Purely in mp sense i was wondering what peoples opinions were between these 2 units.
I think we should take into account factions they can be used by to add an extra element to this.
I am talking normal ha not persians etc. And using cwb rules.
Chariot archers have the advantage of more hit points than horse archers, but are more vulnerable to missiles i would assue because they are a bigger target.
Additionally, i'd say that chariot archers are harder to control, but i'm fairly certain they have a better missile attack(brit char archers have 10, compared to ha at 7). However, i could be wrong, but char archers are probably slower than ha, making them more vulnerable to counters such as lancers and arabs--meaning it may be nesecary to use valuable cav spaces to protect them.
They are vulnerable to baleraric slingers and i'd guess more vulnerable when stationary to missies.
Horse Archers have less hitpoints and with the exception of scythians have the same armor as char archers, although are more likely to have armor upgardes and i suspect are cheaper than char archers.
Also they are smaller targets and far less vulnerable to those balearic slingers.
However there versatility i feel is less so. With ha yuo got a fast cav unit of mounter archers they fire arrows but there they don't fair well in melee, neither do cahr archers for that matter but i would expect them to fare better in melee than ha.
Conclusively, ha are fielded by armenia, parthia and scythia and it think thats it.
Char archers are fielded by egy, brits and pontus.
Discuss![]()




Reply With Quote











