OP Broken Units?

[DeathMaker900]

I'm playing FFPlus and I'm having a problem fighting ... anyone really. the problem is this: defensive units (archers and gunners) seem incredibly over powered. He had 4 longbowmen and a Arquebus and i had lord D'Tesh 4 Chosen of D'Tesh 7 adepts 12 horse archers 10 catapults and 12 skeletons. I was not assulting across a river or by boat btw. After bombarding the city once (down to 0%) i attacked with everything and everything of mine died. This is not the first time this has happened to me either. I think that there are not enough powerful units that you can have more that 4 of to fight a city that has even 7 archer-type units on it. unless of course me and my friend have overlooked some strategy in which they are in fact killable ....

 

[JAMiAM]

I'm playing FFPlus and I'm having a problem fighting ... anyone really. the problem is this: defensive units (archers and gunners) seem incredibly over powered. He had 4 longbowmen and a Arquebus and i had lord D'Tesh 4 Chosen of D'Tesh 7 adepts 12 horse archers 10 catapults and 12 skeletons. I was not assulting across a river or by boat btw. After bombarding the city once (down to 0%) i attacked with everything and everything of mine died. This is not the first time this has happened to me either. I think that there are not enough powerful units that you can have more that 4 of to fight a city that has even 7 archer-type units on it. unless of course me and my friend have overlooked some strategy in which they are in fact killable ....

After reducing the city fortification down to 0, you wait until the next turn, and attack with your 10 catapults first. You should expect to lose about 2-3 of them on the average, since they have a 80% chance to withdraw from combat. Their direct attacks and collateral damage, however, will soften the defenders enough that your more powerful units can destroy the defenders.

In your case, I would lead off with the skeletons, since they are easily replaceable, and can further weaken the defenders below the lower bound for collateral damage. Then, horse archers, since they have a good chance to withdraw and, if promoted enough with flanking, are immune to first strikes. Next, your melee tanks, and finally, if any weaklings are left over, the adepts, for easy experience points.

 

[DeathMaker900]

After reducing the city fortification down to 0, you wait until the next turn, and attack with your 10 catapults first. You should expect to lose about 2-3 of them on the average, since they have a 80% chance to withdraw from combat. Their direct attacks and collateral damage, however, will soften the defenders enough that your more powerful units can destroy the defenders.

In your case, I would lead off with the skeletons, since they are easily replaceable, and can further weaken the defenders below the lower bound for collateral damage. Then, horse archers, since they have a good chance to withdraw and, if promoted enough with flanking, are immune to first strikes. Next, your melee tanks, and finally, if any weaklings are left over, the adepts, for easy experience points.

That is in fact what i did ... i dont know maybe i just got really unlucky ill have to try it again.....

 

[Thrar]

Considering the tech level of the units involved, I'm really not that surprised about the outcome.
Skeletons are strength 3, horse archers 6 and neither can use weapon upgrades. Longbows have defense 8 with iron, plus 25% for being in a city and possibly another 50% for being on a hill. I don't know what these Chosen units are, but there's just 4 of them and the rest of your army is pretty weak.

 

[Worm4life]

I always thought archers were a bit overpowered for when you get them. Defensive strength of 5, first strike, AND city/hill defense bonus? Wouldn't just two of those be sufficient? Or even one?

 

[HadesScorn]

Ah, but three things.

1. Archers are weak on attack, unable to grab weapons promos until you hit Longbowmen.
2. The archery tree is constantly harped on for being too *weak* due to the fact that it doesn't feed into any end wonder/super unit
3. IRL, an archer behind a palisade on a hill is worth a few to several dozen attackers depending on their gear and tactics. And yes, they can shoot you before you can shoot them. The advantage of merlons.

 

[cabbagemeister]

Archers have to be very strong in FFH because there are so many extremely effective ways to conquer cities.

1) Siege weapons have incredibly high withdrawal rates, as has already been mentioned
2) Summoned units can be suicided against defenders and replaced for free
3) Direct damage magic spells can weaken defenders at no risk to the caster
4) Hero units can get to level 10 before fighting their first battle, easily getting them to Combat V, CR III, Cover if you want and giving them something silly like +220% against the defenders.

 

[heisenberg]

Not to mention that defending isn't everything...
You can simply walk around his city and pillage every scrap of land and he wouldn't be able to stop you with only a few longbowmen

 

[Worm4life]

Not to mention that defending isn't everything...
You can simply walk around his city and pillage every scrap of land and he wouldn't be able to stop you with only a few longbowmen

I'm talking THE archer unit, not archery units in general.

Archers have to be very strong in FFH because there are so many extremely effective ways to conquer cities.

1) Siege weapons have incredibly high withdrawal rates, as has already been mentioned
2) Summoned units can be suicided against defenders and replaced for free
3) Direct damage magic spells can weaken defenders at no risk to the caster
4) Hero units can get to level 10 before fighting their first battle, easily getting them to Combat V, CR III, Cover if you want and giving them something silly like +220% against the defenders.

All that stuff is WELL beyond the point you can get archers. That's the point: archers show up super early and put a complete hold on all attacking for around 100 turns or more as you research bronze working, construction, possibly magic, then construct a training ground, siege workshop, and possibly a mage guild. That is a LOT of offensive setback for such an easy to get early unit.

Ah, but three things.

1. Archers are weak on attack, unable to grab weapons promos until you hit Longbowmen.
2. The archery tree is constantly harped on for being too *weak* due to the fact that it doesn't feed into any end wonder/super unit
3. IRL, an archer behind a palisade on a hill is worth a few to several dozen attackers depending on their gear and tactics. And yes, they can shoot you before you can shoot them. The advantage of merlons.

They're not THAT weak on attack. They're better than a warrior. Weapon promos don't matter much since a bronze axeman is still weaker than an archer.

The tree in general is weak, but the first archery tech? I'd research it just for the lumbermills. And really the only thing that makes the archery line weak is the fact that later on, having a super defense unit doesn't matter that much because it's going to get railed on by all sorts of collateral damage, bombardment, heroes, and promoted units.

But you don't have any of that when archers show up. All you have are warriors, who will die at over 3 to 1 odds to archers. The jump to axemen and catapults is a lengthy one, and the whole time it's impossible to attack cities. You can try pillaging, but honestly how much damage are you going to do? It's not like you're raking in gobs of extra resources from improvements that early on. You'd be lucky to break even with resources denied vs resources you spent trying to warrior rush. And it's not like your opponent is helpless; he's more than able to pick away at your spread out pillaging force. An attacking archer still has an edge over a defending warrior.

I think it'd be better to smooth out archers (and archery units) so that they'd be less than godlike on early defense but more useful in other situations and later on. Right now they turn the early game into WWI trench warfare.

 

[Grey Fox]

You can get Axemen at the same time your opponent gets Archers basically.

Archers are there to stop an axeman rush. Axemen can still beat them but you need at least 2:1 ratio, but that is as it should be. Offensive should cost more, but the gains are larger. You don't gain anything by defending, all you get is to keep what you already have. And maybe not even that, since archers aren't the best defenders of improvements.

An axeman rusher that has been stopped by archers can still pillage almost everything the archer has while teching for catapults. The archer defender will eventually lag behind, and have a hard time defending every city as the Axemen determine WHERE the fighting will take place.
After a while the Axemen will outnumber the number of archers in a single location and cities will start to fall.

I've been relying on archers on a number occasions against these sorts of attacks, and I might have been able to survive many times, but eventually I have often lagged behind.
Key to the Archer defender is to rely on specialists, and he can make it. As Amurites if you can hold out to you get longbowmen you start to get a real offensive force there.

 

[Chip56]

They're not THAT weak on attack. They're better than a warrior. Weapon promos don't matter much since a bronze axeman is still weaker than an archer.

How exactly is a 3/5 unit that cant use weapon pormotions better on attack than a 3/3 unit that can use bronze weapons and become a 4/4 unit? And this doesn't even consider that warriors are cheaper...

 

[heisenberg]

Yep, I agree with G.Fox.
You'd hit Archery around the same time as Bronze Working, so early on its just between warriors/axemen and warriors/archers. Usually I decide between the two after I have teched Mining to see if there are any Copper resources available.

That's the point: archers show up super early and put a complete hold on all attacking for around 100 turns or more as you research bronze working, construction, possibly magic, then construct a training ground, siege workshop, and possibly a mage guild. That is a LOT of offensive setback for such an easy to get early unit.

Not exactly true IMO.
It does, usually, put on hold the attack against the archer fortified cities, but it doesn't prevent the axemen from pillaging every useful tile around it. Furthermore, since archers are lacking in attack against the axemen, they aren't terribly effective at stopping the pillages (apart from maybe fortifying on some key hill mines, which would then split up the defensive forces).

They're not THAT weak on attack. They're better than a warrior. Weapon promos don't matter much since a bronze axeman is still weaker than an archer.

They are, too, costlier than a warrior. If I were to attempt to attack, even if I had archery, I'd be bringing just a few archers to defend the stack, and use disposable warriors for attacking--much more efficient hammer-wise. Not to mention, you still could upgrade those victorious warriors later on to archers if need be.

But you don't have any of that when archers show up. All you have are warriors, who will die at over 3 to 1 odds to archers. The jump to axemen and catapults is a lengthy one, and the whole time it's impossible to attack cities. You can try pillaging, but honestly how much damage are you going to do? It's not like you're raking in gobs of extra resources from improvements that early on. You'd be lucky to break even with resources denied vs resources you spent trying to warrior rush. And it's not like your opponent is helpless; he's more than able to pick away at your spread out pillaging force. An attacking archer still has an edge over a defending warrior.

Um.... you can do a whole lot of damage with pillaging. With unimproved/unaccessable tiles your city yields would drop dramatically. Sure, warriors and axemen would die at horrible odds if they were to try to dig out fortified archers on a hilltop city, but it would be very easy for the attackers to totally isolate the city cutting off any possible reinforcements from the rest of the civ. The attacker could then either wait till he techs up to siege weapons, or slowly increase the amount of units attacking till he can take the city in a turn.

Furthermore, how is a defender with archers supposed to pick apart an invading force of axemen (possibly with bronze weapons)? I suppose the AI do, occasionally, like to split up his pillaging forces making them easy pickings, but against a human player who could easily stay in roving pillaging stacks, the defender would have to bring out a much larger force to the field to destroy it.

 

[cabbagemeister]

Sure, warriors and axemen would die at horrible odds if they were to try to dig out fortified archers on a hilltop city,

Depends on the attacking civ. Many civs get swordsmen instead of axes, which have a better time attacking cities. A few civs (Sheaim, Calabim) have axeman replacements that make taking archer-defended cities a piece of cake if a few of the attackers die first.

 

[DarkxL0rd]

I think that archers are a pain. but a necessary pain. without them it would be a axemen blitzkrieg everygame. and I just dont understand how a handfull of catapults didnt dwindle down those longbows. that seems unbelievable. I have had 4 catapults ABSOLUTELY ruin my day. the AI will regularly bring 3-4 catapults and 4-5 somewhat leveled melee and just run through my 6 archers and 3 axemen defending my cities.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I tend to think the Barbarian State needs free archer units to guard its cities instead of one of their 2 free melee units.

 

[Tasunke]

axemen are often better at defending than an archer ... not always true, but has been found under certain circumstances. For the love of god archers need not to be weaker, merely recreated in their roles, except for their city niche, the city niche stays. I would almost want to give an archer +5% withdrawal for each melee/ranger/disciple unit in the stack, that way they can (bombard) if they have enough room between themselves and the enemy, without using the FF method.

 

[Feyd Rautha]

Unless I'm playing Ljosalfar I only defend with one or two archers and have the rest of the defenders as axemen. This allows me a good defense, but the ability to usher forth from the safety of my city walls to destroy the pillagers. Horse archers are great also especially when promoted with high withdraw chances.

 

[Onionsoilder]

Many civs get swordsmen instead of axes, which have a better time attacking cities.

Nope. In FFH2 Axemen and Swordsmen are completely identical. The only difference is aesthetics.