Archers should be a defensive unit not attack

[TETurkhan]

The best use archers as an offensive unit was by the Mongols.
Even they would retreat with their horse archers as they sent hail of arrows at their oncoming enemies. The way the game is now, Archers are considered an attack unit which I believe is wrong.

I think archer units should be defensive primarily. Just can't picture a initial attack carried out by archers - charge! (nope - doesnt work).

opinions anyone?

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

EDIT: Bah! Forget it! It's 2/1/1 I wouldn't attack anything with it!!!

I usually don't build it

 

[TETurkhan]

Here are the stats on the unit:

Archer: 2Attack, 1 Defense
Long Bowman: 4Attack, 1 Defense
Bowman (Babylon) 2Attack, 2 Defense

 

[cracker]

The way it works now is probably the most appropriate choice given the constraints of the game engine.

The concept of archers "charging" is a little bit inane, but that is not what is being simulated here.

The archers move into range and then rain arrows upon the enemy while trying to stay out of sword and spear range. When banks of archers were available and in range, they were almost always the first units to engage the enemy to inflict casualties or keep the enemies' heads down while the slow heavier, more armored type units moved up to contact and break the defense.

The addition of an artillery free shot with range zero and a bombard strength of 3 or 4 simulates the stand off defensive capabilities of the archer units.

For simplicity, this is not an abstract argument of historical accuracy but just a classification for the purposes of how the AI places the units in its strategy matrix. Given the choice of three units:
Warriors (ADM = 1/1/1)
Spearman (ADM = 1/2/1)
Archers (ADM = 2/1/1)

which of those three choices should be used as attackers and which should be defenders?

Classifying archers as defenders would screw up the way the AI plays in the game (screw up even more) and you would get some really stupid outcomes.

You really ought to at least test these great pearls of wisdom before posting them as revelations from the gods because it would be fairly easy for you to see if the proposals were silly or enlightening. Just use the editor to change the AI strategy flag from offensive to defensive and see if the game responds. Try playing some tiny map pangea games vs extra opponents on Regent or Monarch level and you will find out right away if the proposal is really stupid or if it holds any value.

 

[TETurkhan]

I was just throwing something into the mix, nothing monumental

I tried this with horse archer unit. Classified the unit as Offense one however gave it stronger defense stats than offense.

It wored out quite well, The Mongols kept sending these horse archer units out, and they were really tough to eliminate. The best way to overcome them was to let them attack first.

I realize some units have both defensive and offensive attributes, but the gap didn't seam realistic to me (4A 1D for long bowman?) - don't you find that difference too much?

 

[Michael York]

I have thought the same thing. I'd like to keep it as an offensive unit for primitive civs (iroquious) and a UU for the brits, 4,4,1. English longbowmen were the best/ most successful units of the middleages. maybe even 4,5,1

 

[elfstorm]

Originally posted by Michael York
I have thought the same thing. I'd like to keep it as an offensive unit for primitive civs (iroquious) and a UU for the brits, 4,4,1. English longbowmen were the best/ most successful units of the middleages. maybe even 4,5,1

Four or five for defence???? I know the English longbow men were excellent archers, but thats insane! They had to be very carefully protected on the battlefield as the longbow is (unsurprisingly) useless at close range.

At Bannockburn all the English longbowmen were killed or routed by a mere 50 Scottish knights.

 

[Zouave]

This is an interesting topic, historically.

In my Mod I made crossbowmen (replacing the useless helicopter) 2.3. I also made it clear that anyone wanting to add a small '0' range bomardment factor (for defense only) can try it.

I disagrred with Plutarck's LWC mod primarily in giving all archer-type units too much offense, especially crossbowmen. Longbowmen should be 4.3 as they were so effective they could be offensive, also. They also should be the English UU with crossbowmen to everyone else.

Firaxis giving longbowmen a 4.1,, with elephants a 4.3. (it should be 3.1.) proves yet again Firaxis doesn't have the vaguest idea what it is doing - and could care less.

 

[LittleDragon]

Crossbowmen would be a defensive unit in the vein of musketmen I guess. That makes sense as muskets and crossbows are short-range weapons.

There is no way archers should be defensive. If they should be different, they should be artillery . It has been mentioned that archers, longbowmen etc would be useless defending themselves as bows are not useful in any real sense at close range. Armour hurts accuracy.

This has been demonstrated throughout history. Archers used to play the role did artillery did for Napoleon, and the vulnerable archers were defended by foot units. To me it makes absolutely no sense to send any sort of bowmen out without a defensive unit with them.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Let's face it: Archers are bombard units! If the enemy gets close, they are dead, but if they have the initiative, they can cut down (but usually not annihliate totally) even a company of infantry (yes, modern day Infantry!!!!!). On the other hand, making them bombard units in civ3 would leave us with the problem that the only attacker (unless you count axemen=Warriors) requires iron - , So Firaxis chose middle ground.

I have given my Archers a bombard, so they'll shoot at attackers like catapults do. Aside from that I do not know how to fix all that without seriously imbalancing the game

See above, as cracker explained.