What's the verdict on archers?

[SnallTrippin]

I love them, they r so cheap.

[HJ]

Originally posted by Strider:
Friendly fire from archers is very low in Dom2...this is one of the tweaks that Illwinter took care of during the beta.

Well, it would seem that friendly fire accounts for at least fourth of my overall casualties so far. Especially when they fire a mass volley on that Last unit on the map while half of my army is chasing it at the same time. That's why I like air blessing, it keeps away arrows fired by *my* guys, not the enemies.

[ November 20, 2003, 01:22: Message edited by: HJ ]

[Keir Maxwell]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
I recall reading that their targeting is worse in Dom2, and losses to friendly fire is hard to avoid. So, is there any point at all in recruiting these guys? I'm not talking about crossbowmen here, just shortbowmen and longbowmen.

It depends. In general I'm not a fan of archers - I don't like killing my own troops - however there are times they are great.

Longbows are good for fast expansion with little or no loses - HI on hold and attack just in front of longbow.

Shortbow are fast to build and when you need a boost right then and there they are damn handy. 2 resource Machakan shortbow have filled a few holes for me. They also slaughter Serpent Dancers and I'm sure there other light armoured things you will have to worry about.

But all going well I won't use much bow or Xbow outside a race with a superior Version at the start - Marignon Xbow in Dom I and Man Longbow, might be others now. Placing the archers complicates placing mages as the Archers are valid targets - though you can make use of this. Targeting is crap and longbow or Xbow (the best Versions) will kill/wound your own super troops when pursuing.

I don't think the game depicts archers well. Targeting is both too easy and too inaccurate. Ranges seem odd in relation to the width armies deploy over and the speed troops move. Shorter ranges and greater accuracy could solve alot of problems. Archers are hard to get right both in computer games and tabletop wargames.

So sometimes yes and sometimes no, but I don't like archers and Xbow.

cheers

Keir

[Gandalf Parker]

Whats all this about the damage they do compared to infantry? I should do some battle simulations but my strong impression is that with archers my infantry Lasts longer, and without archers my expensive HI need replaced more.

They rout troops often before the troops reach me. They especially save my troops having to go head to head with some of the largest mobs in the game. And shooting at enemy archers often lets me take out an enemy commander which causes all his units to rout. For as cheap as they are I definetly feel they are worth more than the few more HI I might get instead

Archers would be more useful if you could have an "Advance and Fire" command along with troops. It would allow the shorter range units more versitility as well as a few different approaches.

Also a Hold command on Units that you could more easily (ab)use. Right now there is only 1 option with Hold and Fire, you can't hold longer to take advantage of missle fire and in general your Archers with their accuracy are firing on your own troops more often than not if you are routing the armies.

I don't mind not being able to target commander/mages with archers but I do not not like the fact that if you have any archers they either act very idiotic, or if they are long range (Longbow, xbows) they will consistantly fire at the worst possible range even as your army moves forward.

[PvK]

Archers can be very effective. They also often goof up and kill your own men. If you're careful, you can usually avoid killing more of your own men than the enemy. However, I happen to get rather annoyed by them shooting my own guys - as I've said before, fixing this is at the top of my wish list, and the only thing that really bugs me.

PvK

[Gandalf Parker]

I just realized something I havent tried. My usual arrangment is an infantry front line and an archer second line. The infantry often has hold-and-attack or sometimes attack-closest

But a common historical situation would have been an archer front line set to fire at closest, and an infantry second line set to charge thru on attack-closest. Hmmmmm deserves testing