Archer, bowman or skirmisher?

[reddishrecue]

Which of these archers would you prefer? The archer, the bowman or the skirmisher? other?

 

[zig_zac]

Let me rephrase the question: under what circumstances Skirmisher isn't the best?

 

[Antilogic]

Extra strength is hard to argue with.

 

[Choggy]

I can't see any reason not to go with a skirmisher tbh. With a cover promo they can even be used as rush units.

 

[Archon_Wing]

lol is this even a question?

Skirmishers DEMOLISH them and mostly everything else in the same era save lolchas for cost. They can defend well in cities against praets so that just tells you a lot, doesn't it?

The bowman is a lame poser but it is better than the regular archer against swords though.

 

[uat2d]

Which of these archers would you prefer? The archer, the bowman or the skirmisher? other?

Why is the archer even a choice? Who'd prefer a version of something if there are better options with no drawbacks whatsoever?

 

[Antilogic]

Why is the archer even a choice? Who'd prefer a version of something if there are better options with no drawbacks whatsoever?

Might be a popular choice when looking at the swordsman/jaguar situation, I can see arguments for both sides there.

 

[uat2d]

Might be a popular choice when looking at the swordsman/jaguar situation, I can see arguments for both sides there.

Or the axeman/dog soldier, but this isn't one of those occasions.

 

[capnvonbaron]

Skirmishers. Tho the Bowman is good in human hands too, makes barb axes/spears no problem if you don't have metal early. The skirmisher has the edge tho, as some ppl pointed out, because it makes a normally lame archer rush actually feasible on middle difficulties. Skirmishers can choke the hell out of a neighbor, too. Park a couple on hills the AI is even hard pressed to kill them after spamming a dozen archers...

 

[Ataxerxes]

So far the voting is 11-1 in favor of the Skirmisher. Why is it this close? The Skirmisher is a top UU, one of the best. The Bowman is one of the lower-tier UU's.

Neither has any drawbacks compared to standard, but considering that bonuses are applied to the defender, the Skirmisher is nearly as good against melee units as the Bowman and much better against everything else.

Actually, a Skirmisher on good terrain or in a city would probably beat a Quechua 1 on 1.

 

[Seraiel]

You need already 2.5 Quechuas for normal Archers in cities, for Skirmishers you need 3-3.5 . It get's worse it those cities are on hills, then one needs 3-4 Quechuas for normal Archers, I haven't tried beating Skirmishers on Hills yet.

Anyhow, Bowmen rape Quechuas, I guess more than 5 Quechuas would be needed.

 

[Iranon]

Bowmen only outperform Skirmishers when attacking melee or defending on flatland.

Defending with a net 50% bonus (easy since they get 50% on forest, hills and 0-defense cities) gives them the same strength ratio, and Skirmishers have an additional first strike chance. Heavily fortified skirmishers are a far tougher nut to crack even for melee units than heavily fortified Bowmen.

Theoretically, Skirmishers also pull ahead on the other end when the melee unit has a 100% net bonus but I don't think that comes up very often.

 

[Kid R]

What do the "archer" and "none/other" poll options mean? Does "archer" mean I can choose a different UU? Does "none" mean I may not use archer units at all? Does "other" mean I can design my own archer UU, if so I'll take free drill 4 please No? OK a regular archer with 2 moves would do nicely.

 

[Kjotleik]

I simply don't think that a Unique Unit is worth enough to make a difference when I start to think about what Civilization I want to be in the next game of mine.

Thus, the good ol' Archer is the default unit, and I like it the most...

Now, if that argument is out of bounds in this poll...well, then I guess I'm out...


Happy Civving to you all, regardless!


Yours Sincerely

Kjotleik of Norway

 

[tdy99]

I like bowman and skirmisher, since barbs tend to really annoy me. I'd rate any UU that renders barbs basically irrelevant/a non-issue deserves to be considered at least mid-range.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Why is the archer even a choice? Who'd prefer a version of something if there are better options with no drawbacks whatsoever?

Because only one civilization owns the skirm, and only one owns the bowman. Everyone else has to use archers. So maybe people don't like playing as either civ. And Sitting Bull has something to say too.

Still, Skirm is the best as typically archers are mediocre garrison only units that you only want if you have to. Skirms change the story especially with hills.

 

[teriaky]

Longbows

 

[Iranon]

Compared to a Skirmisher, Longbows have 50% more base strength but lose a first strike chance and a +25% city defense modifier...
not worth costing twice as much in my opinion.

 

[uat2d]

If we're allowed to choose other units than those presented by the OP, then I say nukes.

There, I win.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Theoretically, Skirmishers also pull ahead on the other end when the melee unit has a 100% net bonus but I don't think that comes up very often.

Hill cities with walls + fortify can get there...even higher if the melee has combat I or especially cover. Unless you hit very very early it's not an impossible scenario on high difficulties.