Archers useless?

[Kiech]

I get why warriors are powerful early on since barbs are very deadly and need a counterpoint, but why do they need to be more worthwhile than building Axemen/swordsmen/Archers?

Myself, I worry about keeping maintenance low, but its hard to argue with the warrior-pult strategy, especially after you get copper.

This seems to affect archers the most, its almost as if they are not worthwhile building at all? Can someone explain when you would use archers (aside from elves and fire-bows)?

Thank you!

 

[BobCW]

The generic Longbow and Archer units are not the most useful units, certainly not if you're looking for troops to throw at enemy cities. That said, both units (especially Longbows) can be outstanding city defenders. Even a basic 40-hammer (quick speed) Archer with City Garrison I-III promotions and the Flaming Arrows enchantment, fortified in a new city with +10% culture defenses will defend at something like 16 strength, plus first strikes. A Warrior or Axe with the same amount of promotions won't be nearly as strong. Well-promoted Longbowmen can be incredibly difficult for even end-game units to dislodge. Granted, you don't want to make the main focus of your army be units whose purpose is to passively camp in your cities, but if you've got their tech it can help to produce a few LB / Archers to hold your conquests when you go to war.

 

[akatosh]

Kiech--with regards to our SG, I think Bob's point is very relevant. So far we haven't needed archers because it has been easy to crush the Clan cities one by one.

But our next target is probably going to be Rhoanna. In this situation, we are facing an enemy who has a tech and potentially a production advantage, and we have a widely-spread empire with a lot of cities on flatlands. In this case, when our main stack starts pushing north, we'll be extremely vulnerable to counterattacks by an enemy who has mostly 4 move horse units. Archers in our northern cities will be useful, as well as to garrison cities that we capture from Rhoanna. For example leaving 2-3 warriors to protect a city won't be enough to survive all the horsemen running amok.

 

[BobCW]

I haven't read your SG, but I would caution that mounted units are actually the counter for early-game Archers; Horsemen have a large inherent bonus against archery units and IIRC have first-strike immunity (either that or it's Horse Archers who have it). Being able to withdraw also makes them good at cracking Archers, although the AI rarely uses flanking promotions intelligently.


Personally I almost never build Archers or Longbows unless I'm playing as the Ljo or Amurites- when I fight, I prefer rapid offense and mobile (reactive) defense, which doesn't leave much use for camping units behind city walls. There's certainly something to be said though for mid / late-game LB with Iron weapons, all the City Garrison promotions & Flaming Arrows; it's fairly easy to get them defending cities at over 30 strength, tough enough to get good odds even on the Avatar of Wrath, should he be foolish enough to attack their city.

 

[Calavente]

horsemen have bonus against archers.
HA have FS immunity.

I hate that archers are such bothers.... (them being 4/5 or 3/6 would be best... or interverting enchant I and II )
or that archers could get bronze weapons.

at 3/5... even bronze warriors are better : cheaper: you get 2 warriors 4str for the price of one 3/5 archer.... not counting the need to build archery range (and warriors have 25% city defense... so an effective 5str in city def.)

maybe it could be the reverse : archers very good at attack, but less in def... ?? (just brainstorming here)

best regards

 

[akatosh]

Ha, I forgot about that. So in that case, scratch it Kiech--no archers for us