Best archer unit

[501st Legion]

Any ideas what is that unit?

 

[Hannibal Burca]

In a strictly statistical sence, Forester Warband is the best archer unit in RTW vanila. These are the four best archer units in the game:

1. Forester Warband (Gaul) [missle attack-15; attack-11; defence-8]
2. Pharo's Bowmen (Egypt) [missle attack-14; attack-9; defence-13]
3. Chosen Archer Warband (Germany, Scythia, Dacia) [missile attack-12; attack-10; defence-11]
4. Cetian Archers (Mercenaries) [missle attack-11; attack-6; defence-5]


From battle experince I think Foresters are the best acrhers in the game. I think (not sure) they have a longer range than the Pharo's Bowmen. But note that they are so damn expensive.

Here are the trainig costs of each archer units:
1. Forester Warband 960
2. Pharo's Bowmen 680
3. Chosen Archer Warband 700
4. Cretian Archers 550

SO taking the money factor into consideration, I think Pharo's Bowmen are the best unit in the game. But I hate Egyptians, so I like Foresters anyway.

 

[Ephialtes The Dog]

Imho Cretans are the best.

 

[Xavier Dragnesi]

Cretans are the best archers in themselves, but if unfortunately, they run into some hand to hand combat, they are almost as useless as peasants. At least the other bowmen have some fighting skills.

 

[Korlon]

Hannibal, I don't know where the heck you got the data for those, but they aren't correct.

Okay. Here are the correct stats.

1. Forester Warband (Gaul) [Missile attack-11; Melee attack-11; defence- 3 armor, 4 defense skill]
2. Pharaoh's Bowmen (Egypt) [Missile attack-10; Melee attack-9; defence-7 armor, 5 defense skill]
3. Chosen Archer Warband (Germany, Scythia, Dacia) [Missile attack-8; Melee attack-10; defence-7 armor, 3 defense skill]
4. Cretan Archers (Mercenary) [Missile attack-11; Melee attack-6; defence-4 defense skill]

Anyways, Chosen Archer Warband's clearly not winning this one. Just completely stinks in terms of missile attack.

Note that the lethality of a Forester Warband's spear is only .73 instead of 1 for the knives of Cretan Archers and Pharaoh's Bowmen. That, coupled with the intrinsic -4 attack granted for spears when used against infantry, would actually make the Forester Warband lose in a melee match against Cretan Archers and the Pharaoh's Bowmen. But that clearly doesn't matter. What matters is that they use spears, which have an intrinsic +8 attack against cavalry, and cavalry is the bane of every archer's existence.

Anyways, the armor value for Cretan archers is also nonexistent, which means easy pickings for other archers. They also pretty much suck in a melee.

It's really a battle between the Forester Warband and the Pharaoh's Bowmen. I'd have to say the Forester Warband wins. Even though the Pharoah's Bowmen does better against infantry and has better armor, an archer's primary job should be to shoot arrows, not go off in a melee. The Forester Warband does cost more, but I don't think anybody cares about upkeep when we get to the point where we can recruit these. We'll be flowing in money by that time. And the spear of the Forester Warband also makes it very nice. Archers can run away from infantry, but not cavalry, so they can actually fight against their arch-nemesis.

But you'll still probably be using Cretan archers as they are the only unit that every faction can actually get.

 

[NobleNick]

Hannibal, I don't know where the heck you got the data for those, but they aren't correct...

He might be using the +3 attack (and a +1 experience upgrade?) from temple upgrades for the Foresters.

Just a "by the way:" There is a maximum range for archers, which is shared by Cretans, Foresters, Roman AA, Chosen Archers, and certainly more which I do not remember to name. Cretans and Foresters have EXACTLY the same range (disregarding terrain effects).

It's really a battle between the Forester Warband and the Pharaoh's Bowmen. I'd have to say the Forester Warband wins.... the spear of the Forester Warband also makes it very nice. Archers can run away from infantry, but not cavalry, so they can actually fight against their arch-nemesis...

Agreed. The Foresters are way expensive to build; but they are awesome. With temple upgrades and experience built up in just a few battles, they can sport attack ratings of 17+ !!!

 

[Hannibal Burca]

I'm getting the facts from RTW vanila (version 1.0) Custom Battles.

Maybe I'm using a far older version than you guys use.

Anyway, Foresters rock and Pharo's bowmen suck.

 

[Xavier Dragnesi]

Yes, you are using a far far far older version. RTW is already patched to version 1.5 and you are still on 1.0?!

 

[NobleNick]

OOooo, this is off topic, but... Hannibal, for your own enjoyment's sake, you really ought to patch to 1.5.

 

[Xavier Dragnesi]

And for more accurate discussion.

 

[conquestor]

Pharoah's bowmen wins hands down.

 

[Ramesses the Great]

Pharoah's bowmen wins hands down.

I agree with you, they are the best archers, since they have the best overall.

 

[Mithradates]

I vote for Pharoah's bowmen, they have good armor (only protection against ranged attack), they are excellent wall defenders even when it comes to melee and egyptian armies are allready phalanx-heavy so because of that they are protected against enemy cavallry too.

(I dont know 1vs1 which archer is better but it doesnt really matter to me, in battles Pharoah's bowmen are a good and useful addition and they perform very well with their army)

 

[Falcone]

I think Cretan Archers. They have a great range.

 

[King_StuvartiniusIII]

The Pharoahs bowmen have good ranged attack and have armour which saves from ranged foes, so I think they're best

 

[Roman_Wolf]

The best archer unit is definately the forester warband. By now you all know its great qualities. but it also has onemore which happens to be very important. They can hide anyware on the battle field. So lets say you them onthe edge of the map, one the enemy passes them they can shoot them in the back which causes lots of damage. The forester can then run and hide somewhere or carry on and get protected by player cavalry.

 

[Becu29]

Foresters beat Pharaohs Bowmen!

 

[Selifator]

Barbarian chosen archers beat Pharao's bowmen imo, since they get a bonus in winter which affects the greater deal of the map. And since the barbarians are likely to conquer more winter terrain then the Egyptians are to conquer desert, chosen archers have the advantage.

Plus they look cooler.

 

[C-Rob]

Forester warband are extremely good, but cretan archers demolish enemy units even more so in my experience, or it just might be that I've used them against more massed enemies, while the foresters' enemies are a little less, you know, phalanx'ed.

 

[TheTrueGreek]

pharoahs are the best, gaul doesnt have the units to back up their archers so a gaul versus egypt battle egypt would win hands down

 

[Roman_Wolf]

pharoahs are the best, gaul doesnt have the units to back up their archers so a gaul versus egypt battle egypt would win hands down

if your gonna put it this way, then the strongest archer unit would become the archer auxilia simply because the roman factions are the best and kick other factions asses

 

[_TubbZ_]

Pharoah's bows are probably the best, Foresters are good but are v costly and recruitment in campaign is 2 turns. MP the ups are more expensive than pharoahs and the support is lacking to allow them to effectively win as archers. plus in a CWB rules match up gauls 6 archers will most likely lose due to the enemy being able to afford better ups and get more archers.

But as units i guess Foresters are better but being the best isn't great when you can't be the bested as the rest of your army sucks too much

 

[Kratos]

Forresters. IMO there is need for armour as archers are not meant to get into melee, so the ability to hide anywhere is a lot more useful than the extra armour of pharoahs bowmen.

 

[TheTrueGreek]

if your gonna put it this way, then the strongest archer unit would become the archer auxilia simply because the roman factions are the best and kick other factions asses

egypt can beat rome anyday, give me 6 chariots, 6 pharoahs gaurds, and 6 pharoahs archers and i will kill any army you raise. only if you mod to give yourself some ungoddly advantage can rome beat egypt with a army of the same money

im being reasonable with this as well, no max armies as they are hard to gain in the campaign, but something along the lines of a 15k army

make your gallic one of the same money and ill still be able to whip your armies but with egypt

 

[Roman_Wolf]

egypt can beat rome anyday, give me 6 chariots, 6 pharoahs gaurds, and 6 pharoahs archers and i will kill any army you raise. only if you mod to give yourself some ungoddly advantage can rome beat egypt with a army of the same money

im being reasonable with this as well, no max armies as they are hard to gain in the campaign, but something along the lines of a 15k army

make your gallic one of the same money and ill still be able to whip your armies but with egypt

Egypt beat ROME !! yea that might happen in a wierd fantasy of yours. but back to real life though, the egyptian chariots are worthless against urban cohorts, and incase you havent noticed archers wont do much against Roman armor. And as for the the pharoah's gaurds, they're not the great and would also be defeated easily by urbans and legionaries. And i still havent used my praetorian cavalry yet. So trust me, eygypt has no chance against Rome.

 

[Katene]

if your gonna put it this way, then the strongest archer unit would become the archer auxilia simply because the roman factions are the best and kick other factions asses
egypt can beat rome anyday, give me 6 chariots, 6 pharoahs gaurds, and 6 pharoahs archers and i will kill any army you raise. only if you mod to give yourself some ungoddly advantage can rome beat egypt with a army of the same money

Pharaoh Guards is good, but compare to Spartan Hoplites, or simply Amoured Hoplite, they cannot be compared. Chariots are useless unless you use the Vanilla that support adding HP (this is certainly unrealistic). Pharaoh Archers can easily be beaten by cavalry.

So I have figure out how to rout it easily: Take heavy cavalry (or simply medium cavalry) go to kill chariots. Then use them to kill archers. Then use my archers to fire rain arrows on Pharaoh Guards. Then use the infantry to attack the front, one charge of cavalry and it ends.

If you want to fight Rome, it's far more easily: use Ballista to kill Chariots. If Chariots come close, use 2 Legionary Cohort which is lower their rank(mean lengthen the formation). Then use Ballista to fire Archers, they will rout soon. Then use Ballista to fire the Guards, use Legionary Cohort to harrass their Rank. They will rout soon.

 

[TheTrueGreek]

you guys really have never played anyone who can use egypt with any skill then, egypts chariots will kill your cavalry, not infantry, then the chariot hit your archers, my archers fire at your inf, and i keep my chariots at your cohorts flanks so when you supposedly crush my pharoahs gaurds, your men rout when i charge my chariots into their flank

Chariots arnt used in that game to kill inf, but to kill cavarlry, try it before you make assumptions

please before you try to argue this further, take one unit of preatorian cavalry and one unit of egyption chariots and have them charge each other, the chariots will crush the cavalry with only the loss of one or two chariots

 

[NobleNick]

You guys are talking apples and oranges: Single Player (SP) with no cost constraints versus Multiplayer (MP) with denarii limits. Sounds like you are both right, within your own contexts, but fail to acknowlegde the others' ground rules.

My ground rules are: I am talking about SP. In a long campaign, denarii limits do not apply.

Also, anyone with half a brain, who is going to play Gaul and use the Forester Warband, is going to build the third-tier temple which gives +3 to ranged attack.

Someone who has played Egypt might pipe up about the +1 weapons upgrade available to them; but this upgrade is not available until FIFTH-tier temple. In my SP games, the campaign is just about over by then.

Using Korlon's numbers, and updating the Foresters for the +3 temple upgrade, you get:

Forester Warband: Missile = 14; Melee = 11; defence --> 3 armor + 4 skill
Cretan Archers__: Missile = 11; Melee =  6; defence --> 0 armor + 4 skill
Pharaoh's Bowmen: Missile = 10; Melee =  9; defence --> 7 armor + 5 skill

So, right out of the gate, the Foresters look mighty strong, compared to any other archer units. Now, protect these units just long enough to fight a few fights, and they become virtually invincible in goups of 4 or more.

Why? Because the Foresters' starting attack is so high that, even as rookies, they slaughter just about anything. This racks up kills for them; and the swords defending them get relatively few kills. The high kill number for the Foresters gives them experience, which pumps their attack value even higher: 15; 16; 17; and up ( I know I have seen 18, maybe even higher).

As if this is not enough, Foresters get the +8 against cav. And I can say, having played with them and (arrgghh!) against them, that they are extremely good at shish-ke-bobbing horses. As if that were not enough, Foresters get an additional combat bonus in woods or snow. As if that is not enough, remember that Gaul, like all Barbarians, only get buildings to tier-3; so fully upgraded Foresters can show up very, very early in the game; when most troops have very little protection against arrows.

After a short grooming session of maybe 6 battles, a stack of 4 foresters, protected by a screen of 8 Chosen swords, 2 Druids, and 4 to 6 flanking heavy cav, is not only near invincible, you can expect the protecting screen of swords to get -ZERO- kills. Yes, I said ZERO, nada, zip, the empty set. How is this possible? Because the fear factor of the Foresters + Druid chant + chosen sword war cry, will make full stacks of pre-marius Roman (and all others), pee in their pants and rout before their advance can contact the front line to melee! I can not count the number of times this delightful event happened.

An author of a Gaul tutorial once said (I am paraphrasing) that, "one or two developed Forester warbands can rout most full stacks... Two warbands can paint the ground solid gold with flaming arrows." Four units of Foresters is overkill, but very fun to watch.

I have not been able to replicate the Foresters' results with Pharoah's Bowmen. Possibly because I have not tried hard enough: Getting them from a missile attack of 10 to a missile attack of 14 (which is where upgraded Foresters start) based on experience upgrades alone, seems like a very long haul.

And Cretan archers? Phht!! I can only rarely keep them alive long enough to get the chevron advances needed to make them on a par with starting (upgraded) Foresters

Someone who read an earlier post by me on this subject, decided to spam Foresters: We are talking many, many stacks, some with 10 or more Forester units per stack. Very expensive, but he got boringly easy wins, no matter what the enemy fielded against him.

Nothing else comes close: Foresters FTW.

 

[TheTrueGreek]

You guys are talking apples and oranges: Single Player (SP) with no cost constraints versus Multiplayer (MP) with denarii limits. Sounds like you are both right, within your own contexts, but fail to acknowlegde the others' ground rules.

My ground rules are: I am talking about SP. In a long campaign, denarii limits do not apply.

Also, anyone with half a brain, who is going to play Gaul and use the Forester Warband, is going to build the third-tier temple which gives +3 to ranged attack.

Someone who has played Egypt might pipe up about the +1 weapons upgrade available to them; but this upgrade is not available until FIFTH-tier temple. In my SP games, the campaign is just about over by then.

Using Korlon's numbers, and updating the Foresters for the +3 temple upgrade, you get:

Forester Warband: Missile = 14; Melee = 11; defence --> 3 armor + 4 skill
Cretan Archers__: Missile = 11; Melee =  6; defence --> 0 armor + 4 skill
Pharaoh's Bowmen: Missile = 10; Melee =  9; defence --> 7 armor + 5 skill

So, right out of the gate, the Foresters look mighty strong, compared to any other archer units. Now, protect these units just long enough to fight a few fights, and they become virtually invincible in goups of 4 or more.

Why? Because the Foresters' starting attack is so high that, even as rookies, they slaughter just about anything. This racks up kills for them; and the swords defending them get relatively few kills. The high kill number for the Foresters gives them experience, which pumps their attack value even higher: 15; 16; 17; and up ( I know I have seen 18, maybe even higher).

As if this is not enough, Foresters get the +8 against cav. And I can say, having played with them and (arrgghh!) against them, that they are extremely good at shish-ke-bobbing horses. As if that were not enough, Foresters get an additional combat bonus in woods or snow. As if that is not enough, remember that Gaul, like all Barbarians, only get buildings to tier-3; so fully upgraded Foresters can show up very, very early in the game; when most troops have very little protection against arrows.

After a short grooming session of maybe 6 battles, a stack of 4 foresters, protected by a screen of 8 Chosen swords, 2 Druids, and 4 to 6 flanking heavy cav, is not only near invincible, you can expect the protecting screen of swords to get -ZERO- kills. Yes, I said ZERO, nada, zip, the empty set. How is this possible? Because the fear factor of the Foresters + Druid chant + chosen sword war cry, will make full stacks of pre-marius Roman (and all others), pee in their pants and rout before their advance can contact the front line to melee! I can not count the number of times this delightful event happened.

An author of a Gaul tutorial once said (I am paraphrasing) that, "one or two developed Forester warbands can rout most full stacks... Two warbands can paint the ground solid gold with flaming arrows." Four units of Foresters is overkill, but very fun to watch.

I have not been able to replicate the Foresters' results with Pharoah's Bowmen. Possibly because I have not tried hard enough: Getting them from a missile attack of 10 to a missile attack of 14 (which is where upgraded Foresters start) based on experience upgrades alone, seems like a very long haul.

And Cretan archers? Phht!! I can only rarely keep them alive long enough to get the chevron advances needed to make them on a par with starting (upgraded) Foresters

Someone who read an earlier post by me on this subject, decided to spam Foresters: We are talking many, many stacks, some with 10 or more Forester units per stack. Very expensive, but he got boringly easy wins, no matter what the enemy fielded against him.

Nothing else comes close: Foresters FTW.

i concede to this, you at least appear to have done your homework,
and as you said i was in a mp rule, this doesnt just restrict money but experiance as well, at best you can get +3, but still, you burn so much money in the process you cant afford the cavalry or inf to protect them, so my chariots combined with my bowmen would rout you much like how you said you would do to pre-marious armies.

Single Player: Forester is better

Multi-Player: Pharoahs bowmen is better

also, when dark wolf said his custom battle, i was under the assumption that he had actually read my previous post in that there was money restrictions, and an army of urbans and preats was
1. not upgraded
2. lacking in something because of cost

at which case my army which would be
1. upgraded
2. cav killers because chariots are

that gave me the advantage of have cav, which in turn gives me the better mobility and forces him to sit and absorb my arrows or charge me and concede his archers and infantry to a chariot charge in the rear, plus some of the things he said such as "arrows dont work well against roman armor" screamed to me that he wasnt used to playing a human who would only fire on inf if there are no archers or cav to fire on.

 

[NobleNick]

Yes, I have heard from many sources that Gaul stinks in MP. I have never player RTW MP (but may try in 2009), so can not add anything there. I bow to your experience in that arena.