Make Archers OP Again

Current archer units (made by Pyrrhus ofc) are 1/7 with standard crit/hp (elven are stealth), but after watching this video i realized we need op archers, screw swords and spears, just run and dont look back!


3:21 min, one archer two kills in same time!




I humbly advise to edit archers in the following way:

Attack 20
Defence 30
Critical 50
Hit Points 10
Range 10
Cost 60 (ofc imp so its 30 then)

In ancient greece times, archers were frowned upon and often called a cowards way of warfare.
in medieval times the youngest and weakest men were put as archers.

Написано 4nic, 06.10.2018 at 16:51

In ancient greece times, archers were frowned upon and often called a cowards way of warfare.
in medieval times the youngest and weakest men were put as archers.

Then Mongols came and conquered everything from Korea to Hungary with only bow and horse.

Написано Skanderbeg, 06.10.2018 at 17:48

Написано 4nic, 06.10.2018 at 16:51

In ancient greece times, archers were frowned upon and often called a cowards way of warfare.
in medieval times the youngest and weakest men were put as archers.

Then Mongols came and conquered everything from Korea to Hungary with only bow and horse.

Написано 4nic, 06.10.2018 at 18:08

Then Mongols came and conquered everything from Korea to Hungary with only bow and horse.

Ah, so only bow is gay, but bow and horse is manly. Got it

Написано 4nic, 06.10.2018 at 16:51

In ancient greece times, archers were frowned upon and often called a cowards way of warfare.
in medieval times the youngest and weakest men were put as archers.

Greeks were wrong to call them cowards, as this video show that lots of time, effort and dedication is required to train ranged skill - just like with any melee or other ranged weapon. But i like medieval philosophy of putting weakest (though i would put oldest) as archers, so they don't die but still contribute in battle.

Stats i wrote below the video is joke obviously, but video shocked me as i thought archers were used mostly for defence, not offense (didn't know their skill was so great). This concept changes everything now.

Написано Skanderbeg, 07.10.2018 at 14:07

Написано 4nic, 06.10.2018 at 16:51

In ancient greece times, archers were frowned upon and often called a cowards way of warfare.
in medieval times the youngest and weakest men were put as archers.

Greeks were wrong to call them cowards, as this video show that lots of time, effort and dedication is required to train ranger skill - just like with any melee or other ranged weapon. But i like medieval philosophy of putting weakest (though i would put oldest) as archers, so they don't die but still contribute in battle.

Stats i wrote below the video is joke obviously, but video shocked me as i thought archers were used mostly for defence, not offense (didn't know their skill was so great). This concept changes everything now.

Greeks were indeed wrong about the archers, most mainland greek armies realised their effectivness in combination with phalanxes/hoplites, and hired cretan archers to supplement their armies.

The Macedonians also supplemented the phalanx but not by using archers, instead they used agrianian peltast from agriania and odrysia (lands in modern day bulgaria)

Context is important. Mongol archers can't really be compared to the archers of western armies when we consider the 'courage' vs 'cowardly' traits. The Mongols typically faced much larger numbers in the armies they faced, which alone demonstrates courage.

Hand to hand combat where you are up close and personal with your adversary is still the more honourable fighting form. It shows greater respect for your adversary, requires greater skill and is founded on courage, as your life was always on the line.

The Mongols did not conform to this code, but the skill and training required in creating their warriors has a level of honour in that they typically faced much larger armies, and there was a rigid military structure in place requiring their horse archers to be highly disciplined, which was also honourable.

In this regard, the 'western' concept of archers remain the less honourable fighter, as they tended to be the weaker, less skilled, and more 'distant' fighter. That's not to say they weren't trained and didn't put effort into their training, but this is not the same as courage, and so they could still be viewed as cowardly in comparison to the close combat fighters.

He fell for the Lars Anderson meme.

The true reason archers were unfavoured in ancient Greece is that battles were mostly fought between heavy infantry carrying shields, and arrows had trouble piercing their armour. That's not to say it was impossible to pierce hoplite armour with arrows but more heavy projectiles such as javelins were favoured. Furthermore most of Greece is mountainous and bows are most efficient in open terrain. Bows are also rather effective against cavalry as they can kill the usually unarmoured horses, as they did in Agincourt (No, the English did not shoot the plate-armoured French knights to death, they only killed their horses, forcing them through a long march in the muddy terrain, where they were exhausted due to the weight of their armour and the respiratory problems the helmet caused, and were then defeated in melee). When it comes to horse archers, they are very efficient in open terrain due to (shockingly) being a combination of cavalry and archers, that both excel in open terrain, horse archers can remain forever out of their enemies' range, maneuver around to shoot from the right angle on the enemy's formation, kill the enemy horses again yadda yadda. That said people are under this insane misconception that Mongols used nothing but cavalry. No, their infantry followed and fought in battle too, it was simply of very secondary importance but still rather essential. As for archers being a defensive force, obviously that's not the only way they can be used but they generally need a good shootout spot and being on the defense makes that much easier to find, not to mention it being simply a matter of physics, the arrow will strike with less force if your enemy is running away from you rather than closing in on you, thus less penetration.