Are Horse Archers useful?

[Joe Harker]

There have been hundreds of times when i have seen people say "don't get horse archers they are not much use" or something to that effect. And they do have a point, no defensive bonuses and -10% attacking cities, the only obivious tactic for them is pillaging.

And in singleplayer i would agree with them, mostly. But in multiplayer, horse archers rule, for one main reason, the AI in singleplayer normally keep a decent strength force within a city near the borders, enough to scare people from using horsearchers. However, i have seen time and time again, humans leaving one/two units in a city, allowing my horse archers to swoop in, take the city in one/two turns and let the bulk of my troops come in by road. They make a good unit to have when you need to grab an objective something quickly.

 

[Andraeianus I]

This -10% attacking cities is gone in BTS, isn't it?

 

[playshogi]

The problem with horse archers in SP is that you need an expensive dead end tech, whereas in MP, researching deep in the tech tree rarely happens. The swooping tactic you mention is sometimes viable, but can be executed with chariots, just as well.

 

[gunter]

I consider them very useful and several times I have used the Horse Archers succesfully.

Thier main advantage is that they have a movement of 2 and beside the " double pillaging " feature they can move fast and you know how on early eras a fast war can be more effective than a long one. In addition they could travel among your cities very fast when for instance defensive units are urgently needed in the " reception ". I also think that their withdrawal chance must be taken into consideration.
In addition your favourite enemy could have no access to horses....

The Chariot is almost 40-50% weaker than the Horse Archers so it is not an option indeed.

I compare their value to the one of the Cavalry later on, surelly IMO very useful.

 

[Supr49er]

This -10% attacking cities is gone in BTS, isn't it?

Yes.
They get +50% attack and flank attack vs. catapult and trebuchet.
Immunity from first strikes.
20% chance to withdraw from combat.
No defensive bonuses

 

[SlightlyMad]

It's expensive, but not a dead-end tech, since you eventually need it for later mounted units. Granted, I usually wait and research it then. Of course, in BTS horseback riding is a lot more important, with stable UUs and quests, and it now being a pre-requisite for war elephants. Ironically, this means I'm usually more motivated to research it if I have ivory than horses.

 

[kazapp]

now being a pre-requisite for war elephants.

It wasn't earlier?

That really answers the question then: apparently the designers agree it wasn't good enough.

 

[SlightlyMad]

Yes and no, as I recall the decision was mostly made because war elephants were available way too early if you bee-lined construction. If they had just thought horseback riding wasn't good enough, they could have simply lowered the cost.

I personally find horses situationally useful. They're really good at keeping barbarians at bay on raging, as a properly promoted horse can make it across your empire and be able to take out that swordsman. I generally use them in a defensive capacity to weaken and flank attackers, and to clean up retreating forces after they've unsuccessfully attacked me. I also try to keep a few inside an offensive stack to take out workers or stray enemy units, and to carry medic promotions since they're unlikely to be chosen as defenders.

 

[Wodan]

I consider HAs as a good option when my long-range plan involves mounted units. In other words, you do this INSTEAD of getting Bronze Working, Iron Working, and Hunting. When you look at it that way, it's good value.

Wodan

 

[sav]

I use them all the time to be honest... and don't they upgrade to knights or cavalry? Cause having a stash of either of those appear all at once is awesome.

 

[gunter]

I almost never upgrade units due to its intrinsic cost anyway BtS IMO is very well balanced and let you approach wars with several different and flexible startegies.

Horse Archers are surelly quite understimated,please remember their strenght is 6 , the same of Swordsman but in addition they have the movement doubled , a 20% chance of withdrawal and flank attack against Catapult and Trebuchet.

I like them a lot

 

[Polycrates]

Horse archers are great - they've got a good base strength and you can give them Flanking II straight out of the stables (and unlike knights, they can really use it).

 

[Civfan333]

Horse Archers are great sentries. i keep them in the middle of my empire and when I'm at war, all stacks pretty much get obliterated from my horse archers.

 

[Diamondeye]

Horse Archers are okay. They have an obvious weakness, spearmen. But, on the other hand, they can very easily tip a game if you catch sight of a nearby civ that has not yet hooked up copper - CII HAs have a rawstrength of 7,2 - more than enough to kill off archers protecting cities, even capitals.

 

[seizer]

Don't forget that you can beeline to them very quickly if you find that you have horses nearby. A HA rush is certainly viable.

 

[Diamondeye]

Don't forget that you can beeline to them very quickly if you find that you have horses nearby. A HA rush is certainly viable.

That was infact the message I was trying to get through.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

Q. Are Horse Archers useful?

A. Only when they're called "Keshiks".


-- my 2

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

And I can't really see what's useful about Keshiks, even though I build them all the time when playing as Mongolia.

 

[azzaman333]

2 words, flank attack.

 

[troytheface]

interesting. Lately i have been going for animal husbandry and chariots afor bronze and spear/axe. Chariots are cheap and guard your empire effectively with a sound road system
Late i disband them and move on to stronger troops.

In the meantime comes horse- the best axe/sword killers, pillagers, and recon unit for quite awhile...

'Course i have also played games where i skipped all mounted units.
(prince/standard/random map/lincoln