Originally Posted by
Kilo11
So, I find the debate here interesting, but I think you guys have started to talk past each other, and lost sight of the original point anyway.
First, to the debate here: As I understand it Mamlaz, mAIOR, and NapoleanMaster seem to be pressing the point that horse archers (hereafter HAs) did not create many casualties and were generally more of a nuisance on the battlefield or served a tactical but themselves non-lethal role. Ghengis Skahn, Quintus Sertorius, and the EB team in general are, I believe, holding the line on the idea that HAs were central units in many militaries and moreover essential for victory for peoples like the Saka, Sarmatae, and later the Huns and Mongols.
First things first, these points aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, and it may be useful for you all to clarify what exactly your objection is to the other side (Ghengis Skahn's and Mamlaz's heating responses to one another seem to most forcefully show this need to clarify what the exact objection is). If one side is just saying they didn't kill many enemies and the other side is saying they were a crucial role for victory, these can certainly both be true. A further point of clarity that I think is very important to make is about how they were lethal. If the objection against HAs is that they weren't lethal when used against a shieldwall or fixed line, then this differs greatly from the idea that they weren't lethal period, even when firing at a flank or the rear of a unit. In some cases it seems like the anti-HA faction (I know you guys aren't really anti-HA, but bear with the unfair title) is objecting to them being lethal against the front of troops, and the pro-HA response seems to be trading on effectiveness when flanking or cutting down routing units, or thinning already light troops. Clarity in this would be helpful as well. Finally, I think the whole discussion about historical sources from both sides needs to given proper substantiation or omitted altogether. I'm not saying that any of the things cited are wrong or biased, but I can see the use of sources (without providing citations) as a sore point from both sides, and one which is derailing the discussion a bit.
To sum up my take on the debate so far, I don't think you guys actually are really disagreeing. I think the anti-HA people are saying they wouldn't kill well-armored troops with solid formations, the pro-HA people are saying they can do precisely that when flanking or drawing out such troops. I don't think this is a point the anti-HA folks will strongly object to, and the resistance is one due to misunderstanding of each other, not to real objections. Do correct me if I've misrepresented or misunderstood any point though.
Now, the second thing is that you have all seem to lost sight of the original -- and more important -- point anyway, which was that mAIOR thought missile units should have their damage nerfed because in his opinion they were too lethal. Now, I just ran a couple (very quick) tests, and I don't actually see a problem there. Using two units of Saka HAs against two units of Baktrian levy hoplite I did not manage to kill more than 30% of them if the arrows were consitently fired into their fronts, and nearly all of the casualties came when they were marching toward me and thus their lines were open and receiving unhindered fire. When they were set in lines without moving the kill rate was far lower though (certainly no more than 10%). However, if I used those two HAs to swing round and hit their sides or backs I could cut them down more like 50%-60% casualties, but that also seems fine, given that I was then firing into entirely unprotected areas. So, as far as archer balance in game goes, I can't see the objection.