The use of archers to pin down the enemy

[ray243]

One of the main use of archers, besides providing attacks from range, is the ability to pin the enemy down. Archers in the past aren't necessary known for killing the enemy directly, but what they are good at is to slow the enemy advance down.

Infantry troops, in order to protect themselves from all the raining arrows, would make use of the shield to protect their body. This is also why the Romans invented the testudo formation.

Sadly, we have yet to see this being implemented in any TW game. Often, we can see units charging into a hail of arrows without a care in the world. The archers is doing nothing to slow down the advance of the enemy troops, and become easily overrun if there are no other heavy units protecting them.

I really hope to see archers and their rain of arrows generating a response from the unit that is being attacked. They should slow down their movement, and make it easy for you to flank them. Additionally, a stationary unit should also be too busy fending off the arrows that they can become vulnerable to an enemy charge.

A unit trying to seek cover with their shields would naturally become a little bit more disorganized and more vulnerable.

[Krieglord]

A good idea but wouldn't this make archers a tad over powered?

[character]

I think it is an excellent idea, I hope CA sees this

[kuehlman]

Well, from my experience in Shogun 2, I think that archers are used to screen, get as many kills as possible before the melee clashes, or to try to take out a general from afar.

In Shogun 2 the soldiers prance into the hail of arrows because they simply don't have a shield, how many samurai do you see prancing around with a shield. Exactly.

But in the other games I personally don't see why they don't use that suggestion, but it would sort of take out the value of archers entirely, especially during siege gametypes and the defender is at a loss if his archers which are essentially one of the more pivotal roles in a defense become useless. It would cause a major balance issue.

I think because of the power of archer units being so minimal in open field combat and so effective in siege being so easily countered that missile units would become useless and cause a balance issue within the game. It's really about how they'd implement such a thing, maybe for a hero unit. *maybe*

But that's just my $0.02

[ray243]

But in the other games I personally don't see why they don't use that suggestion, but it would sort of take out the value of archers entirely, especially during siege gametypes and the defender is at a loss if his archers which are essentially one of the more pivotal roles in a defense become useless. It would cause a major balance issue.

Simple, just buy more units that can pierce armour, such as slingers and place them on the walls. If not, another suggestion would be increase the lethality of the arrows the closer the enemy is to the archers. This would make troops climbing ladders extremely vulnerable to archer fire, as they are close to the archers and isn't able to fend off the arrows with their shields.

[Arvedui01]

Wouldn't some units be trained well enough to prioritize reaching the enemy and slaughtering them in meleé as opposed to cowering down and, in the long term, suffering horrendous casualties?

Otherwise, I say good idea. Certain troops value their lives more than others.

[Ichon]

That reminds me is CA is ever going to adjust mechanic of troops attacking walls where every single time the entire unit from ladder or tower pours onto the wall without much trouble. With ZoC extending out from city now I hope garrison if choosing to hide behind walls suffers at least 15% attrition per turn of a siege so if the odds are anywhere close to even they will elect to fight outside the walls. However soldiers defending walls should get a larger bonus than they currently do where because entire unit comes onto the wall it is basically then an even fight. Walls should be able to be held without an extremely bloody fight unless attacker can gain walls or open gates without a fight because either defenders are too spread out or due to internal traitors.

OT- I am not sure about archers pinning units down but it would be nice to see a bit lower casualties from distant volley fire especially but unit attacked moves more slowly and has a morale hit even without flaming arrows which should be reserved to burn ships and siege machines. So archers might not be causing alot of casualties directly except at close range but their attack is another angle of attack similar to "troops are concerned about enemy on their flank" and in sieges archers at the distant ranges would not be killing many enemy but by slowing down the advancing ladders/siege towers the defensive siege artillery has more of a chance to score a hit and at close range 100-25 feet archers are killing more enemy. Lower kill at longer range but slowing enemy could benefit defenders but it could also allow attackers do actually do a feint attack where now if you send men into range of the archers on wall you better attack because you'll lose half the unit advancing and then moving back out of range.

[weirdoascensor]

That reminds me is CA is ever going to adjust mechanic of troops attacking walls where every single time the entire unit from ladder or tower pours onto the wall without much trouble. With ZoC extending out from city now I hope garrison if choosing to hide behind walls suffers at least 15% attrition per turn of a siege so if the odds are anywhere close to even they will elect to fight outside the walls. However soldiers defending walls should get a larger bonus than they currently do where because entire unit comes onto the wall it is basically then an even fight. Walls should be able to be held without an extremely bloody fight unless attacker can gain walls or open gates without a fight because either defenders are too spread out or due to internal traitors.

OT- I am not sure about archers pinning units down but it would be nice to see a bit lower casualties from distant volley fire especially but unit attacked moves more slowly and has a morale hit even without flaming arrows which should be reserved to burn ships and siege machines. So archers might not be causing alot of casualties directly except at close range but their attack is another angle of attack similar to "troops are concerned about enemy on their flank" and in sieges archers at the distant ranges would not be killing many enemy but by slowing down the advancing ladders/siege towers the defensive siege artillery has more of a chance to score a hit and at close range 100-25 feet archers are killing more enemy. Lower kill at longer range but slowing enemy could benefit defenders but it could also allow attackers do actually do a feint attack where now if you send men into range of the archers on wall you better attack because you'll lose half the unit advancing and then moving back out of range.

Completely Agree.

Troops under hail of arrows should get "Under Missile Fire". raise_shield_under_fire animation should automatically slow down unit running speed (except for close-range charges - it would be annoying if charging units slow down to raise shield and run again to be slowed again...should be a range threshold of some sorts)
Missile attacks should have passive buff just like FoTS Supression Shot Abilty(but not a toggleable ability) that slows down moving speed

[DaVinci]

That reminds me is CA is ever going to adjust mechanic of troops attacking walls where every single time the entire unit from ladder or tower pours onto the wall without much trouble. With ZoC extending out from city now I hope garrison if choosing to hide behind walls suffers at least 15% attrition per turn of a siege so if the odds are anywhere close to even they will elect to fight outside the walls. However soldiers defending walls should get a larger bonus than they currently do where because entire unit comes onto the wall it is basically then an even fight. Walls should be able to be held without an extremely bloody fight unless attacker can gain walls or open gates without a fight because either defenders are too spread out or due to internal traitors.

OT- I am not sure about archers pinning units down but it would be nice to see a bit lower casualties from distant volley fire especially but unit attacked moves more slowly and has a morale hit even without flaming arrows which should be reserved to burn ships and siege machines. So archers might not be causing alot of casualties directly except at close range but their attack is another angle of attack similar to "troops are concerned about enemy on their flank" and in sieges archers at the distant ranges would not be killing many enemy but by slowing down the advancing ladders/siege towers the defensive siege artillery has more of a chance to score a hit and at close range 100-25 feet archers are killing more enemy. Lower kill at longer range but slowing enemy could benefit defenders but it could also allow attackers do actually do a feint attack where now if you send men into range of the archers on wall you better attack because you'll lose half the unit advancing and then moving back out of range.

Bold part: This is an important hint. I hope CA this time will erase the (complete unrealistic) ability to have fire arrows in the field and everywhere, and reserves this for solely siege battles, and yes, naval battles.

[Ichon]

Well at least Lusted still checks in to these threads sometimes though I bet he laughs at most of the suggestions its nice to know something may get through, taken just a couple min ago...

[Krieglord]

Well at least Lusted still checks in to these threads sometimes though I bet he laughs at most of the suggestions its nice to know something may get through, taken just a couple min ago...

We were on at the same time as Jack Lusted...

[Ichon]

I wonder if walls will be better this time around? Shogun 2 managed to protect archers somewhat by the style of the walls but I don't know if that will work as well in RTW2. Slingers on walls would be fairly awkward except for distant shots but its all pointless if missile units on walls are just on elevated but exposed positions. The pictures so far indicate potential for besieging force to build quite a bit of protective wooden frames so maybe siege battles will be very different with both attacker and defender in siege getting some protective bonuses.

[bangell99]

Seeing as we can now see arrows stuck in shields, it would be brilliant to watch a unit cowering under fire.

[Taran.]

I say that it is an awesome idea

[krisslanza]

When I think about it, I can't see how cowering behind a shield and slowly advancing towards archers is a better idea then saying "Screw it, run faster and kill them." I mean, it just sounds like the slow method means you get more tired out, and possibly suffer more losses, then if the guy's just manned up and accepted some deaths to get to the archers first.

But really, if archers suddenly became more about slowing down an enemy, instead of killing them, it would require a complete rework of siege battles as that's really when archers shine. Slingers range is a bit too short, I think, to be an effective defense as they might get one or two volleys off before a tower, or ladder, hits the walls.

[DarthRuanek]

When I think about it, I can't see how cowering behind a shield and slowly advancing towards archers is a better idea then saying "Screw it, run faster and kill them." I mean, it just sounds like the slow method means you get more tired out, and possibly suffer more losses, then if the guy's just manned up and accepted some deaths to get to the archers first.

But really, if archers suddenly became more about slowing down an enemy, instead of killing them, it would require a complete rework of siege battles as that's really when archers shine. Slingers range is a bit too short, I think, to be an effective defense as they might get one or two volleys off before a tower, or ladder, hits the walls.

It's better generally to be a it slower holding a shield up for protection against arrows than to run who knows how far to hit the enemy. Of course, it depends on how far away the enemy is.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

One of the main use of archers, besides providing attacks from range, is the ability to pin the enemy down. Archers in the past aren't necessary known for killing the enemy directly, but what they are good at is to slow the enemy advance down.

Infantry troops, in order to protect themselves from all the raining arrows, would make use of the shield to protect their body. This is also why the Romans invented the testudo formation.

Sadly, we have yet to see this being implemented in any TW game. Often, we can see units charging into a hail of arrows without a care in the world. The archers is doing nothing to slow down the advance of the enemy troops, and become easily overrun if there are no other heavy units protecting them.

I really hope to see archers and their rain of arrows generating a response from the unit that is being attacked. They should slow down their movement, and make it easy for you to flank them. Additionally, a stationary unit should also be too busy fending off the arrows that they can become vulnerable to an enemy charge.

A unit trying to seek cover with their shields would naturally become a little bit more disorganized and more vulnerable.

I totally agree. I would like to see the feature to slow down the enemy than instead killing as many as possible. I hatet in all titles before that you could win with a army just of archers. Maybe pining down an enemy with arrow should give melee troops a bonus killing them faster.

[Lord Dakier]

x amount penalty to archer damage if unit is moving/running

x amount bonus to missile defence if unit is stationary with shield.

x percent penalty to unit speed if under archer attack

Simple and not so overpowering. Archers must be weak in melee however. With the exception to Nomad tribes who should have capable archers for different tasks.

[Ichon]

Since formations were so important I think it more likely that a unit would slow down and hold shields up when under archer attack. If they all break into a run they would arrive at the defending formations out of breath in disarrayed giving those infantry quite an advantage. Archers out in front would have to run back behind the defending infantry and wouldn't get many direct horizontal shots off so most of the volleys would be parabolic at a distance. If you wanted to risk your archers you could try leaving them out in front a couple volleys extra for the better killing power at short range but if they get mixed in melee you might lose half of them.

Hopefully it would be something where if a unit with shields is targeted by archers and slows down they get a slight defensive bonus with a morale hit. If they charge the defensive bonus goes away so they might cover the ground faster but still lose more men. However for cavalry it would make more sense to charge than advance slowly most of the time. Or perhaps advance slowly when at archers max range but when getting around 80 meters charge... horses could cross that distance in 10 seconds or so and the archers would only get off 1 or 2 volley if they are lucky and did not run behind defending infantry immediately.

[Lockcaps]

This brings up another "problem" - they mentioned that soldiers with shields will always try to block incoming arrows. This potentially means that archers will be kind of useless against units with large shields, as now the AI is programmed to actively try to survive instead ot sitting there and taking it. So instead of 5-7 soldiers dying per volley, it might drop to 2-3. Basically i think this is what archers will be used for - slowing down advancing enemies instead of outright killing them(although they would still be deadly to lightly armored foes)