To Hell With Archers

[kristopherb]

your math sucks

adjusted for your liking

 

[Fiend777Fits]

adjusted for your liking

you really are a <really cool guy>. get a life.

 

[kcbrett5]

you really are a <really cool guy>. get a life.

your math sucks

Well you aren't going to be on these boards for very much longer if this is the most you can contribute.

I normally find that people who like to say get a life alot are just overcompensating for their own insecurities about the adequacy of their own life.

 

[dcbandicoot]

Archers are certainly dominant early in the game, as they should be. Well, perhaps dominant is the wrong word, but they require careful consideration to defeat them. Remember, before catapults, you are attacking into that massive cultural defense bonus, added to their 25% city defense bonus to start.

50% Culture, 25% to start with, and CD 1 (20% City defense) garners

3.00 x 1.95 =5.85
1 First Strike

And an axeman with CR1

5.00 x 1.20 = 6.00

Now, correct me if this is a bad estimate, but that gives the archer about 51%-54% to start with, and with every one it fends off, it only gets more experienced/ stronger. And with a barracks, (even if you have no other ways to garner experence early), they will be eligible for another promotion after beating one axeman.

Simulated Battle #2

Archer defeats Axeman 1 (~40% Health)
Archer promotes CD2 (~70% Health)
Archer rests one turn (~80-85% Health)

Archer

3.00 x 0.80 x 2.15 = 5.15
1 First Strike

3.00 x 0.85 x 2.15 = 5.47

Axeman

5.00 x 1.20 = 6.00

Still not very much of an underdog.. 35-45%?

Edit: Added Thoughts

Keep in mind, that with a 25% terrain bonus, those numbers become 5.76 and 6.12 (check my math on those last two). Perhaps, with first strike, from about 50/50 to a favorite on the 2nd battle.

And this is only giving the archer one turn of rest.

 

[FoxTrot12]

Fiend777Fits, you need to calm down. Just because we are telling you that you don't have a good archer strategy doesn't give you the right to insult the English dude.

 

[Severus]

Well I should've expected that. I know horse archers are weak, but I was using it as an example. I play mostly mods, so I find it hard to relate the units I'm using to attack. Needless to say most all of them are 4 strength with city raider promotions if possible. The archer's strength never changes (as it is strong enough).

So you're getting yourself all annoyed because you're playing a mod where your attacking units are weaker than the ones you'd use in a normal unmodded game?

And you feel the need to have a rant and throw your toys out the pram when people try and give you constructive advice based on the normal game stats?

Seriously.

I have no idea why you felt the need to start a thread about archers being overpowered when, from what you are saying, you play with mods which reduce the strengths of all the other units and therefore make archers even better at city defence than they already are???!

Or are you just annoyed because no one is blindly agreeing with you word for word?

 

[Regulas021]

Well you aren't going to be on these boards for very much longer if this is the most you can contribute.

I normally find that people who like to say get a life alot are just overcompensating for their own insecurities about the adequacy of their own life.

Good to know we have a psychiatrist on the premises.

 

[Fiend777Fits]

this thread is now a source of amusement for me. i started it for other peoples thoughts and strategies (not to complain). but now everyone wants to nitpick like little wankers everything i say. which is their right, i guess. i'm gonna talk some smack. moderators gonna demerit some of us for flaming (which sounds like a homosexual reference) and we're all gonna have a good ol' bashin time.

 

[Turner]

Moderator Action: No, you won't.

Thread closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889