Uruk Crossbows or Archers?

[LuckyPistol]

Thanks for the stats Wizad, I always thought the Dwarves were better than Isengard in terms of crossbows, but you proved me wrong hahaha

I think it was mentioned above but yes Rhun's crossbows are essential if you want to take out the dwarvs and other high armored units, since they have better range than the Balchoth Spammers and you get them before armored cavalry

[Mikail Mengsk]

Crossbows, because AP.

[seanbg]

I like crossbow units, but they are hard to use. They are inflexible. I prefer my elite uruk archers. Even as Isengard, my armies are generally archer heavy.

Crossbow men without suitable terrain cannot support infantry units during a melee engagement. Crossbow men move slower, and tire easily, meaning that they cannot act as flankers and quick response units.

Crossbow men generally lose in a shootout with my archers, and their morale isn't high enough to justify it's recruitment cost. When defending, a cross bow man unit is only able to put a three volleys at most before the enemy unit engages your forces. My archers can put five or six. I generally use archers to soften lightly armoured enemy units who will then break upon contact with my forces, and cause a general rout when the wargs come crashing down the rear of the heavy armoured enemy who are engaged with my pursuing infantry.

My archers are deadly when defending bridges. High rate of fire, plus massed volleys = lots of dead Rohirrim. Crossbow men work best for a higher kill ratio when they are deployed in a linear formation. Otherwise it negates their fire power. Archers do not have this problem. They move fast, hit hard, and are cheaper and easier to replace, due to garrison level difference. Not to mention in a long term campaign. The culture difference makes it easier to replenish your forces.

When deployed as skirmishers, my archers run fast, and move into new formations quickly, as the unit block is compact. They are flexible. They are my commandos!

[LuckyPistol]

Holy crap, that post is probably the strongest archer argument I've seen. You've really boiled it down to flexibilty vs killing power, well done!

[seanbg]

Thanks! I love archers.

On MTW vanilla, I once had a battle that was almost entirely decided by a shootout.
I was a small force of Moors defending against a larger, better equipped Sicilian colonial wanna-bes.
The enemy had the famed Italian crossbowmen and spear men, I had a bunch of Saharan archers and mercenary African swordsmen.
The funny thing was that, the terrain was sand dunes. Which proved to be my savior because I kept maneuvering around, always keeping the sand dunes between us.
In the end, my archers decimated their forces with indirect fire, and I won.

Moral of the story: Remember Crécy!

[avenging angel]

Gd point.. I suppose you are right in a way but also it would depend on who you against. Arrows against would be pointless, but crossbows would hurt...

[seanbg]

Yeah the AP bonus is sweet!
Crossbows are like knives, they slice and dice.
They can hurt ALOT!
But because you can't stack them, as in (they have to be deployed like this ------ ------- ------ instead of ------
------
------

You can, but they won't be very effective. Which means due to the length of the battlefield, and their limited reach, you can only bring two of three of these units into the field, and with their poor rate of fire, that means that their fire cycle is very very slow. The great thing about archers is that what they lack for fire power, and stopping power, they have in numbers. Imagine that a unit has 120 men, that's 120 arrows, and I typically bring 6 units of them. That's 720 arrows, each with a damage point of 6-8. Even if the first fails to kill, usually that arrow is followed by a second that'll slice any infantry apart. Archers also work best in a bowl shaped formation.



-----------------------11111---------------------------
---------------11111----------11111--------------------
--------11111------------------------11111-------------

This would catch enemy infantry in a cross fire, and a full fusillade, which would rake the sides and backs of enemy infantry if engaged on the flanks.
In short, do a Cannae, and round it off with a nice cavalry charge from the rear.
My point is that unless the enemy's armour is very high, archers are almost never pointless (pun not intended)
If they have high armour, simply target another opponent.
If they are all that highly armoured, time to change tactics my friend.

But still Crossbows are very very deadly, I have a very very healthy respect for them. Especially if your terrain favours you, and you put your crossbow men firing directly over the top of your infantry.... very painful. Like my battles as the Moors in hilly Iberia, where the English knights were cut up pretty badly by my short range crossbow militia, in the valleys and passes. Archers wouldn't have been so good then. If those dastardly English heavy infantry caught up with my light turban clad Berber spear men... >_>
Or if you manage to catch your enemy in mid deployment. Extremely painful.

[avenging angel]

I am definately beingh swayed to change my mind and go with archers.. lol

[LuckyPistol]

Yea same here haha
Al lthe crossbow supporters gave their points before, now it looks like its the archers turn

[Mikail Mengsk]

Orc factions suffer from heavily-armored opponents, so for them crossbows>archers. In mid-late game every good faction have access to heavy armor, so you'll better train those crossbows since your archers won't do much damage.

I'll suggest a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio between crossbows and archers.

[seanbg]

Good point Mengsk. Guess a mixture gives a player the best of both worlds.