a charge, because the gaps and enemy tight formation minimise the charge attacks they make.

The distinction I make between archer-spearmen and all other archers is that they can handle light and medium cavalry well. Numidian Archers with their clubs aren't going to do so well against cavalry. That's what distinguishes archer-spearmen from the other light archers, even those light archers that carry a decent secondary.

I actually did a quick little test, facing Numidians and Arabians against Germanic Light and Cappadocian Medium cavalry, and found the Numidians to actually be better than the Arabians (the Arabians couldnt beat the mediums where the Numidians did, though that may have been due to general kills against the Arabs). Obviously, this superiority only applies to Indian/Ethiopian/Numidian archers, but nonetheless I still am not moved to seperate out archer-spearmen in my own estimation.

Also, 'bad archers' do not have inferior morale to most 'good archers' (both mostly have 8-9/low); the main problem there is the smaller unit size. But I dont dispute that they're pretty crappy either way.

[Macilrille]

/me is happy, others will read our thread, digest and learn from it and become better players. This is what it is all about :-)

[vartan]

/me is happy, others will read our thread, digest and learn from it and become better players. This is what it is all about :-)

Just read it. Very happy.

[WinsingtonIII]

I find loose formation can actually be quite good at helping crappy units absorb a charge, because the gaps and enemy tight formation minimise the charge attacks they make.

Oh yeah, I totally agree, that's why I suggested using bad archers that way. You break up their charge, the enemy line loses cohesion, and you get the benefit of a counter-charge. Plus, a smaller number of the men in that unit get hit by the charge. Realistically you can use any cheap, widely available unit in this role, such as bad archers, slingers, cheap skirmishers like Akontistai or Jugunthiz, or even levy spear units, although I would stick to missile troops so that they can shower the enemy with fire before they charge into you. I find this tactic works especially well with "barbarian" factions because the main strength of your infantry is in their charge and they tend to carry secondary javelins. This means that the enemy not only wastes their charge, they are getting peppered with javelins as they do it, and your troops get the benefit of their good charge. With some "scary" infantry involved, this can be enough to cause a quick rout. Obviously you shouldn't use this against phalanx based armies, as charging headlong into sarissas is not the best idea, it's better to let the phalanxes come to your units and leave them in guard mode. This is getting a little off-topic though.

I actually did a quick little test, facing Numidians and Arabians against Germanic Light and Cappadocian Medium cavalry, and found the Numidians to actually be better than the Arabians (the Arabians couldnt beat the mediums where the Numidians did, though that may have been due to general kills against the Arabs). Obviously, this superiority only applies to Indian/Ethiopian/Numidian archers, but nonetheless I still am not moved to seperate out archer-spearmen in my own estimation.

Interesting. I didn't have enough time to do any tests, so I'm glad that you did. I was merely going by my campaign experiences, but obviously I guess I never had an army in which I could compare Numidians and Arabians side by side, and I assumed that the spear would be better against cavalry. The Numidians advantage against the Cappadocians may be due to the fact that Cappadocians are a fairly heavily armored medium cavalry (if I remember correctly, I'm not on my computer that has the unit list on it right now and I can't find the unit list that was reloaded on the forum recently, despite my searching for it), and their mace is armor-piercing while the spear is not. I remember one battle I had as Saba against the Ptolies where my Arabian archer-spearmen absolutely saved me from the enemy Prodomoi (I had essentially no cavalry), they held them at bay from the rear of my line, enduring multiple charges, and then picked them off at range rather effectively. Of course, maybe Numidians would have done just as good of a job. Also, I did mention that your archer-spearmen shouldn't be taking on cavalry one-on-one ideally, if you flank the cavalry with another unit that's preferable. This test does raise questions about the archer-spearmen category but I still feel like there should be a distinction between light archers that have essentially no melee abilities and light archers that fair decently (if not well) in melee, such as archer-spearmen and Indians, Ethiopians, and Numidians. Because while my Arabian archer-spearmen held Prodomoi at bay and saved the battle for me, I sincerely doubt light Persian archers could, despite being decent archers.

Also, 'bad archers' do not have inferior morale to most 'good archers' (both mostly have 8-9/low); the main problem there is the smaller unit size. But I dont dispute that they're pretty crappy either way.

Sorry I didn't look this up I merely assumed. But anyways, my main distinction between bad and good archers was, as you said, unit size, but also range and to a lesser extent attack.

/me is happy, others will read our thread, digest and learn from it and become better players. This is what it is all about :-)

Me too! This has been a useful and interesting thread. I'd like to hear what you or anybody else thinks about the basic tactics I put forward in my absurdly long post. Improvements or individual/situational strategies would be welcome.

[Teucer]

Just read through this guide... good stuff. It would be pretty sweet if someone wanted to compile a chart showing the ranges of each unit, but I suppose I can always go look it up myself.

One question I have (and pardon me if it was answered and I missed it) regards the Sardinian/Nuragic archers. Has anyone had much success with these guys. I think I remember them being a bit longer range than other 'western' types, but I could be wrong. Do they work well as wall defenders, or is their range too short for use in sallies?

[athanaric]

Just read through this guide... good stuff. It would be pretty sweet if someone wanted to compile a chart showing the ranges of each unit, but I suppose I can always go look it up myself.

Found one, courtesy of bobbin (slightly edited by me):

Archers:
Saka Foot Archers 209m, 25 arrows, 5 attack <---They have the longest range in the game.
Toxotai Kretikoi 201.6m, 35 arrows, 6 attack
Paya Hinam Dunai Purma (Subeshi Archers) 198m, 35 arrows, 5 attack
Mardian Foot Archers 198m, 35 arrows, 5 attack
Levantine Saggitarius Auxilia 198m 35 arrows, 5 attack
Sarmatian Foot Archers 198m, 35 arrows, 5 attack
Skuda Fistaeg Fat Aexsdzhytae 198m, 35 arrows, 5 attack
Thanvare Pârsig (Elamite Archers) 198m, 35 arrows, 5 attack
Giusim Aravim Tsfonim 196m, 25 arrow, 5 attack
Syrian Archers 192.5m, 25 arrows, 4 attack
Thanvare Payahdag, 192.5m, 25 arrows, 4 attack
Medininkas 187m, 25 arrows, 4 attack
Thureopherontes Toxotai 180m, 35 arrows. 5 attack 
Caucasian Archers, 180m, 28 arrows, 6 attack
Komatai Agrianai 179.5m, 25 arrows, 5 attack
Ethiopian Archers 179.2m, 25 arrows, 5 attack
Nizagân-î Erânshahr 175m, 25 arrows, 4 attack
Numidian Archers 170m, 20 arrows, 5 attack
Indian Longbowmen 170m, 16 arrows, 5 attack
Sabean Archers 170m, 25 arrows, 4 attack
Komatai Toxotai 160.2m, 15 arrows, 4 attack
Lankininkas 160m, 15 arrows, 4 attack
Nuraghi 157.3m, 15 arrows, 3 attack
Skudjonez 143m, 15 arrows, 4 attack
Sotaroas 143m, 15 arrows, 3 attack
Toxotai 143m, 15 arrows, 3 attack

Slingers:
Rhodian Slingers 195m, 30 bullets, 2 attack
Shubân-î Fradâkhshânâ, 185m, 30 bullets, 2 attack
Sphendonetai 185m, 30 bullets, 2 attack
Balearic Slinger 175m, 20 bullets, 3 attack
African Slingers 162.8m, 25 bullets, 1 attack
Arab Slingers 162.8m, 25 bullets, 1 attack
Iaosatae, 162m, 35 bullets, 1 attack
Komatai Sphendonitai 148m, 25 bullets, 1 attack
Iberian Slingers 148m, 25 bullets, 1 attack
Accensi 133.2m, 25 bullets, 1 attack

One question I have (and pardon me if it was answered and I missed it) regards the Sardinian/Nuragic archers. Has anyone had much success with these guys. I think I remember them being a bit longer range than other 'western' types, but I could be wrong. Do they work well as wall defenders, or is their range too short for use in sallies?

Only archer-spearmen with shields, and yes, their range is better than that of other Western European archers, their morale is not though. Make good garrison troops due to low price and high versatility.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Weird, when i changed the range of Cretan Archers in Vanilla then I had an error which said that 190 is the maximum range for arrows.
So, how come Saka archers can have the range over 200m?