Bowmen unit type

[Searry]

What's the point of using these? Sure they might get a lot of kills but they get devastated as they are not maneuverable. To balance them, I would give them one more square of movement.

[MVP7]

Before debuffs they were very overpowered (See the Indian lists' performance in the leagues viewtopic.php?f=501&t=84955 ) and they are still great as long as the army list has some melee infantry as well.

The trick is to keep them covered by other units and using height and terrain advantages whenever possible. If you try to march them up to the enemy infantry in a line they will naturally get destroyed very quickly.

[Ludendorf]

They're actually extremely powerful in an anti-cavalry role if you can keep them to rough ground and forest. Because cavalry units are smaller, the casualties have a greater impact, and horse really struggle against archers placed on rough ground or especially in forest. One well-placed archer unit can hold the flank of an entire army for a while.

[kongxinga]

Pre Turn them to the areas of approaching Enemy. Concentrate your fire using 2 or 3 archer units on one single enemy unit in one turn. Basically force a cohesion test for 12% and more casualties from shooting. You either see a cohesion drop or a "unit held" notification. After that don't pour more fire since that unit probably will pass the cohesion test for that turn (only way to get it to fail would be to cause enough casualties to get a cohesion test -1 modifier, or hit it with artillery for a -1 modifier).

Or basically, place them, don't move them for no reason since that halves their shooting power, concentrate their fire for cohesion tests, but don't overkill if the unit has a lucky cohesion role in that turn. Disordering units that need high order to work (lancers, Phalanx) means that their impact ability is going to be nullified, and can mean the difference between a line holding or a line collapsing.

[jomni]

Concentrated fire is key. Some nations cannot field a lot of bowmen units depending on the battle size. If you can't field a lot (3 units), I tend to think they're not useful.

[Kabill]

Concentrated fire is key. Some nations cannot field a lot of bowmen units depending on the battle size. If you can't field a lot (3 units), I tend to think they're not useful.

I think you're right, but they don't have to all be massed bow units, i.e. they pair well with light foot/horse as well.

I'll confess, though, I never found a good way to use massed bowmen even before the nerf and now I find them very situational. I do still sometimes take them but they never feel to me to be a decisive component of my armies and often feel like a liability. I do believe the stats about the Indian armies pre-nerf, but I've never been able to figure out what was supposed to be so good about them and I'm left wondering whether it wasn't massed bowmen per se which were too good, but the specific combination of units in those army lists instead.

It doesn't help that the implementation of the nerf is slightly counter-intuitive, in that bowmen suffer penalties even when they are not directly under direct threat. E.g. massed bowmen deployed with elevation behind friendly units still suffer the close-proximity penalty, even though they cannot be attacked. As such, there's not a lot you can do as a player to offset the close-proximity penalty and they almost always shoot at a disadvantage. Indeed, after some testing, it seems like the only situation that massed bowmen have meaningfully greater firepower than light archer units is when shooting at long range, which seems a marginal considering their additional cost and vulnerability. (They're also better at shooting at close range against lights but that seems a bit of a waste and light horse can circumvent this by charging from outside of shooting range with advantage, so I'm not sure this matters very much). So, overall, I find them fairly underwhelming.

[rbodleyscott]

Historically, of course, the sorts of archers represented by the massed non-combat bowmen units were indeed somewhat underwhelming. Previously they were OP. We think they are now balanced historically. Whether their points cost could be tweaked downwards slightly is another question, but we currently see no pressing need for this.

[Kabill]

Historically, of course, the sorts of archers represented by the massed non-combat bowmen units were indeed somewhat underwhelming. Previously they were OP. We think they are now balanced historically. Whether their points cost could be tweaked downwards slightly is another question, but we currently see no pressing need for this.

I'm happy to take your word on that - I have no meaningful expertise which which to quarrel with you and I can believe it in so far as otherwise one would expect massed archery to be much more common in ancient warfare. I guess if you conceptualise them as the equivalent of irregular foot, i.e. filler troops that make up numbers but aren't by themselves influential, then that's fair enough.

[klayeckles]

they are still very powerful! but they MUST be played in an non-traditional manner...if you just stand and wait, or worse approach the enemy phalanx then your comment is right on...but if you avoid contact...rough up a few units, get some outflanks (either because your cheap archers allow you outnumber the phalanx 2 to 1, or because you planned well for your bowman taking the initial impact to retreat), and next thing you know you are around a flank.

they do require much more subtle play though to get the most out of them.

having played with the Indians (and won) during the first league, i think the balancing that has occurred has helped dampen their overwhelming superiority...but Indians are still really tough. i do not relish facing pantherboy, who has the indians in DL 3

[Barrold713]

I was playing a couple practice rounds (Governor difficulty) today in preparation for Round 1 of the Rise of Persia tournament. Both battles left me shouting "@#$%*& Elamites!!!" at my screen. I won the second time because the map was a bit more helpful to the cause but I suspect the Assyrian side of the mirror match is going to be more problematic than initially considered

The bulk of the Elamite army is massed archers...unprotected dooshes (purposeful misspelling) with no melee capabilities, yet they are doing anything but melt away when hit by armored Assyrian guard heavy foot. Semi-official grumble to that result.

I know I suck but geez...the game doesn't have to rub it in.

BDH

[Ludendorf]

Best approach I've found to beating the AI Elamites is simply to line up in a big line and charge, using the heavily armoured units on open ground and the mediums on the rough. The biggest menace in their army isn't the massed archers; it's the chariots. They're cheap, surprisingly capable in melee and can decimate their Assyrian counterparts with arrows for up to two turns before the Assyrians can assure a charge that will connect. The archers are irritating but vulnerable to both a heavily armoured charge and the bows of the Assyrian mediums. There is still the possibility that they'll get lucky and keep pulling back without suffering cohesion losses, but that's less common since massed archers were nerfed a while back.

I'd shield my cavalry with skirmishers or raw infantry, but the Assyrians are stretched on that front already, both in terms of available troops of that type and availability of troops in general. The light horse come in handy as they can actually fight the Elamite chariots on equal terms for a little while if push comes to shove, and they're cheap, meaning they can help keep the devilish contraptions under control for a little while and your flanks safe a few turns longer.

[Barrold713]

Best approach I've found to beating the AI Elamites is simply to line up in a big line and charge, using the heavily armoured units on open ground and the mediums on the rough. The biggest menace in their army isn't the massed archers; it's the chariots. They're cheap, surprisingly capable in melee and can decimate their Assyrian counterparts with arrows for up to two turns before the Assyrians can assure a charge that will connect. The archers are irritating but vulnerable to both a heavily armoured charge and the bows of the Assyrian mediums. There is still the possibility that they'll get lucky and keep pulling back without suffering cohesion losses, but that's less common since massed archers were nerfed a while back.

I'd shield my cavalry with skirmishers or raw infantry, but the Assyrians are stretched on that front already, both in terms of available troops of that type and availability of troops in general. The light horse come in handy as they can actually fight the Elamite chariots on equal terms for a little while if push comes to shove, and they're cheap, meaning they can help keep the devilish contraptions under control for a little while and your flanks safe a few turns longer.

That has been the approach because your assessment is entirely accurate as shown by a nice win with the Elamites. One of the things I did not notice before is the -23% (I think) penalty for the massed archers when a close combat unit is nearby. That really had an effect on the damage the archers could do. The chariots are deadly indeed. Maneuverable and powerful.

I took as many as I could and grabbed the available medium foot to stiffen the line. The Middle Eastern Agricultural map setting provides lots of rough patches to keep the heavy foot and chariots at bay. A way more interesting fight than my first impression so kudos to the tournament management.

BDH

[jomni]

The close shooting penalty is the nerf implemented.

[Barrold713]

The close shooting penalty is the nerf implemented.

and quite the nerf it is...but if they are soiling themselves at the close proximity to dudes with pointy sticks, should not their melee performance be even worse for the up close and personal nature of being poked with said pointy sticks?

[rbodleyscott]

The close shooting penalty is the nerf implemented.

and quite the nerf it is...but if they are soiling themselves at the close proximity to dudes with pointy sticks, should not their melee performance be even worse for the up close and personal nature of being poked with said pointy sticks?

It is. They get an extra -1 CT modifier if they lose a combat - which they usually will since they have no melee capabilities and no protection. If they are not losing close combats, then they must have a terrain advantage. Even then they are more likely to lose than win.

You can see these things in the detailed unit card if you CTRL-L click on a unit. (This works for enemy as well as friendly units).

[Barrold713]

The close shooting penalty is the nerf implemented.

and quite the nerf it is...but if they are soiling themselves at the close proximity to dudes with pointy sticks, should not their melee performance be even worse for the up close and personal nature of being poked with said pointy sticks?

It is. They get an extra -1 CT modifier if they lose a combat - which they usually will since they have no melee capabilities and no protection. If they are not losing close combats, then they must have a terrain advantage. Even then they are more likely to lose than win.

You can see these things in the detailed unit card if you CTRL-L click on a unit. (This works for enemy as well as friendly units).

Thanks for the further explanation. I now have all my excuses in place for the first round.