I have been playing rome total war and medival 2 total war and I never discovered the utility in using raged units. I think that they are so weak, I mean, why spend money in ranged units like bowman, or crossbowman if they will shot 2 arrows before been killed by much stronger melee units when both armys meet? And, when the computer makes an entire army of genoese crosbowman, it's so easy to kill them, it's just rally your entire army. And units like peasant bowman are so weak that you can be stand still without take many causalties. In fact I don't know how to use ranged units, and their importance. I always play in very hard and using the hamer and anvil thecnique, but playing the same way, the game is boring.,Can someone explain me how to use ranged units?
I wish your melee armies the best of luck in dealing with stacks of Mongol horse archers...
Anyway, I'd say that generally, in campaigns, there are several places where ranged units play a role. In general, of course, you don't want your ranged units fighting in melee, with a few possible exceptions like dvor. If the combat proceeds with your archers shooting a couple of volleys at some knights, then getting charged and killed, that's not good. I mean, maybe sometimes things go wrong and stuff happens, but usually you're going to try to protect them.With archers opportunistically shooting enemies and staying out of the thick, the general tendency, I think, is that your archers will inflict fewer casualties than the melee units, but take fewer too, unless there's a really good opportunity. Dismounted feudal knights will often kill more people in a combat than pavise crossbowmen, say, but they'll take more casualties too.
Another factor is that the side with missile superiority basically gets to dictate where the battle takes place. An army with a great defensive position on top of a hill, but without adequate missile units, can either be whittled away or be forced to abandon its superior position by an army with superior missile forces. This ability to dictate the terms of battle enhances the effectiveness of the melee forces of the side with missile superiority.
In sieges, they're also good for prying a unit out of a town square. A spear militia or something in a town square fights to the last man. Shoot them, force them to leave the town square, and attack them, and they become a normal routable unit that can be run down far more easily.
When besieged, they're also good for sallies. Sally with some missile unit, shoot the besiegers at range, get back in your gates, and press esc. They'll probably take a lot more casualties than you.
Of course, if you don't like ranged units, you don't have to fight with them. If you have a melee-oriented play style, then you can do quite well, especially with a faction like Denmark or something.
Last edited by Maklodes; July 10, 2013 at 01:27 PM.
Of course, if you don't like ranged units, you don't have to fight with them. If you have a melee-oriented play style, then you can do quite well, especially with a faction like Denmark or something.
I disagree. Apart from Longbowmen (and even then it's close) and Geonese Crossbow Militia, Norse Archers are the most effective missile units in the game for me. They aren't elite but they can shred most early game units and eventually grind them down in melee until dismounted feudal knights. I generally use javelin throwers behind my front line to devastate an enemy melee, archers to shoot cavalry or heavy infantry (depending on the enemy and the archer's strength, cavalry need to be shot quicker but heavy infantry's armour mean they need more shooting) and crossbowmen for enemy missile units (more staying power), generals and pikemen (because then reload times don't matter).
Also, horse archers may be the strongest type of unit in the game. Especially Mamluks because after they kill most of the enemy's cavalry through skirmishing, they can overwhelm them and become an effective melee force.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I am me. You are not me. You are you. If I was you, I wouldn't be me.
If you were me, I'd be sad.But I wouldn't then be me because you'd be me so you wouldn't be me because I wasn't me because you were me but you couldn't be because I'd be a different me. I'd rather be any kind of bird (apart from a goose) than be you because to be you I'd have to not be me which I couldn't do unless someone else was me but then they would be you aswell so there would still be no me. They would be you because I was you so to restore balance you would have to be me and them meaning all three of us would become one continously the same. That would be very bad.
I disagree. Apart from Longbowmen (and even then it's close) and Geonese Crossbow Militia, Norse Archers are the most effective missile units in the game for me. They aren't elite but they can shred most early game units and eventually grind them down in melee until dismounted feudal knights.
Well, what faction would you recommend for someone who wants to focus on melee and doesn't like using ranged units? My proposal was Denmark, but I'd love to hear your ideas on what factions are best for this style of play. (Note: the question is not, "In which factions are archers not worth using?" or "which faction has the worst archers?" The question is "Given that I don't like playing with archers, which faction is best for me?")
Well, what faction would you recommend for someone who wants to focus on melee and doesn't like using ranged units? My proposal was Denmark, but I'd love to hear your ideas on what factions are best for this style of play. (Note: the question is not, "In which factions are archers not worth using?" or "which faction has the worst archers?" The question is "Given that I don't like playing with archers, which faction is best for me?")
Holy Roman Empire. Their infantry is great, and their missiles aren't that special (but are still good.)
Ranged units can be decisive if used in large numbers. The hailstorm of arrows breaks up the enemy formation as they advance, and takes down unarmoured foes with ease. It isn't surprising to see some enemy units closing for melee with half their men dead. Don't bother using skirmish mode as your men won't listen if you tell them to retreat (they will run where THEY want.....)
Keep them out in front of your melee soldiers so they can hit the enemy easier, and when they advance, pull them back behind your melee soldiers. A good thing to do is to manoeuvre them around the side of the main battle and have them shoot fire arrows into the enemies rear; this will cause a large morale problem. Hope it helps
you can use them in smaller number to your tactical advantage to separate enemys main force and retreat luring their units to chase you( this however requires reserve if they chase you with cavalry), then when they split army in two or more groups you overrun them more quickly and with less of your casualties with your main body...
I hope this will give you some ideas to experiment in tactics (Sorry my bad english... also
Even the worst archer units can inflict hundreds of casualties if used correctly. The best archer units (Scots guard, janissary archers, dismounted dvor) will inflict hundreds of casualties even if used incorrectly.
Archers are easiest to use, since their ballistics allow them to fire safely over friendly troops. So just position them behind your infantry, and when possible fire at the opposing flank across your formation, so they hit enemy side. If you are confident that you can protect the flanks against charges, positioning some archers at flanks of your melee troops works too. That's the beginner's strategy, but will do most of the time. Crossbows are bit harder to use since they use flatter trajectory, so friendly troops are often in the way. A good way to use them is to leave a small gap between your frontline units and position your crossbowmen a bit further behind it, so they can fire through the gap. I'm not fond of gunpowder troops so I won't give you advice on those. And if you manage to keep enemy cavalry at one flank away, it's good to use it to move your ranged units through there to get a shot at sides or rear of enemy troops.
In the end, if used correctly, elite ranged units like dismounted Dvor, Genoese pavise crossbowmen, Scots guard, Janissary archers or Retinue Longbowmen are easily capable of killing 2-3 times their own number without even being harmed in process. That makes them extremely valuable.
One example of when archers are far superior to more melee units is the Americas campaign. Since all the troops have minimal armor, AI native infantry drops like flies against massed native archers, which can easily score twice the amount of kills as melee units.
If you aren't finding value in ranged units, you can't be using them properly. The ability to reduce the enemy force, or in some cases, destroy them, before they reach your own melee troops is an invaluable tool.
I agree with what others have said, in that even the weakest archers have value if used properly, and the stronger units are capable of controlling, or even dominating the battlefield.
And I agree with "Dude" - Norse Archers, especially in the early game, are awesome units...
An army cosisting of one troop type is likely to fail, you have to learn to use shooters as an important part of your army. You don't have an army consisting entirely of shooters. You have cavalry, spearmen, and heavy infantry who are supposed to protect them. Put some spearmen or heavy infantry behind the shooters, turn off skirmish mode, put them in guard mode on top of a hill. Shoot the enemy until they get close enough for the troops behind them to charge, then charge them through the shooters (unless the enemy are cavalry, in which case you have to get the spearmen out in front before the cavalry charges). Shooting is very powerful in this game, learn how to use it in combination with other troops. Shooting into a melee can win you the melee against superior troops.
I find foot ranged units only marginally useful. The real powerhouse of ranged warfare is in horse javelinmen/archers/crossbowmen/musketeers. Then it's just game over. If the Mongols had full stacks of horse archers instead of half infantry, half horse, they would be absolutely unstoppable.
Foot archers, though, are craaaaaaaaazy powerful in sieges--both defense and attack. It's the only way to take out units in the city square without getting your units trashed as the opponents fight to the death, and they are also the only real defense in siege (the spears/swords/halbeds are only there to hold, not kill). Also, on field battles, if your archers have "very long range" or "long range" missiles traits, you can mass target a single target with five or six archers and watch the numbers go from 150 to 100 in a volley. That advance through a hailstorm of arrows can be devestating. A cav charge into a non-pike spear unit after a hail of arrows will rout the unit.
I find foot ranged units only marginally useful. The real powerhouse of ranged warfare is in horse javelinmen/archers/crossbowmen/musketeers. Then it's just game over. If the Mongols had full stacks of horse archers instead of half infantry, half horse, they would be absolutely unstoppable.
Foot archers, though, are craaaaaaaaazy powerful in sieges--both defense and attack. It's the only way to take out units in the city square without getting your units trashed as the opponents fight to the death, and they are also the only real defense in siege (the spears/swords/halbeds are only there to hold, not kill). Also, on field battles, if your archers have "very long range" or "long range" missiles traits, you can mass target a single target with five or six archers and watch the numbers go from 150 to 100 in a volley. That advance through a hailstorm of arrows can be devestating. A cav charge into a non-pike spear unit after a hail of arrows will rout the unit.
Only a few factions have access to foot archers that are cost effective or powerful enough to dish out pain like that. Obviously the English RL are a shining example.
Assuming average archers (not Retinue-class), I like to have them back-center of my formation and shooting the enemies flanks. The enemy flanks tend to be the mobile/light inf units, or other lightly armored units like horse cav. those also tend to not have their sheilds up in fighting stance, so maybe more effective against them. The center tends to be the heavy armored troops in fighting stance, which i think peppering them with arrows isnt the best use of the archers. better IMO to have your archers weaken the enemy flanks enough for you to win some of those tight infantry battles on the flank. once you break the flank you can wrap the line with some good high damage/charge units.
One thing about that re keeping your archers behind the infantry, is that I like to use cross-fire techniques to take advantage of angles. ie. your archers on the left of your line have bad angle against infantry on the left (assume your inf is engaging them), so use the archers on the left to shoot the enemy line on the right, and vice versa. i hate seeing arrows go straight up in the air, so a nice long/low arc is good.
Last edited by MDCCLXXVI; July 10, 2013 at 09:22 PM.
I have been playing rome total war and medival 2 total war and I never discovered the utility in using raged units. I think that they are so weak, I mean, why spend money in ranged units like bowman, or crossbowman if they will shot 2 arrows before been killed by much stronger melee units when both armys meet? And, when the computer makes an entire army of genoese crosbowman, it's so easy to kill them, it's just rally your entire army. And units like peasant bowman are so weak that you can be stand still without take many causalties. In fact I don't know how to use ranged units, and their importance. I always play in very hard and using the hamer and anvil thecnique, but playing the same way, the game is boring.,Can someone explain me how to use ranged units?
1. To hassle enemy formations. Often against the AI, when you are attacking and using ranged units, that will coax them into moving off a strategic position to attack, instead of sitting there and getting peppered by your ranged units.
2. There are many ways to use ranged units (ie crossbows) in field battles. One of my favorites is a "discovered attack", taking the term from Chess.
- Assume you have a unit of spears in front of a unit of crossbows.
- When the enemy approaches your spears, pivot your spears forward and to the side, to engage the enemy unit perpendicular to your archers.
like this:
figure 1: (spears in front, archers behind)
___
___
figure 2: (spears pivot to the side, revealing an angle for the archers to shoot enemy in the side)
\
.\
..___
Another way to use archers in battle like this, again imagine a chess board. Push a few solid infantry units (pawns) in the center of your line forward. The enemy will attempt to wrap them. This exposes nice angles for your ranged units (ie bishops).
A stupid--or situationally effective--way to use archers is to throw them way out to the side of the battle, where they are pretty much living on borrowed time and exposed to enemy cavalry charges, and also may lose relevance off to the side if the battle shifts to the opposite end of the line. It also puts your flanking infantry/horse in the line of fire. Better to keep them behind the "pawns" and expose angles for them to go to work.
3. Any time you can pin your enemy in one spot with some meat shields, like on one end of a bridge, archers will really shine especially if they have some elevation to shoot direct-fire at the enemy rather than over heads, and their inaccuracy becomes irrelevant with so many targets packed in tightly.
4. Morale. Fire arrows and gun powder.
5. Along the lines of the battle tactics illustrated above, if you get some light infantry and attempt to flank an enemy line, they will likely send something out to block you. That is a situationally effective time to shift your archers out to the flank to shoot that blocking unit in the side. Sometimes I've done that on purpose. Throw a "flanking" unit of infantry up the side, with no intention of flanking, but instead to draw their reserve infantry away from the middle-rear so my cavalry can get to work back there.
6. One of the most annoying and pathetic uses of archers in this game is on walls as a defender. They tend to shoot like idiots and probably only 1/3 of a given volley actually goes anywhere near the target. Javelins are--IMO--better on walls, with archers better on hills and behind a unit of stout infantry.
...
While I like infantry over ranged units, I always have at least a couple units of ranged in my army. Great for killing those overpowered eastern Bodyguard units who can cut through 3 units of my spearmen (6.3) without breaking a sweat.
Last edited by MDCCLXXVI; July 10, 2013 at 09:09 PM.
Besides cavalry, I think that missile units are the most important in the game. They can win a siege defending or attacking with minimal infantry support. Having a superior range advantage is invaluable in defense and attack on the battlefield. Even peasant archers if used properly can kill even the heaviest armored unit. Remember though, it's very important to leave skirmish on when you're getting charged by infantry because missile units aren't melee capable unless you have an exceptional advantage in numbers. If you want a good infantry based army like I'm sure you've found out is Denmark, HRE, and Poland so go with any of these if you want a melee focused force.
If you want a good infantry based army like I'm sure you've found out is Denmark, HRE, and Poland so go with any of these if you want a melee focused force.
Maybe I'm missing something, but how does Poland have a good melee infantry focused force? AFAIK, they don't get heavy infantry until the citadel level. I thought their strength was in spamming strzelcy and Polish nobles.
UPDATE: I didn't realize how old the post I was repying to was. Somehow I got confused and thought it was the latest post, and didn't see it was page 1. I can't find a delete button, though.
Last edited by Maklodes; August 07, 2013 at 02:06 PM.
Why use ranged units?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Maklodes
