Is archery a defensive or offensive weapon?

[hardjoy]

I'd like to hear your opinions. In civ one often has to determine something like this, if a military concept is one thing or the other (or both) but I think a case can often be made for either choice, depending on your perspective.

For example, in medieval times archers was a deadly force in numbers on the battlefield, effectively "softening" the enemy, before a cavalry charge can be set in. On the other hand, archery was also effectively used as a defensive weapon making it very difficult to approach castles without the risk of being within range of the archers on the walls.

Same thing goes for something like movement. In civ2, cavalry type units have a 2-rate movement, even though the heavy knights of the middle ages might be comparable to the heavy armor of modern times, i.e. heavy and slow, but very powerful in a charge, i.e. high attack, but low movement points. Likewise, infantry, which usually has low movement rates, could reasonably be assigned better movement abilities, due to easy maneuvrability in all kinds of terrain.

So what do you think?

[Fiera]

I'd say defensive. Especially true for English Longbowmen, they were used as a deadly defense force against French knights charges in Crecy.

It can be a good idea to give them a X2 versus Horses flag if you plan to include those as a unit.

[Jacobite1688]

I voted "other":
The Middle Ages are what I know best, so that's where I'll weigh in. The cross bow was often used as you described above, a softener before the charge - an offensive weapon. The legendary longbow, however, contrary to what you might suspect was often used defensively. Not just in siege situations, either. Tacticaly it was a defensive weapon on the battle field. Archers would lay back behind sharp anti-calvary stakes that they would bury before battle. This combined tactics used by the celtic peoples against Edward I of England. His desendents wisely over saw the massacres of Creci, Poiters (less so) and Agincourt with these defensive archery tactics.

[BeBro]

Other: both I think.

Mounted Archers were used often during the Crusades as attackers by Arabs (later even the Christians used Turkopoles). But even the unmounted (sp?) European archers, longbowmen or crossbowmen could act both offensively and defensively. However, in the classical sense Fiera has a point, over a long time only the knights (or armoured cavalry) counted fully as warriors with the decisive role on the battlefield, while all other forces were more or less seen as units of minor importance, despite there were of course absolutely needed (during sieges, or to support the cavalry/knights)

If your problem is what role do you use to set up those units for the AI - well, that depends on your ideas. Also it is important what other defenders/attackers are available. If you make them attackers you could also give them the "ignore city walls" ability to show their importance during siege operations.

[hardjoy]

Thanx for the input My dilemma is not so much the AI role, as it is their place in the unit succession tree. I feel they should be more important to get and produce than normally is the case in civ2. And play a vital role in siege situations. I'll consider to give them the howitzer flag, my only objection is that I still need siege equipment to be powerful, but its definitely worth considering. So far the only unit that ignores walls is the trebuchet.

I ended up making archers light attackers (as opposed to the high att heavy cavalry), with defences that just slightly equal that of the pikemen type units, but without the x2 versus horse of those. Longbowmen being without doubt the best cost-effective weapon, but with crossbows being slightly cheaper (less training required) and a bit more clumsy (lower hp), but with even better defences (a crossbow being best put to use in a defensive environment)

So the unit progression makes them develop from very effective light attackers to gradually more defensive type units.

[Swampthing]

Just logged on, believe it or not I am facing the same dilemma in my scenario for byzantium.

This is the solution I settled on (The hitpoints and firepower, as well as stats, are variables adjusted to my scenario, so don't take them at face value).

In most artistic representations of the middle and late medieval period, Archers are usually represented an armored, crossbowmen as armored.

The crossbowmen was an easy weapon to use, but it could be expensive, the opposite was true with the bow, a common weapon, but you had to be experienced.

On the basis of a single shot the crossbow was much more powerful, but the bow at the advantage of a MUCH higher rate of fire. Crossbowmen were also more useful from fixed positions and battlements, whereas archers were more flexible in battlefield situations.


Here are my stats

Archer

Attack 3 Defense 5 Hitpoints 1 Fire power 3 X2 def vs Horse, ignores city walls Alpine
Cost 4

Crossbowmen

Attack 4 Defense 3, Hitpoints 2, Firepower 3, X2 vs Horse
cost 3

Hope that helps

[Swampthing]

Sorry, in artistic depictions archers were UNarmored, Crossbowmen armored

[Swampthing]

Sorry, screwed up again, the Archer should have an attack strength of 2

[Case]

Swampthing, if you don't want the moderators to thump you for spamming, I sugest that you use the 'edit' button which is at the top of each post

[hardjoy]

Swampthing,

Interesting stats. Of course, such stats makes more sense if seen in comparison with the units they're supposed to take out and those that are supposed to beat them. Its actually quite delicate. One thing I wonder is the low HP you ascribe the archers, since I tend to think of hitpoints as a measurement of the maneuverability/survivability in a battle as well as rate of fire, where firepower in contrast is a measurement of the damage done in a successful blow. The more hp's of a unit, the more chances of inflicting damage on the opponent. So I have applied the longbowman with high hp's (I've been generally careful with the hp's, so its still pretty conservative)

Heres my stats so far, in comparison with cavalry (knights) and other defensive infantry (pikemen). I'm also considering giving the lightarmoured unit types the alpine ability. (inspired by your choices)

One thing I've learned is very important is some conservatism in the defence values, since one has to think in the bonus'es of terrain, as well as 50% bonus for fortity, 100% bonus for fortresses, and the x3 bonus from city walls.

Longbowmen :
6a 3d 1m 2fp 4hp cost8

Crossbowmen :
4a 4d 1m 4fp 1hp cost6

Knights :
10a 2d 2m 6fp 1hp cost12 (essentially spent when used)

Pikemen :
2a 4d 1m 2fp 2hp cost8 (x2 def vs horse)

Probably still needs balancing, but the different units will here have a shot at the units they're supposed to take out. All archers will be able to take out knights, and knights will be effective against infantry except for pikemen. Maybe the longbowmen are a bit too powerful in comparison. And perhaps hp's needs to be generally raised a bit for all types of units (taken armor into consideration).

[DarthVeda]

Definately defensive as one could hide from archer arrows in the forests that littered midievel europe. Archers don't have the speed or armor needed to be an effective offensive unit. That's not to say they can't be used for offense, but they're much better defensively.

[WarVoid]

I think it depends on what type of archer you're fighting with.

A crossbowman is very effective in hand to hand combat and most were equipped with short-swords.

Long-range archers were also used in many castle offensives. Mostly to clear to upper turrets of soldiers that were waiting with hot oil. In turn, after the archers had cleared to oil staffers, the siege ladders would be brought forth quickly to secure the wall.


Short-range archers were used within the enemy castles and also from the turrets. As siege ladders and infantry approached the walls, archers could fire upon the enemy unlike their sword-equipped counterparts.