Archers, underpowered?

[Matzematze]

I have been experimenting lately in custom battles and I used retinue longbowmen vs enemy infantry. I had my own infantry to create a buffer zone for my archers. But i noticed that my archers were barely killing anyone. I mean, for 300 arrows from some of the best archers flying around at the same time, you would think i can kill atleast 30-40? I killed 4-5.

I need to know are they underpowered and i shouldnt bother using them or are am i just using them wrong. Do they usually kill in one hit or they need 2 hits to kill? Should i aim at the spear militia of the enemy or their general?

help appreciated thanks

[The Fishman]

I have been experimenting lately in custom battles and I used retinue longbowmen vs enemy infantry. I had my own infantry to create a buffer zone for my archers. But i noticed that my archers were barely killing anyone. I mean, for 300 arrows from some of the best archers flying around at the same time, you would think i can kill atleast 30-40? I killed 4-5.

I need to know are they underpowered and i shouldnt bother using them or are am i just using them wrong. Do they usually kill in one hit or they need 2 hits to kill? Should i aim at the spear militia of the enemy or their general?

help appreciated thanks

General things about archers:

• Arrows from regular bows (not crossbows) are not armour-piercing, so against armoured units they will not be as effective.
• Most arrows that a unit fires end up missing, meaning they are only effective if you have lots of units. This makes archers a different type of unit to melee units: a small number of melee units can kill a decent amount of enemies but they will take a lot of casualties, where as archers don't kill as many but take far fewer losses.
• Horse archers are IMHO the most effective form of archer. This is because you need to deploy foot archers as part of a mixed army, with infantry to guard their lines and cavalry to take out opposing archers. Horse archers, on the other hand, can run away from any enemy infantry or heavy cavalry, and can go into melee and charge down foot archers themselves. Since they require no other units (except a general!) to help them you can make entire armies composed solely of horse archers, maximising firepower to insane levels. Their mobility lets you move them into a big crescent around the enemy and simply melt them away with the hurricane of arrows you unleash!
• Archers are effective in siege battles. The enemy has a tendency to go to the city centre and form a huge mass there once you have repelled them from the gateways. Archers can soften up this mass and stop you from taking incredibly high casualties when you assault.
• Archers are obviously effective in defensive sieges. Their burning arrows will kill enemy moral and decimate their numbers. Massed archers are one of the few ways to repel the Mongols from your walls.
• As for what to target, try to avoid shields and armour. The most common enemies without shields are other archers and cavalry. Alright, cavalry do have shields, but they are nowhere near big enough to protect the whole horse. As for units that do have shields, attack them from their right-hand sides or the rear, as those areas are unshielded. The best possible targets for archers are stationary light cavalry and pikemen. The worst possible targets are moving heavy cavalry and heavy dismounted knights.
• Most arrows that miss their targets fall too short or too far, not to the sides. There is some kind of French name for this effect. Take advantage of this by firing at deep collumns of units coming towards you (like in a siege!) or from the side along their rows.
• Try to get a crossfire going, so that the enemy can't just turn their shields to face you.
• Horse archers can shoot while moving, which lets them use a historic technique called the Parthian Shot. If another cavalry unit (or infantry unit, if the AI is feeling suicidal) tries to attack your horse archers, turn/leave skirmish on. They will run away out of reach of the cavalry, but they will also turn around in their saddles and plug away into the enemy from very close range as they do so. If the attacking cavalry are poorly-armoured they will likely be badly mauled.
• Peasant archers are not very good, though better than the standard peasant. They are not to be used in any serious army, use more professional units instead.

[Surgeon]

As a rule of thumb, most archers except some of the elite ones in the game can need time to score a substantial amount of kills. If you can somehow immobilize the enemy and pepper them with arrows, archers can do quite a bit of damage. Archers can also use burning arrows which is a good morale shocker. If all the enemy units are tied down in melee you can try moving your archers off to one side and shooting flaming arrows to make the enemy rout faster.

[Viking Prince]

Also remember that experience makes a difference with all units. Archers gain accuracy with experience.

[Mattzo12]

Concentrate your archers on 1 enemy unit at a time. 60 archers vs 60 infantry will not do much damage. 40% of arrows are guaranteed to miss. The remaining 36 arrows wont do much, especially if they lack armour piercing attribites.

I used 4 units of longbowmen against 1 unit of spearmen. The spears lost 30-40 men and routed.

[The Fishman]

Concentrate your archers on 1 enemy unit at a time. 60 archers vs 60 infantry will not do much damage. 40% of arrows are guaranteed to miss. The remaining 36 arrows wont do much, especially if they lack armour piercing attribites.

I used 4 units of longbowmen against 1 unit of spearmen. The spears lost 30-40 men and routed.

Winning a 4 vs. 1 battle does not sound that impressive at first glance, but it is when you consider it was won with no losses whatsoever archers suddenly seem a whole lot more valuable.

I haven't had enough experience with foot archers, but I know that with a full stack of horse archers you can theoretically win a battle against an enemy full stack and take zero losses, as long as they have no missile units and not too much heavy armour. In practice it's a bit harder since you will always take a bit of friendly fire, skirmish mode doesn't always work and sometimes routing units will fight to the death, but these losses will usually only mean 5-10% of your army. This means nothing since the AI will probably loose 100% of its army.

[Mattzo12]

They werent the only troops I had

I have about 700 troops and them 500 in the campaign, and I simply focused my missile fire. Worked well, specially when your england with armour piercing longbows.

[Viking Prince Olaf]

Also remember that experience makes a difference with all units. Archers gain accuracy with experience.

I didn't know that... =.= I thought it helped in case they ever got into melee trouble....I hate having foot archers, it always seems like even if horse archers are running they're still more accurate than foot archers standing still.

[Lysimachus]

If archers had more missile attack value they would shred units to pieces single-handedly. That's exactly why they don't cause too many losses, otherwise there would be no need for any other type of units.

[Nazgûl Killer]

I don't know if anyone said this already, but a few things you need to know about archers;
Crossbows are excellent against armor, have a longer range than regular bows, and regular bows are pityful against armor.
Archers should target less armored units for extra effectiveness, unless using crossbowmen.
Archers fire into the skies to hit their opponent without killing their friends on the way, thus creating a big minus to accuracy.
Archers miss, A LOT.
It takes about 3 - 4 hits to take out a soldier (Depending on the armor too, some soldiers take one or two).
I find targeting generals with archers extremely useful, as even if they kill only the bodyguards, it's still a big help and reduce the general's HP or protection.
Archers shouldn't be counted on too heavily in fights, they are pure supporting units, nothing more or less.
Archers have powerful missile shots against cavalry (Try it, if they hit they are extremely deadly).
Archers are MAINLY weapons of intimidation, think of it this way, having flaming arrows hit all around you and set your friends ablaze... Will pretty much make every single man, even the bravest of all people, think twice before fighting.

[Mithrane]

Re : Nazgul

Archers fire flat tragectory if they do not have units blocking their shots. ie. a 2-thick line of archers with nothing in front of them will fire straight at the enemy. Same if the archers are slightly elevated behind the defending infantry.

Re: how to use archers well.

-For most factions, the initial archers available are simply there as harrassing units during attack, and support units during defense.
-Basic bow units are best used at an angle to the line of battle, prefferably on the enemy's right flank so as to avoid shields.
-Advanced bow units (read those with decent melee stats) should be used as the flanking force, or, if facing an enemy with no shock-troops or cavalry, as the basic front line troops. These units use their archery only to harass the enemy on the way in, and hold the line themselves, before shooting the fleeing enemy in the back.
-Defensive Specialty bow units (those with stakes) should be used to determine where your lines of scrimage will be. Most of these don't have the defensive melee capability to hold in a prolonged fight, so will need to be backed up by infantry which will allow the archers to fall back and then shoot over the defending infantry.
-Offensive Specialty bow units (armor piercing+long range) should be used from one flank in a highly defended position (preferably of elevation so have clean shot). They should be used to pick appart the advanced units of the enemy as the approach. Have all of them attack a single unit until that unit is at 15-25% numbers, then move on. Couple with an axe wielding infantry defending the archers, and any unit will rout.
-Regular Crossbow units. These should be used in the same manner as Offensive Specialty bow units, but one should realize that their slower shot means they will have less a chance to decimate the foe on approach.
-Passive Crossbow units. These should be used in a similar manner to Defensive Specialty bow units, but will often have the stats to take on equal number/quality foes in melee.

Peasant/Militia archers, after about turn 30-40, are only really good for attempting to set siege weapons on fire with a large volume of flaming arrows. They have no killing power once an enemy gets 3rd tier blacksmiths going.

[The Sixth Wizard]

A word on loose formation:

Putting archers into loose formation sucks. Not only does it make archers less effective as the arrows are spread out, but they cover a larger area of ground, making them more likely to stray too far towards an enemy unit and have to run away. They lose men like this to light cavalry and they rout sooner too. Instead, I leave my archers in as tight a formation as possible to manoeuvre them to enemy flanks or inbetween gaps in my line, and to cause maximum damage on high priority targets at close range. Since most archers (maybe not crossbows) are so cheap, not to mention they don't need to be saved for sieges or large battles like infantry or cavalry respectively, it doesn't matter much how many casualties they take from enemy missiles.

The lesson? Leave your archers in many small squads in tight formation and wreak havoc on the enemy.

[Nazgûl Killer]

A word on loose formation:

Putting archers into loose formation sucks. Not only does it make archers less effective as the arrows are spread out, but they cover a larger area of ground, making them more likely to stray too far towards an enemy unit and have to run away. They lose men like this to light cavalry and they rout sooner too. Instead, I leave my archers in as tight a formation as possible to manoeuvre them to enemy flanks or inbetween gaps in my line, and to cause maximum damage on high priority targets at close range. Since most archers (maybe not crossbows) are so cheap, not to mention they don't need to be saved for sieges or large battles like infantry or cavalry respectively, it doesn't matter much how many casualties they take from enemy missiles.

The lesson? Leave your archers in many small squads in tight formation and wreak havoc on the enemy.

This is so very true, having your archers under fire in a tight formation while them firing as well, is so much better than having them under fire in a loose formation, because the casualties rarely vary, and this means they will fire all over the place.

By the way, I -KNOW- archers will fire straightforward mostly, but you must remember that in real medieval times they didn't say: "well, my archers will do more damage if I put them alone on a hill and rick click with my mouse button!" So archers were usually at the BACK of the formation, forcing them to aim a lot more upwards to get a curve, and also for longer range.

[Mithrane]

Yes, they used to have infantry in front of them, thereby causing archers to fire in an arch as opposed to the full frontal volley they would preffer. However, they also had FAR better aim than the average archer in this game. They could also fire between lines of infantry and aim at specific individuals, as opposed to aiming in the general area of the enemy.

The arched fire which we see in this game is there for game balance more than anything else. A unit with more than 1 day's training could better place arrows than the scattering you see here.

[Nazgûl Killer]

Yes, they used to have infantry in front of them, thereby causing archers to fire in an arch as opposed to the full frontal volley they would preffer. However, they also had FAR better aim than the average archer in this game. They could also fire between lines of infantry and aim at specific individuals, as opposed to aiming in the general area of the enemy.

The arched fire which we see in this game is there for game balance more than anything else. A unit with more than 1 day's training could better place arrows than the scattering you see here.

Actually, not really.
You're looking at this from a modern perspective, from an M2TW perspective, the middle ages archers rarely hit the target, the only reason they were so devastating is because armies were so large, that if you missed you must truly be... Unsmart, I might say.
So, no offense, but I honestly believe you are wrong, because there is also the fact that the archers were so many that it was quite frightening, they usually missed, and they had to fire a loooooong distance, also in the heat of battle it's kinda hard to aim. I use a bow from time to time (I don't own it, it's a hobby me and two of my friends have), so I know how hard it is to aim with it, trust me, it's very hard. I tried hitting a target about 100 yards from me and I almost hit a bird, lest I mention I missed so terribly I was the laughing stock of the century

[Phier]

I think archers are pretty well balanced, they really shouldn't be that effective on armored/shielded troops head on.

Where I like to use archers is for flanking. Turn off skirmish, and when an enemy infantry unit is fighting one of yours, run them behind or to the flank and open fire, close enough that they are using direct fire.

In sieges this is almost like cheating. Enemy will be on the walls before the gate is broken down. While they fight your units on the wall have the archers on ground level firing into the enemy troops you can't reach them. Then when they do break through the gate, have flanking archer units fire into the mass of troops that are being held there by your infantry by the gate.

I use this a lot playing SS with the sub mods since its so much easier getting low quality archer units than infantry.

[Viking Prince]

Sme thoughts:

The archers are much more effective at a flank than staight on fire. This is still true when firing from a wall or up onto a wall. do not fire straight on.

The big complaint in seige assaults seems to be related to attempts to flame the equipment. It stands to reason the wood has been soaked to minimize such risks. This is not like buring a dry barn.

Also remenber that the crossbow bolts are still more effective than the arrows when they do hit. Agan flanking is better than a head on firing. When people make one on one tests, are they testing a unit with a flanking fire or head on?

[abhijeet_316]

I have been experimenting lately in custom battles and I used retinue longbowmen vs enemy infantry. I had my own infantry to create a buffer zone for my archers. But i noticed that my archers were barely killing anyone. I mean, for 300 arrows from some of the best archers flying around at the same time, you would think i can kill atleast 30-40? I killed 4-5.

I need to know are they underpowered and i shouldnt bother using them or are am i just using them wrong. Do they usually kill in one hit or they need 2 hits to kill? Should i aim at the spear militia of the enemy or their general?

help appreciated thanks

This is the main issue, ur archers will fire in a pretty stupid high arc, they suck basically because of it.

Now if u put them on the flank or ahead of the infantry, u will see how awesome they are. i will know since ihave a simple philosophy in this game:

LONGBOWMEN spam solves all UR problems

seriously it is not funny how powerful they are, and i would suggest using yeoman archers for the simple reason that their melee weapon is a mace, gives u an armour piercing attack, retinue have a sword.

[MooseUpNorth]

Last night, I had an army of 10 units of peasant archers (no general) savage then rout an army of 6 sergeant spearmen units. Autoresolve thought the spearmen should win (2:3 odds, roughly), and yet, I won without losing a single peasant.

I arrayed them out in an oblong half-circle, four archers deep, and left them on skirmish. Eventually, the spearmen managed to chase my archers into an encirclement, so that no matter where they chased, they were taking arrows into their flanks and backs. They just sort of fell apart after that, running in circles.

[Old_Scratch]

Archers are certainly the weakest type of missile troops, but I think they are well represented in the game. They are both more expensive and less effective than crossbows and guns, but that's somewhat realistic. I tend to avoid archery factions, but they can have their uses in certain situations. They are more flexible and can fire accurately over uneven terrain and hills. Also, they have fire arrows which while aren't super useful, there are indeed times when the morale penalty they cause can win the battle. They will also cause more damage in a shorter amount of time against unarmored targets, but by the same token are pretty ineffective against armored units when compared to xbows or guns.

You need to maximise their advantages in how you deploy them more than xbows and guns which can just march up and shoot without much worry of being vastly overpowered.