2.6 Archers?

[FOR GONDOR]

I have noticed ever since the new 2.6 patch Archers are almost completely useless, I understand they should be useless against say like a unit of heavy hoplites Ex. Korinthian Hoplites, and that should be so because of the heavy armor, but they are now useless against every type of unit excluding other skirmishers, I had four units oh Cretan archers, all with full upgrades and two silver chevrons and I had them all in neat lines so they wouldn't overlap, they were in tight formation because I know that in loose the arrow spread is not as concentrated so they kill less, anyways I had all of them fire at a unit of Levy Pikemen from macedon, they were using standard arrows, and what I saw was saddening, volley after volley I had fire into that one unit of pikemen, and when they were all out of arrows the total killed were two, thats useless, the pikemen had no armor as well, this is probably due to the lethality of every unit being lowered to make battles longer, its turned every skirmisher unit into a waste, I had javelins at point black into idle units not do a single kill they used up all the ammo to have no effect at all. I think this needs to be fixed for later updates seeing as you can have elite archers that can only kill from one flank (the one without the shield) or from behind makes them a very useless unit, has anybody else noticed that this is true or is my game just bugged. The javlins are the most annoying because those are meant to whittle down an enamy before the charge, and if they cant do any damage then every unite that has them is pointless

[dvk901]

Archers are most effective against un-armored units, from the non-shield side of units, and in the back of units......which is a configuration than more accurately reflects reality. We felt they were to OP in 2.5....but maybe we nerfed them a bit too much?

[Alavaria]

Archers are most effective against un-armored units, from the non-shield side of units, and in the back of units......which is a configuration than more accurately reflects reality. We felt they were to OP in 2.5....but maybe we nerfed them a bit too much?

The ironic thing is I just read a thread in which someone did research and apparently shields work on either left or right side... I don't even ...

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...bat-Parameters

Seems that from the BACK, the kills is the same as with PURE DEF SKILL from the BACK. However, it seems that SHEILD has a significant effect on BOTH LEFT AND RIGHT SIDES and furthermore a significant BONUS to defense vs. attacks coming from the FRONT. In fact, it seems that pure shield is better against frontal missile attacks that the equivalent amount of pure armor, supporting the statement in Aradan’s guide that the shield may have double defense value at the front.

There's even this kill data:

4.2.A: MISSILE: SHIELD ONLY

∆=0
x #1 #2 #3 #4 AVG
---------------------------------
F 4 9 4 8 6.25
L 18,21 23,17 23,22 18,19 20.12
R 22,23 22,29 23,30 22,28 24.88
B 49 49 55 48 50.25

So on the right side, you're less protected (more kills from missiles) ... apparently.

-------------------

Ranged units from the front are basically useless. The AI (if it has battle difficulty bonuses) does well, but you hardly get anywhere. If it's a phalanx unit, only artillery does anything from the front. Check their pikes, if the pikes are up, they are like a normal unit. If the pikes are down they turn into uberhard mode. When the AI (or you!) engages phalanx formation, magic occurs. Between shooting a unit with 18 armor, and a unit with 7 armor in phalanx formation (in the back), there seems little difference. Shooting units in phalanx mode from the side is very wasteful, you can kill them but it takes SO many shots, and so much time. Ideally use your own phalanx unit to pin them (it is very safe, usually only a few soldiers will fight, everyone else stands rigidly in formation doing nothing) and shoot in the rear.

From the side is decent... I don't like the archers, I tried them, they are lacklustre, and I use slingers. 40 ammo vs 25, and though the damage is a bit lower, Armor Piercing makes up for it, especially on high armor targets, a 16 armor elite hoplite essentially loses 8 of his armor to AP. Some of the more crazy units (general with 22 armor) really will die to AP but almost laugh off non-AP range.

Two things I forgot:
1. Archers have more range, but flanking (as you must do apparently) means you must move them more if you are at greater range. Annoying. However, archers have fire arrows, which are handy for managing enemy morale.
2. Mounted ranged units are useful as they can very easily get to the rear, making those ideal shots.

[neep]

Archers are most effective against un-armored units, from the non-shield side of units, and in the back of units......which is a configuration than more accurately reflects reality. We felt they were to OP in 2.5....but maybe we nerfed them a bit too much?

I don't have the specific numbers to back it up but I do see archers having an impact on enemy units.

True, armoured and heavy armoured units are a waste of arrows. But my archers are making a decent number of kills when I check the after battle summary of statistics.

I try to have 4 - 6 units clustered together to have some concentrated fire power, and get them on the enemy's right flank.
I'm not sure I ever noticed a big difference between coming at the enemy from his left or right. ( I read that somewhere on the forums and just followed that advice without trying to prove if it was right or wrong.)
Certainly, coming at the flanks and from behind I can see enemy troops dropping at a decent rate.

So far I've only used the basic Celtic archers, playing as Rome with battles against the Averni, Cimbri, Boii, Greeks, Carthiginians, and Dacians.
I have Cretan archers in the order queue but haven't had a chance to use them in battle.

[Alavaria]

I try to have 4 - 6 units clustered together to have some concentrated fire power, and get them on the enemy's right flank.
I'm not sure I ever noticed a big difference between coming at the enemy from his left or right. ( I read that somewhere on the forums and just followed that advice without trying to prove if it was right or wrong.)
Certainly, coming at the flanks and from behind I can see enemy troops dropping at a decent rate.

The thread linked in my post above suggests left and right are about the same. Which sort of matches what I've been noticing recently (I never questioned in the past as any flank shooting just annihilated units)

[Primative1]

I think missile troops are well balanced.

I have 2 or 3 with each legion and use them against light cavalry and missile and skirmisher troops. They work well in this role.

House rule; I never move them behind the enemy.

The opposition heavy inf are for my cohorts to deal with.

[tungri_centurio]

i think they are good like they are in 2.6
use them to take out cav like primative says, i use them also to take out the general

[ur-Lord Tedric]

One of the reason archers (and lots of skirmishers when attacking from the front into, particularly, shields) have had their effect reduced - is because they were never that effective anyway! If you have ancient source evidence that counters that, then please let us know? The average simple bow and arrow of the ancient world was not that good. We are not talking of trained nearly since birth English & Welsh bowman at Crecy, nor similarly trained and with super compound bow-armed Mongols.

The maximum number of, for example, Cretan bowman in an ancient army/stack should not exceed 1. Making them mega expensive, however, was counter-productive. The average Horse Archer is not that good either - they should sting and tire out, not kill hordes.

In short - if you use 1 or 2 units wisely, especially to cover your flanks; and/or catch retreating troops - then they will do their jobs well.

If, however, you want machine-guns, then I'd go for Vanilla with Unlimited Ammo setting. Won't be at all realistic mind you.

[neep]

The maximum number of, for example, Cretan bowman in an ancient army/stack should not exceed 1. Making them mega expensive, however, was counter-productive. The average Horse Archer is not that good either - they should sting and tire out, not kill hordes.

Given the cost of archers vs their benefit I tend to have 6 - 8 in some of my stacks.
I don't try to play historically but take what the game gives me - units have a certain cost and provide certain benefits.
I love archers for their ability to reach out and touch somebody
(Yeah I could apply a house rule for that.)

So, instead of making them mega-expensive why not make them a little bit more expensive ?
Or have them take 2 turns to build so that they are more costly in terms of time to create.
Then, given their benefit vs cost players would make that trade off and find that paying for 10 stacks of archers isn't quite worth it.

[Alavaria]

The average Horse Archer is not that good either - they should sting and tire out, not kill hordes.

Really, they are useless from the front, not that useful at all from the side and pretty decent from the rear.

If anything I would use them because they can get to the rear and are able to rear-charge to rout and then chase routed enemies. I have some of those Tarantine cavalry for that use, they throw some javelins charge, catch routers. Very nice package.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

Really, they are useless from the front, not that useful at all from the side and pretty decent from the rear.

If anything I would use them because they can get to the rear and are able to rear-charge to rout and then chase routed enemies. I have some of those Tarantine cavalry for that use, they throw some javelins charge, catch routers. Very nice package.

And that indeed is how Horse Archers (particularly think Parthians) were actually used. Make the desert your friend - fire to harass and make the target hide under their shields (where they are safe), but don't move. Every time they try to move (continue to march), then you harass them some more - until they are tired and disorganised - when the cataphracts come out to play.

Javelin cavalry can be brilliant - it's no surprise that the vast majority of Roman (and others) cavalry were thus armed.

[Alavaria]

And that indeed is how Horse Archers (particularly think Parthians) were actually used. Make the desert your friend - fire to harass and make the target hide under their shields (where they are safe), but don't move. Every time they try to move (continue to march), then you harass them some more - until they are tired and disorganised - when the cataphracts come out to play.

Javelin cavalry can be brilliant - it's no surprise that the vast majority of Roman (and others) cavalry were thus armed.

No that doesn't work, you'll get bogged down and die because the AI has all the bonuses. Luckily units only face one direction, so you can always bypass their shields with some cleverness.

So instead of getting into a slugging match, you pin them on some crappy infantry, go around and MURDER them with arrows to the back. Doesn't matter if it's some militia and the enemy are elite roman troops, they'll last long enough. Then yes, you can some rout them. Use light and cheap horsemen, like your horse archers to do this. No need for expensive heavy cavalry that will still die when the AI shoots some rocks at them.

[SD_Man]

This is somewhat revelant but is there any way to disable fire arrows and replace it with the "artillery fear" attribute. IMO, this would be more realistic and would make regular arrows more useful.

As to balance, I think that all missile units should get a slight bonus (not much) so that their decisive natures could be better represented. e.g. slingers>heavy inf, archers>light inf, and javelins>? (do these guys have any use?). I think javelins need the real attention, more ap damage maybe?

[MacBlain]

I just want to chime in to say that I think it would be great if the flaming arrows could be replaced with something slightly abstract. Maybe volley-fire vs. fire-at-will or something like that? Or long-distance morale-reducing lobs vs. short-range casualty-causing perpendicular shooting? I don't know how much the behaviour of fire arrows can be changed. It's such a pity we can't model disorder better -- that would fix all of this.

[Ser Plechen]

dvk901 you can take the fire arrows with Medieval II in the Roma Surrectum 2.7?

[Primative1]

Fire arrows are available in 2.6.

[Ser Plechen]

The fire arrows how in Medieval II? I didn't see. And where?

[High Fist]

Press F. There's always been fire arrows, the same as Medieval 2.

[dvk901]

Actually, I was thinking of adding flaming javelins to all units so they could burn down gates as well. Heck, I could just make the walls flammable and they can burn them down too..........no?

Ok.

[Alavaria]

Were flaming javelins ever used historically?

I mean besides throwing torches on wooden structures to set them on fire...