Archer no longer worth it

[DreJaDe]

One of the problem i see in this game is that archer seems to be no longer worth it. Its counter like the shielder and skirmisher has enough armor to ignore its dmg. But having only 1 dmg against the shielder i think is whats not balanced. Yes you can use other units to destoy them but being able to hold their ground for much longer i think should be also ideal (the archer).

I suggest lessening the range armor of shielder by atleast 1-2 so that an archer can still have damage to it even though i think its damage js still so easy to heal with the healer.

Well the balance is of course can be duscussed

Definitely didnt play for so many months so maybe im wrong

[Badnorth]

Actually archers are very useful once you get their second upgrade above,plus can be boosted by blacksmith archer upgrades giving them in total +2 dmg +2 rng and +2/2 armor. Archer is a cheap 2 turn ranged unit that has decent ranged capabilities. You can train them fast enough for a quick defense or raid. Research their upgrades and you'll know how useful they are. And of course shielder is made for that reason. Shielder is a hybrid of skirmisher and swordsman. But has 2 speed and swordsman bonuses.

[DreJaDe]

Actually archers are very useful once you get their second upgrade above,plus can be boosted by blacksmith archer upgrades giving them in total +2 dmg +2 rng and +2/2 armor. Archer is a cheap 2 turn ranged unit that has decent ranged capabilities. You can train them fast enough for a quick defense or raid. Research their upgrades and you'll know how useful they are. And of course shielder is made for that reason. Shielder is a hybrid of skirmisher and swordsman. But has 2 speed and swordsman bonuses.

But for a quick missile you could take mercenary which are stronger at first and even have higher dmg.

Shielder also has upg which pretty much negated its purpose already.

[Badnorth]

Actually archers are very useful once you get their second upgrade above,plus can be boosted by blacksmith archer upgrades giving them in total +2 dmg +2 rng and +2/2 armor. Archer is a cheap 2 turn ranged unit that has decent ranged capabilities. You can train them fast enough for a quick defense or raid. Research their upgrades and you'll know how useful they are. And of course shielder is made for that reason. Shielder is a hybrid of skirmisher and swordsman. But has 2 speed and swordsman bonuses.

But for a quick missile you could take mercenary which are stronger at first and even have higher dmg.

Shielder also has upg which pretty much negated its purpose already.

Thats why I made a topic for making mercenaries unable to receive smith upgrades. They are like cheap 3rd tier units with a leaving time. Mercenary longbow seems like a longbowman 2nd upgrade but cheaper and of course has leaving.

There are many ways of dealing with shielders. Shielders are made to counter ranged units such as archers and forts. So instead of using ranged units on them try using melee infantry and cavalry. I suggested a warhammer knight to be a mace man mounted unit to deal with heavy infantry. But while its still not in try using knight and its upgrades to kill them.

[DreJaDe]

Still isnt worth it. How does that make archer more worth? They arent able to damage troops besides light infantry which should be all 2 turn units be. Well 1 damage for me isnt really balanced since its like a hard counter but way too cheap.

I dont want to counter shielder, i want to make archer more worth.

[Badnorth]

What do you mean besides light infantry? They are also able to deal quite a lot of damage to medium infantry and flying. Archers is more like of a support unit. They can deal first shots while melee uunits deals finishing blows.

I have a multiplayer match were pheonix is in. I have used crossbowman spam to destroy an enemy neighbour and they are effective and are worth using. They just need their upgrades such as blacksmith upgrades to be effective. And of course it depends on how you use it.

[Endru1241]

This discussion is not even about archer, but overall about conventional ranged units (so excluding axe thrower and gun shooters).
Look at this the other way. Army has to be balanced somehow. There is not a single unit that is good against everything. Main bulk of the army is best to be made of relatively cheap units for their stats and preferably with upgrades (as they are most cost effective) - that would be either knights, swordsmen or foot knights (or alternatives from specific cultures). All of them has specific counters or more universal ones, but with specific counters themselves.
To deal with counters army bulk has to have support - preferably effective against most common counters, but also to deal more with units less convienient for bulk to deal with.
Overall conventional ranged units are one of the best supports. They support knights, dealing with anti-mounted units, they support foot knights dealing with cheap anti-infantry and anti-heavy units. They also help with just those ranged attacks - to easier manuever, to finish units. They deal with cheap healers, converters, workers, buffers, debuffers.
They only deal poorly with buildings, heavy infantry and one specific counter (plus few much less common hybrids).
When comparing to other common supports - anti-mounted units - ranged units are clearly superior.
Spearmen barely deals any damage vs heavy infantry or buildings too, are equally easy to destroy, but are much harder to use with no range and the same speed.

And if we are just comparing to other conventional ranged units - archers come out on top as most versatile.
Longbowmen have greater range and slithly better power, but worse damage per cost, worse endurance per cost. Slingers have greater damage, but shorter range.
All deal poorly with shielders.
They are pretty balanced.

[DreJaDe]

Well if you all say so.

In my latest games i just cant use the archers as skirmisher (not the unit) like how i use to back then. Now they are just like support that should be put ln the back. Maybe that is because of their range. I think even skirmisher has more sight than them now.

[Endru1241]

That's exactly the point.
Archers are supposed to be support units put in the back.

If you question why were sight, movement changes made though - you used words "even skirmisher" - that's exactly the point.
Skirmishers were deemed useless by most players. Real skirmishing was done using archers. So on sight rebalance they got their role better defined.

And one more thing - about exactly shielders vs archers.
Shielder only possible use is being tc defender or eventually holder of a line. They have no speed, no power, they are easily destroyed by even light cavalry, not even saying about knights, when attacked one on one by swordsman they barely survive with 1 hp (which is great to be removed by e.g. archer). Because of speed they cannot reliably deal damage - almost any unit can outmanouver them.
So really - their p.armor is the only thing they have.

[DreJaDe]

Yeah i understand that.