Archers in BC

[Vulture]

I've recently started playing BC and I noticed all the archers and crossbowmen have a missile attack of 5 and all javelin troops of 11. Now I don't believe all archers perform equally, in that case I wouldnt see any reason to use better archers than the dirt cheap ones. I have also noticed large differences in kills between different archery units.
Now I wonder, how do I know which archery units are better and by how much and why isnt this just displayed by a higer or lower missile attack value? Or are the differences between archers just that some can pierce armor or shoot at long range, whilst they have the same base damage?

[wudang_clown]

The difference is in accuracy.

Better = more expensive archers are more accurate. Elite archers have best accuracy and missile attack 6 (iirc). The better archers are, the more expensive they are.

[metsikhovne]

i really do not see difference in elite and lower elite archers, most elites are reduced in numbers so 30 elite i think will mke same damage as 60 soldiers in lower unit

[panzer 4]

i think damage should differentiate due to the bow type they use. the Compact bow used on horse back had very strong armour piercing capabilities. Islamic warriors under the Ayyubid dynasty would carry a sword, bow, arrows and a shield yet wore almost practically no armour save for a helmet and a very light chain mail cuirass.
the English Longbow men arrows were devastating too as the muslims relied on light infantry (until the mamlukes arrived) and mobility to defeat their enemies. Consequently, the Turks were the most feared in the war due to the damage of their archery on christian armies and supply lines due to the strength of their arrows.

[Wareg]

I think that both damage and range (not only accurancy as now) should be more differentiated, according as rank and nation.
It isn't easy to determine which faction had better archers or stronger bows but undoubtedly differences were significant.

[Iguanaonastick]

I agree. There would be a substantial difference in bow quality between the one used by Roman Toxotai and elite Mamlukes. I doubt all bows had the same draw weight either. Plus the quality of arrow-heads would vary between levies and elites.

[wudang_clown]

Islamic warriors under the Ayyubid dynasty would carry a sword, bow, arrows and a shield yet wore almost practically no armour save for a helmet and a very light chain mail cuirass.

No. Ayyubid armies consisted of both light cavalry and heavy cavalry in considerable number. It has been discussed 189013576 times already.

[sughdi]

foot archers tend to be useless as they only have a little ammunition, light horse archers have ALOT of ammo and hence can win battles single-handed if you place then on a hill. The better quality horse archers (medium and elite) recieve fewer and fewer arrows... ironically making them a worse choice than light horse archers if you want them to be capable of firing continously. Basically foot archers need more arrows... I notice hindu longbowmen have alot of ammunition.

[SoulBlade]

Archers are really worth the price, especially the top tier ones, they even can kill a few heavy horses.

[sughdi]

high tier archers are not very good at archery as they do not have enough arrows I hate hybrid units

[Wareg]

Foot archers are really effective against light infantry, mainly against herded infantry. Elite archers are also good against ligter archers.
The most important problem I've noticed is shooting against cavalry, mainly haevy cavalry but with unarmoured horses. It seems strange If my archers are shooting rain of arrows, most of them hit unarmoured horses and they are still alive.

[warble]

not a fan of foot archers, they run out too fast

[SoulBlade]

not a fan of foot archers, they run out too fast

If you place and use them correctly, they will fulfill their purpose.