I play Multiplayer a lot, and I recently played a team game with players who were really good and generally better than me. I got rushed and stood for awhile but eventually fell. When I was rushed (Classical Era) I began to build comp bows, but a teammate criticized this and said that melee are the most important units because they are the strongest and are the foundation to any army, not ranged.
My attitude towards ranged units is that they can generally block/absorb ranged fire equally well compared to melee units. A composite bow for example should have 11 strength against ranged equal to the spearman, correct? If this is true, then shouldn't the main role of melee be to (a) protect ranged units from opposing melee attacks, and (b) to capture tiles?
If the opponent has nothing but ranged units, then why build spears at all when comp bows have just as much defensive strength against ranged attacks? The only other reason I can think of is that spears can attack a tile and capture it at the same time whereas a ranged unit cannot. A composite bowman can still fortify and get rough terrain bonuses just like a spear.
My attitude towards ranged units is that they can generally block/absorb ranged fire equally well compared to melee units. A composite bow for example should have 11 strength against ranged equal to the spearman, correct? If this is true, then shouldn't the main role of melee be to (a) protect ranged units from opposing melee attacks, and (b) to capture tiles?
If the opponent has nothing but ranged units, then why build spears at all when comp bows have just as much defensive strength against ranged attacks? The only other reason I can think of is that spears can attack a tile and capture it at the same time whereas a ranged unit cannot. A composite bowman can still fortify and get rough terrain bonuses just like a spear.
Last edited:
