Archers

[krw72588]

Does anyone use archers for offense. I think archers are one of the worst units in the game but they haven't been mentioned in recent polls. If you try to attack a spearmen fortified in a city you will nearly always lose. The time frame in which they are the best attackers is very short. I usually will have at least horses or iron in my territory. Horsemen and swordsmen are so much better. In my opinion even man -o- wars are better than archers. Unless you want to take your ships half way across the world to attack a strip of shore line and maybe take off a shield or two in production of an enemy city. For Coastal defense man-o-wars are great. I don't know about you but in early wars my production isn't very good and i can't handle half my attacking force getting wiped out taking an enemy city.

 

[Zoke0]

I personally think archers are GREAT!!!! I love there zone of control (they're the only unit that has it till Longbowmen). I normally use all units in mixes anyway such as Horsemen,Swordsmen and Archers in groups because they all have there strengthes and weakness.

For example, Horsemen:Fast with an ok attack can retreat,but no defense at all, can be uprgaded to stronger unit later!!.
Swordsmen:Stronger attack then horsemen and more defense ,but slow and no retreat capabilities can't be upgraded to stronger unit later.
Archers:Ok attack, zone of control, but no defense and slow, can be upgraded later.

You're right archers aren't the best unit ever, but like all units are best when in a group of other units.

Another thing, I'm getting tired of people bashing every single unit in the game!! I mean you just need to think a little more to figure out what they're best at. So before you people go around bashing every unit think about the pros versus the cons.

 

[Catt]

I think that archers are only good in the very early game -- but if you use them well, they can be devastating. The Germans begin the game with Warrior Code (allows archers). An early focus on a "civ killer" squad can secure your game for you before 0 AD. A stack of 2 spearmen and 5 archers can all but wipe out several civs early in the game (can wipe them out, if respawning is turned off) - the AI civs will be so focused on expansion that they will generally have only a few defenders per city (even on the higher difficulty levels). If you manage to destory 2 of an AI's 4 cities in the early game, you've really crippled that civ - so much time and production lost in the early game. A quick peace treaty, and that stack (as replenished by reinforcements) moves to the next civ. Devotees of the ultra-early archer attack have posted some pretty amazing success stories before.

 

[nullspace]

Heh, I was going to jump on and bash archers too, but I didn't know they had a zone of control. That must be nice for chariots, horsemen and other units that want to run by your stacks and torment your workers. Those archers still look goofy: big guys who need a haircut and shave, carrying little bows.

(That's the best part of the "xxxxxx unit sucks" posts, someone always has a good way to use the unit)

 

[Republic_Outlaw]

I personally dont use archers I think there completely useless although the AI uses them practically every time. But there not even a match for spearmen (when I play).

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

I definately use massed archers very early in the game to prune my neighbors in short sharp wars. After swordmen make their appearance though, I wait until longbowman arrive before resorting the arrow again.

 

[Arathorn]

Archers have a time and place. They're quite useful even through the pikemen era, if used well. 20 shields for 2 offense is a pretty good deal.

They're not an uber-unit (no unit is) but they can be very effective, when used well.

Arathorn

 

[krw72588]

Don't horesmen also have a zone of control?

 

[BCLG100]

i use archers a lot if i dont have horses for early wars

 

[Zachriel]

Also, archers are upgradeable to longbow, a much maligned but very effective weapon in certain positions.

 

[DaDoo]

When I play China, instead of making warriors to explore, I'd make archers and send them out to explore. I can usually wipe out 1 civs before 1 A.D. and often 2 civs gets wiped. Warriors has no chance against archers and even against spearmen archers has a pretty good chance of winning.

Also, I can get 1-2 great leaders at least by 1 A. D. Great for rushing wonders early.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by DaDoo
Warriors has no chance against archers and even against spearmen archers has a pretty good chance of winning.

Also, I can get 1-2 great leaders at least by 1 A. D. Great for rushing wonders early.

Defender fortified:
R.Archer v. R.Warrior = 68%
R.Archer v. R.Spearman = 36%
V.Archer v. R.Spearman = 51%
V.Archer v. V.Spearman on hill behind river = 17%
Hint: Build barracks as soon as practical. Avoid rivers and hills.

On the ancient age Great Leader -- excellent point! You can build the Forbidden Palace after a short war, or an army for a longer war.

 

[thefrenchzulu]

I often use archers. After training them a bit on babarian, they are great leader generators. I use them especially when playing the Persians, even though the immortal is better than a longbow!

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Also, archers are upgradeable to longbow, a much maligned but very effective weapon in certain positions.

That's right! I usually hold onto my archers and put them in the rear areas until I can upgrade them.

One thing you have to remember with archers. Use them en masse. Sure a veteran spearman fortified in a city is gonna take out a lot of attackers but sheer numbers will overwhelm him.

 

[krw72588]

I forgot to mention that i play on emperor level difficulty and usually don't start the war until around 400 BC. By that time no one is guarding their cites with warriors and some are city level. I don't think anyone ever guards their cites with warriors on emperor but they may on lower levels. I don't like to take casualties i usually won't attack a spearmen in a city with a swordsmen. What I've found works well is to send in a couple horsemen first to take off a point or two, like a catapult, than send in the swordmens. If you have immortals you don't need to bother because the success rate is so high. With the swordsmen horsemen combo you can destroy 2 or 3 enemy spearmen without any casualties.

 

[God]

Militaristic civs get archers right from the beginning. On monarch I have been able to build 3-4 archers and destroy a civ.

Sometimes I just build 2 archers and a warrior and they walk next to an AI city, meet at most a defending warrior and a spear and destroy it. This doesn't finish the civ off but it cripples them enough to keep them down for a lot of the game.

 

[kb2tvl]

I tried to use archers extensivly while playing the babylonians. Archers are cheap to build and they are so cheap that the maintance cost can get pretty high and you need a ton of them to take out well fortified positions.

The time frame when archers are great is pretty small and does not last too long. Also, I dislike fighting in the ancient age. Your cities are very small and you can get a nice lead by just building them up.

 

[DaDoo]

The point of fighting at ancient age is to catch AI while they're all very small too. They usually do not have enough good productive cities to counter attack you yet. But I agree that archer's effective time frame is very small and easily missed.

 

[Evincar]

Originally posted by Arathorn


They're not an uber-unit (no unit is) but they can be very effective, when used well.

Arathorn

No? ever heard about Modern Armor??

 

[DaDoo]

even the all mighty modern armor can be defeated by the lowly spearman

I don't call that uber