Archers useless?

[FlashHeart07]

- the 70 year old veterans of Alexander's conquest.

I wonder how they must have looked. I can imagine the commanding officer screaming orders and just getting... "uh?" as a reply.

[Vardano]

I wonder how they must have looked. I can imagine the commanding officer screaming orders and just getting... "uh?" as a reply.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Geffalrus]

Just imagine an entire phalanx of Harrison Fords. All pointing their index fingers and yelling something about "it" belonging in a museum.

[KAM 2150]

Don't forget about front rows made of Clint Eastwoods, that will stop enemy elephants and projectiles with the stare!

[viperx07]

Looks like we can agree that with all the campaign buffs, archers can be good. My discussion is mostly to do with custom battles though, were you are stuck with default ammo and range. I understand if custom battles are not
inportant to be balanced, but it's not too hard to help archers out. Can just decrease price or increase ammo.

you also agreed that archers are ineffective from the front of armored infantry with shields, yet flanking was not
historical and neither is it feasible in most battles unless using horse archers. So from my battle, I expended the ammo of 3 Cretan units while losing only about 70 hoplites, which cost less than 1 Cretan archer. The morale penalty alone is not enough to justify the cost, since you can get another infantry unit and flank from behind for a much higher morale penalty/damage. So if an enemy brings mostly armored units (the hoplites I brought have below average armor even) then archers from the front do barely any damage. If you use them from the flanks, it's ahistorical (you guys even mentioned that) and might not be feasible in battle especially if enemy has cav.

The best tactics in this mod involve envelopment, charging from the back etc, so outnumbering the enemy with cheap infantry instead of archers makes it easier to win then using archers to plink away at the infantry from the front. Like I said, I'm talking about custom battles, since in campaign all the upgrades are sure to make archers better.

also, since most units are armored and almost every unit had shields, archers are ineffective from the front against most units.

[KAM 2150]

Because again, you use them in a wrong way. It has been covered on last few pages why.

[viperx07]

If they don't do damage from the front, can't reliably flank (in game and historically) how do you use them?

3 Cretan archers only killed about 70 units of hoplite that was in default ranks, not even a thin line. The hoplite costs about 30% of the archers. Unless you are fighting naked swords, they won't kill do much and can just be ignored while you maneuver infantry to flank/envelope.

Unless playing huge funds, it's more useful to have 3 more infantry units than 3 archer units. The only way they can do damage is from th back/sides, but that's not
historical or feasible most times.

[Kieck]

I think it's my first post, but here we go.

Using archers on hoplites is pointless. Their heavy armour and huge shield is the reason why anything smaller than a javelin is not going to do a lot of damage to them. This is why the Persians had a bad time in Greece.

Use archers on light-to-medium infantry or don't use them at all. That's pretty much what there is to archers.

Also, pardon for repeating what everyone said.

[viperx07]

Exactly, so if the ai used them, all it takes is 1-2 hoplites to nullify them. You don't need your own archers to counter skirmish.

Unless you are fighting naked spears, most units have too much armor for archers to be useful up front. So don't use them at all.... That's exactly my whole point.... They are useless for their cost unless you are fighting lightly armored units, which I haven't seen much of. Most armies are pretty heavily armored. I think maybe against javelins they have their one use, since javelins pose danger to your heavily armored units.

so unless the enemy has javelins and/lightly armored units, archers are pointless. Their own archers can essentially be ignored unless you are using lightly armored units yourself. It's really hard for me to justify paying over 1000 per archer in a custom battle when they will most likely end up being useless, depending on what the enemy brings.

in campaign it's another story, since you can spy on enemy armies and see their composition and you generally know what each faction is bringing.

[Geffalrus]

Morale penalty dude. Morale penalty. That's an invaluable service that all ranged units performed. Especially if they can use fire arrows. Ranged units can apply morale penalties to enemy units without extra hassle of sending them into melee.

[viperx07]

But if their melee unit is fighting yours, won't the morale penalty apply to both since your archers will be hitting your units too?

and if all ur really using them for is morale penalty, why not just bring your cheap 350 archers? What's the justification for the ones that cost 1000?

[Geffalrus]

The first is more of a KAM question, I guess. I have not found that to be a problem because usually - when I need that little bit extra morale penalty - it's in a situation where I have stacked 2-3 morale penalties already and the morale advantage is clearly in my favor. In such a situation, it is unlikely the enemy has done the same to my units. For example, I have a unit that is winning the combat, and there's also a flanking unit, and maybe a rear charge of some sort. Those are all being applied to the enemy, not me. So when the arrows come in, even if they do apply a morale penalty to all the units involved, the enemy is the one to pay the price because I already have them close to breaking. They break and run, while my guys recover their morale and stamina and get ready for something else. And that's if the penalty is applied to friendly units (I believe it is). That would be a good argument for moving your archers around behind the melee so they don't land on your own soldiers, of course.

Expensive archers, especially ones with good armor, allow you to win the archer duel and then move on to helping out the melee fight. Doing so removes the enemy's ability to apply that morale penalty to you, while you retain full control over your ability to apply that morale penalty. Because combat takes so long, you will have plenty of time to wipe out opposing archers in a missile duel. Make no mistake, a pair of Cretan archers send a large number of peasant archers running. Focus fire is the key. While the casualties from one volley aren't amazing, a series of volleys against an unarmored archer unit will kill a number of soldiers, and break its morale. And the faster those casualties happen, the more likely the unit will break and run. Now depending on the elite archer in question, it might even have some minor melee capability once the ammo is gone. Sabean Noble Archers have the highest melee capability in my experience, but there are other good options out there.

Speaking of the Sabeans, if you do want to see the power of archery in DeI, play the Saba campaign. You can field entire armies of hybrid-archer units. Everything counts in larger amounts. And when your entire battle line is filling the sky with arrows, you WILL obliterate any low armored units in the opposing force. And Saba hybrid archers all have spears, making cavalry practically useless against them. So once the supporting low armor units are gone, the now larger Saba army can surround the surviving heavy armor elite troops and eventually rout them. It's glorious.

[viperx07]

I just did a lot of testing. It looks like its not the under fire morale penalty, but attacked in flank that makes them rout. If your archers are behind your infantry and firing at the enemy that is engaged with your infantry, they will barely do any damage and will fire very slowly since only a few will be firing. They will also kill more of your own units then the enemy. You MUST have them firing from an angle, even a small angle makes a difference. I noticed that even though they still might not be killing a lot from the side, the morale penalty for the enemy is much higher because of flank. Even greek archers can help rout a unit if they are firing from the side. The trick is to get them there while being protected. If you plan to use your archers that way, the javelin units are much better anyway though. So archers still useless if they are directly behind your units, but even with a 30 degree angle, they become much better.

[Jay the Byzantine]

Wait so all of those archers with 1100+ talent costs are bugged? The ie the Parthian, the horrible Nomadic ones etc?

[Geffalrus]

That matches my experience. As the battle lines draw near to each other, the archers go to work on the skirmisher screen in front of the infantry. Once the battle lines collide, the archers draw back to fire - over - the melee to eliminate the archers behind. At the same time, my cavalry goes to work clearing the flanks of enemy cavalry or non-engaged infantry. Once the archers are gone - either through missile fire or light cavalry charges, I move my archers to the flanks where they can either pour arrows into isolated infantry units chasing my cavalry, or work around the sides or back of the melee.

[RollingWave]

1. flame arrow morale penalty is good on anything.
2. most armies will not be made up of nothing but Hoplites, you can fire at other units.

Usually my first priority is to shoot cavalries, either force them to charge too soon or face with devastation, that in turn let your own cavalry get into position easier.

Another obvious one is simply shoot opposing archers / slingers / skirmishers, routing them is still helpful to your overall fight if only due to the morale factor, and you can save your cavalry for some other tasks.

[viperx07]

Not sure how morale of adjacent troops affects each other, but if it's significant, then shooting enemy archers can be useful. For the most part though, the ai sux at using archers and you can just ignore them if you make your heavy infantry soak up the arrows.

Havent tested on cav yet, so not sure how effective archers are. Cav are usually more armored though, but they don't have shields.

i found that flame arrows at actually less effective, at least with Cretan archers. Cretan archers make even Spartan heroes route if shot from the front at 45 degree while they are engaged with your shield bearers. With flame arrows though, they don't route and take less casualties.

I will ill do some testing today on archers vs other missile units and cav.

i still think ammo needs to be increased a lot in custom battles. My horse archers ran out of ammo before they could even route the Spartan heroes from behind. Same with javelin. I think jav should have something like 12-15 ammo and regular archers at least 25, for custom battles.

[FlashHeart07]

AFAIK you cannot have different ammo values for the campaign and custom battles. And from all of my testing and playing with DeI. Routing enemies and getting a substantial amount of kills with any ranged units, have never been a problem.
You test the best Spartan units vs horse archers? IMO thats like testing levy units vs spartan heroes and saying that levies need to have their dmg increased.

[Dresden]

If anything, one of the complaints of people who liked the older battle system was that ranged units are too effective now.

[viperx07]

I believe I was testing some very good horse javelins against Spartan heroes in the back. I don't see why it would be a problem for them to be able to route Spartan heroes if Cretan archers can easily do it. Javelins are supposed to be a lot more effective, but the 7 ammo doesn't cut it.

if we can't have different ammo for custom battles, how about giving th generals a 50% or something ammo buff? That would effectively replicate the campaign buffs.

dresden, what older battle system are you talking about? I'm plying 1.1 since 1.2 is not released yet.