Is it worth it to upgrade archers to crossbows?

DrCron

Prince
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
449
So far I'd say no, I can hardly ever attack with crossbows due to their completely ridiculous range. Has anyone had a battle in which it was clearly better having crossbows than it would have been having less damage but a decent range?
 
That's an interesting question, can't wait to hear what others have to say.

I think most small skirmishes when you have the lead you would be better with crossbows, especially on open terrain or if you got some of those cheesy cliffs. I conquered my continent quite easily in my last hk diff game with noble javelineers(who have similar LoS issues) so I don't value the indirect fire that much. It's usually not hard to find a few good tiles to put them. If you aren't behind in military tech you can usually afford to just go in melee range too. Just about everything 1 shots an archer and their damage is so low you would need to have a ton of them, that can get pretty costly in population.

I have however kept markabatas(egypt) around in the past. They hit quite a bit harder than the basic archer and their movement makes them very survivable.
 
Last edited:
That's an interesting question, can't wait to hear what others have to say.

I think most small skirmishes when you have the lead you would be better with crossbows, especially on open terrain or if you got some of those cheesy cliffs. I conquered my continent quite easily in my last hk diff game with noble javelineers(who have similar LoS issues) so I don't value the indirect fire that much. It's usually not hard to find a few good tiles to put them. If you aren't behind in military tech you can usually afford to just go in melee range too. Just about everything 1 shots an archer and their damage is so low you would need to have a ton of them, that can get pretty costly in population.

I have however kept markabatas(egypt) around in the past. They hit quite a bit harder than the basic archer and their movement makes them very survivable.

Yup, I created this thread while playing an Egypt start, for this same reason, I decided to try and upgrade a few units to crossbows and instantly regretted it during the next battle. But even with normal archers I'm undecided, the difference in range is just to big (and on HK difficulty I don't see crossbows surviving a full AI turn at melee range).
 
So far I'd say no, I can hardly ever attack with crossbows due to their completely ridiculous range. Has anyone had a battle in which it was clearly better having crossbows than it would have been having less damage but a decent range?
The range is the same, however Crossbowmen lose the "indirect" shot ability. You need a clear LoS to use them. They are pretty effective but usage requires better planning of unit positions and movement during the battle.
 
The range is the same, however Crossbowmen lose the "indirect" shot ability. You need a clear LoS to use them. They are pretty effective but usage requires better planning of unit positions and movement during the battle.

If you don't get a 2 elevation difference you simply can't use them with a stronger unit ahead of them. There's no planning around that. Either you are VERY lucky with the map (eg. you get a cliff that the AI can't access just next to the battlefield) or they simply can't shoot. I'd love to plan all of my battles for them to happen right next to cliffs that the AI can't access, but of course the map simply doesn't allow it.
 
Yup, I created this thread while playing an Egypt start, for this same reason, I decided to try and upgrade a few units to crossbows and instantly regretted it during the next battle. But even with normal archers I'm undecided, the difference in range is just to big (and on HK difficulty I don't see crossbows surviving a full AI turn at melee range).

I place them in a way that only allows 1 melee unit to hit them in a turn. The AI only gets +2 on HK, nothing you can't make up for, especially as late as medieval. I try to get the homeland bonus as soon as possible to compensate, with professional soldiers and hopefully a veteran star or ferocious, there's not much that can even fight them 1v1 until heavy infantry/chivalry since they don't take retaliation(gets 2 hits in for every 1 of theirs) and even then you'll survive 1 hit no problem allowing you to "cycle" them.
 
Last edited:
I place them in a way that only allows 1 melee unit to hit them in a turn. The AI only gets +2 on HK, nothing you can't make up for, especially as late as medieval. I try to get the homeland bonus as soon as possible to compensate, with professional soldiers and hopefully a veteran star or ferocious, there's not much that can even fight them 1v1 until heavy infantry/chivalry since they don't take retaliation(gets 2 hits in for every 1 of theirs) and even then you'll survive 1 hit no problem allowing you to "cycle" them.

If your are not in a 1 tile choke point (not always possible) your front line will probably get hit more than once per turn.
 
If you don't get a 2 elevation difference you simply can't use them with a stronger unit ahead of them. There's no planning around that. Either you are VERY lucky with the map (eg. you get a cliff that the AI can't access just next to the battlefield) or they simply can't shoot. I'd love to plan all of my battles for them to happen right next to cliffs that the AI can't access, but of course the map simply doesn't allow it.
Maybe you have a bug. I can use them without 2 elevation difference. Same with all other units that require LoS (e.g. Gunners).
 
If your are not in a 1 tile choke point (not always possible) your front line will probably get hit more than once per turn.

"front line" is not the same as an individual crossbow. it's very easy to move your melee units to only allow 1 angle of attack on a crossbow

even the most basic shapes you can make with units will only allow 1 angle of attack on a lot of units.

Spoiler :

Screen-Shot-2021-09-02-at-2-54-51-PM.png



If you have more melee than the choke point length you can also pull a melee out, shoot, put another one back in. If you have a clean melee line like in the picture with a bunch of crossbows behind that and you have 1 extra melee unit, you can have all of your front line play musical chair as your backline crossbows shoot in the temporary gap(closing it before the end of the round). You can even cycle multiple layers of crossbows that way too. Lots of cool stuff you can do with position/movement.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2021-09-02 at 2.54.51 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2021-09-02 at 2.54.51 PM.png
    42.7 KB · Views: 27
Last edited:
What Cakeathon said about taking a shot while cycling the front line.

Also, archers get squishy very quickly in Medieval, if you can guarantee they won't be attacked that's fine but they can soemtimes be 1-shot killed by crossbows or pikes. Crossbows can take a punch or 2 so it depends on what sort of battles you're fighting, terrain etc.

They might not be the biggest priority for upgrading though, it would probably make more sense to upgrade spears to pikes first.

If your opponent has melee or crossbows themselves though, crossbows are very useful
 
What Cakeathon said about taking a shot while cycling the front line.

Also, archers get squishy very quickly in Medieval, if you can guarantee they won't be attacked that's fine but they can soemtimes be 1-shot killed by crossbows or pikes. Crossbows can take a punch or 2 so it depends on what sort of battles you're fighting, terrain etc.

They might not be the biggest priority for upgrading though, it would probably make more sense to upgrade spears to pikes first.

If your opponent has melee or crossbows themselves though, crossbows are very useful

The problem with this is that your whole strategy needs to revolve around getting range for your crossbows. Regarding guaranteeing archers don't get hit, yes, I can do this with no problems (even easier with the Egyptian chariot archer), because their range is huge (or indirect fire, or however they call it, potato potatoe).
 
Maybe you have a bug. I can use them without 2 elevation difference. Same with all other units that require LoS (e.g. Gunners).

I want whatever beta patch you’re using jkjk! You can shoot targets above you provided any obstacle between you is 2 below the target (or 2 below you).

I will usually take a crossbow or two to take advantage of the chance cliff. But if I am going to get more than this, it usually involves a very mobile, open battlefield, moving melee away to reveal a target, moving two crossbows into a line to each to shoot at this same target, then moving another melee to finish it or block. Fighting with run-and-gun EU muskets and line infantry later helped me get used to this turn-by-turn puzzle. It seems rare to get a higher ground shot (and one without fortification) that allows you to deal more than 5-25 minimum. But crossbows jumping fortifications into high ground can be pretty effective, since they can shoot distant units the turn they enter the city, perhaps getting another melee unit in.

But in my mind, any move-after-attack ranged unit is almost always viable to keep. The AI will rarely have indirect range that can pose a risk, and this gives you so many extra attacks with even a single valid tile to attack from. Even regular archers definitely retain utility until siege cannons.

Oh, and I’m pretty sure a recent patch began allowing the 3-distance zig-zag shot to count as LoS. I’m almost certain this didn’t at release.
 
Pre-Gunpowder Ranged Weapons are tricky to game. On the one hand, everybody has seen too many movies where archers appear to dominate any combat. On the other hand, IRL no army ever found archers or crossbows decisive: at best they could get a few 'softening up' shots in and then somebody with Melee prowess had to finish the battle. Chinese armies made the most use of crossbows, but it was not for their intrinsic effectiveness, it was because they had good metallurgical techniques to manufacture the 'fiddly bits' (trigger and catch mechanisms) cheaply, and developed Volley Fire techniques very early - late Classical Era - to make massed fire more effective. (And yes, Volley Fire should be an adoptable Technology or Civic Choice of some kind, because it radically improved crossbow and musket/arquebus effectiveness and was an integral part of the 'firepower' of English Longbows).

But no, except in special terrain or circumstances, your ordinary archers or crossbows should not be battle winners by themselves. The game gets that right, even if it is annoying to us would-be William Tells in the gaming community
BUT they are the fastest and most effective way to reinforce a walled city: throw a couple of Archers or Crossbowmen into position behind a stout stone wall, and with the extra defensive strength they can do a lot of damage to any attacker - unless he's brought along Trebuchets, in which case your city is probably Doomed unless there is a complete relieving army handy.
 
Wanted to add something to this topic, a pure archer spam army where you avoid all archer upgrade techs does work and is quite broken.

It is however extremely tedious to play.

Spoiler :

Screenshot-2021-09-20-230824.png

 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2021-09-20 230824.png
    Screenshot 2021-09-20 230824.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 37
Last edited:
Not sure if you mean militarily or economically. it does demand a full commitment to the strategy.

FIMS quickly become meaningless if all you want to do is spam archers all game long, the only real limitation is going to be your number of city due to the 1 pop per turn per city growth cap.

Militarily speaking, it's efficient enough to win against the AI once you reach critical mass, just make sure to always be the attacker. You can also supplement with a few melee units like swordsman and knights since they don't force an archer upgrade. This can help the early game and sieges. Not as efficient as never losing a unit of course but this strategy will also generate more pops than you normally would since you have nothing else to optimize for.

Having so many units makes the world map gameplay hugely in your favor, you can afford to retreat stacks without compromising your position which allows you to deny movement or guarantee first strike, you can surround your opponent to kill their stack unit by unit by denying their spawn zone, you can deny reinforcements, etc.
 
Last edited:
Wanted to add something to this topic, a pure archer spam army where you avoid all archer upgrade techs does work and is quite broken.

It is however extremely tedious to play.

Spoiler :

Screenshot-2021-09-20-230824.png


Yes, I can imagine that this can be beneficial - on and aside the battlefield:

1) Older units require less upkeep,
2) upgrading units is costy, while producing them is fast, if you run the usual industry-heavy setup (up to the point of producing multiple of them in one turn!) and
3) neither strategic ressources nor population are a real limitation to mass-producing (the former technically, because there are no quantities of strategic ressources "eaten up" by building/maintaining and the latter, because population is soon abundant enough)

I'm not sure if HK has a good balance here yet - but at least it offers various approaches (relying on older units/suplementary use vs. disbanding/fast recruitment vs. upgrading/small standing modern army) compared to Civ, where upgrading rules.
 
Not sure if you mean militarily or economically. it does demand a full commitment to the strategy.

FIMS quickly become meaningless if all you want to do is spam archers all game long, the only real limitation is going to be your number of city due to the 1 pop per turn per city growth cap.

Militarily speaking, it's efficient enough to win against the AI once you reach critical mass, just make sure to always be the attacker. You can also supplement with a few melee units like swordsman and knights since they don't force an archer upgrade. This can help the early game and sieges. Not as efficient as never losing a unit of course but this strategy will also generate more pops than you normally would since you have nothing else to optimize for.

Having so many units makes the world map gameplay hugely in your favor, you can afford to retreat stacks without compromising your position which allows you to deny movement or guarantee first strike, you can surround your opponent to kill their stack unit by unit by denying their spawn zone, you can deny reinforcements, etc.

Economically... just thinking about how much IMS you're forgoing by fielding 200+ pop as units instead of having them settled in cities. Wouldn't a few stacks of line infantry (or whatever) achieve the same military results, and pay for their own upgrades by being able to run 150 traders instead?
 
Absolutely, I'm not about to start playing this way, just wanted to prove to myself it could be done.

However this strategy kinda points to something a little more fundamental, why do you even need FIMS if you have an invincible army. This only requires 1 tech, almost no production and with the -1 upkeep religion literally 0 income to accomplish. Getting a few stacks of line infantry on the map requires an enormous investment in comparison.
 
I love xbows but you still want archers mixed in as the LOS is tricky but very deadly when used correctly. This is from a game where I went Babylon two eras a row(because Greece was stolen) and got xbows at T65. Poor Mycenaeans never knew what hit them.

Spoiler :

Humankind 2021-09-19 01-48-50-84 xbow.png

 
Top Bottom