Does it pay to put missiles in front?

**Zigama** · August 08, 2011, 03:51 PM

Usually when I fight the typical field battle I put my missile troops behind the front line but on a slightly elevated position so they can fire over my infantry, without me having to rely on pesky skirmish mode or micromanage a retreat when the enemy charges. Sometimes I put them in front, but that's only when I don't have anything else to focus on. What I'm wondering is if there is any significant increase in the efficiency of ranged units by putting them in front of the first line of infantry, and if so, how to quickly pull them back behind the line when they're in danger without half the unit getting slaughtered?

**bɑne** · August 09, 2011, 12:07 AM

Moved.

**Mr Kriegtooth** · August 09, 2011, 01:22 AM

I always keep them out front, usually I move cannons/bastilla to the front too. Set up spikes(once you have archers that can do that), and keep firing until the enemy gets almost close enough to make your troops run. Once they do(you have to experiment some to get the timing right), pull the archers back(I usually pull them to the General's Line as I call it), and move all proper infantry of your's forward

And as an added teehee, I have my cavalry moved out to the wings ready to swoop in from the flanks and behind if I have them positioned as such

I guess its a pretty base strategy, but it gets me heroic victories

**Dahoota** · August 09, 2011, 01:24 AM

For me it depends on the terrain available and the troops in question - if I have access to nice steep hill and I'm defending then missile troops definitely go behind. Some shorter range units have to go in front anyway.

Missile troops are far more effective when they have direct line of sight to the target and don't have to fire at a higher angle where the chance of actually hitting something is much,much lower. Putting them in front without friendlies blocking line-of-sight and creating friendly fire opportunities can definitely be worthwhile.

**Gabrius** · August 09, 2011, 01:50 AM

I usually put gunners in front and have them retreat when the enemy gets close to higher ground, but with archers I usually try to have them shoot over a small line of defenders up front that I can reinforce with more troops when I so choose. If the enemy has cavalry, I alter this strategy to prevent certain types of soldiers from getting barreled over. As others have said, the best thing to do is to have missile units on higher ground that is well-defended.

**bɑne** · August 09, 2011, 02:09 AM

Try the following: Put your archers in front but don't pull them back. Instead charge with another unit (originally standing behind them) through them at the enemy. You can use loose formation on the archers for the duration to aid. Meanwhile archers should switch targets to other units, not the ones involved in the melee.

**Caesar Clivus** · August 09, 2011, 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by bɑne

Meanwhile archers should switch targets to other units, not the ones involved in the melee.

Unless you have the nickname "Longshanks"

**Zigama** · August 09, 2011, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by bɑne

Try the following: Put your archers in front but don't pull them back. Instead charge with another unit (originally standing behind them) through them at the enemy. You can use loose formation on the archers for the duration to aid. Meanwhile archers should switch targets to other units, not the ones involved in the melee.

That sounds good. Also, what kind of role should archers take in a CS early campaign? I just started one and so far (I'm at turn 17) I haven't used a single unit of archers in a battle yet. All I have are a few units I recruited in Edessa (I think they're named Armenians of Cecilia). Should I actively pursue more ranged units or focus on infantry and occasional cavalry units? Seems like they could be useful against all those Fatimid skirmisher units (

), but I'd have to use a good portion of my depleted treasury to build up a reasonable number...

**Homeros** · August 09, 2011, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by Zigama

That sounds good. Also, what kind of role should archers take in a CS early campaign? I just started one and so far (I'm at turn 17) I haven't used a single unit of archers in a battle yet. All I have are a few units I recruited in Edessa (I think they're named Armenians of Cecilia). Should I actively pursue more ranged units or focus on infantry and occasional cavalry units? Seems like they could be useful against all those Fatimid skirmisher units (

), but I'd have to use a good portion of my depleted treasury to build up a reasonable number...

You definitely want some decent archers in your armies. Those Armenians are good, but so are desert and Turkish archer - great tools to destroy enemy horse archers (and cheap).

Generally you always want to put them in front, and when you're fighting armies with skirmisher cavalry, you don't want skirmish mode active (enemy cav will close in on your line which usually results in your missile units running away whilst they should stand and fire at close range with devastating effects). Keep away from peasant archer units - they suck. Everyone carrying a proper bow can be very useful.

There are some archer units with decent melee stats too. They can hold their ground against most infantry - long enough to engage the enemy with your strong (inf and cav) units to deliver the killing blow. You can easily fight without infantry - only archers and cavalry - great way to get those heroic victories going. I don't think you should though, playing the CS. They have excellent heavy infantry

**Zigama** · August 09, 2011, 11:25 PM

Originally Posted by Homeros

They have excellent heavy infantry

Indeed. Loving the Canons of the Holy Sepulcher, I just fought a battle and a unit of them killed over 500 Fatimids

**bɑne** · August 09, 2011, 07:37 AM

Longshanks My scouts tell me their archers are miles away and no threat to us. Arrows cost money. Use up the Irish. The dead cost nothing.

Too bad retraining costs money after all

**Wild Card** · August 09, 2011, 08:28 AM

"But Sire won`t we hit our own troops?'
"Yees but we`ll hit theirs aswell...we have reserves ! "

**Andytheplatypus** · August 09, 2011, 09:01 AM

Hah movie references.

I use the bane method. Easier to bring infantry or cavalry from behind missile units then trying to move them.

**Ichon** · August 09, 2011, 09:18 AM

I often do the same as bane- I prefer to use my general's BG as they get there faster and self heal while also tend to draw in the AI's cavalry into the center of the melee, then retreat the BG when your infantry arrive.

**Gogolometro** · August 09, 2011, 01:51 PM

If you use pesante archer, and you can spam well, this don't matter at all.

Like venetian I can say I never have in 1300 more spearman sargents than pesante archers. Imagine 3 lines of archers deployed on sloped hill with some rocks/trees, some pavise gunners and few AP venetian infantry. I love to add to my army a magdonel aswell. Whos said english are better?

**Kaiser Leonidas** · August 09, 2011, 01:55 PM

I also use the same technique as Bane, but if they're crossbowmen instead of ordinary archers I move them onto the flanks so that they can still shoot as they can't really shoot over the melee like archers can.