Memoir '44 D-Day Landings Memoir '44 D-Day Landings

Forum

Suche
Forum » BattleLore - English » archers understrengh?
Anzeigen: Heutige Nachrichten 
  
VerfasserThema
guest230265
Junior Member

Nachrichten: 8
Registriert:
April 2006
archers understrengh? Sun, 31 December 2006 12:51
Razz Is it just me or do archers appear to be a little under strengh compared to other units?. Or maybe im using them wrong?
      
SHwoKing
Senior Member

Nachrichten: 402
Registriert:
August 2006
Re:archers understrengh? Sun, 31 December 2006 13:52
Archers are weak. But you have some card to toned them up for a turn. Plus this is the only type of unit allowing an attack on a bold unit without any Battleback possibility.

It is usefull to deal some little damage on a unit at the begining or to finish a 1 figure unit trying to running away. But you have to be a bit lucky for that. It is still quiet usefull on Cavalry as the chance to hit a Cavalry or an Infantry unit is the same for archers.

Although, you gotta protect them once the enemy is in the place cause they will be the target of choice for your opponent then. Even if they are bold.

They can also be a real threat with combo like Darken the sky + Magic missiles.

So to sum this up, they are usefull to deal some slight damage at the begining or to finish weak units too far to be reach by Melee units. And they are usefull for support once Melee battles have started.

[Aktualisiert am: Sun, 31 December 2006 13:54]

      
BL4EVER
Junior Member

Nachrichten: 28
Registriert:
November 2006
Re:archers understrengh? Sun, 31 December 2006 14:08
another thing to take into consideration is that the player with archer(ranged) advantage may force the opponent to attack first if he/she wishes. This leaves the player with ranged superiority time to form his defenses and respond in a calculated way in addition to hitting the advancing enemy for free (no battlebacks).

[Aktualisiert am: Sun, 31 December 2006 14:08]

      
Johnny Awesome
Junior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 28
Registriert:
October 2006
Re:archers understrengh? Mon, 01 January 2007 09:22
Archers are really powerful when you consider everything that has been said. They force your opponent to engage you. They don't have to worry about battleback. They are very effective with certain cards like Darken the Skies, Eagle, and Magic Missile.

Sometimes people look at Red Cavalry and conclude that archers are no good. You have to look at the big picture. Many times an archer unit will fire nearly as many dice over the course of game as an elite cavalry depending on starting unit placement.
      
casbarian
Junior Member
Major

Nachrichten: 10
Registriert:
December 2006
Re:archers understrengh? Mon, 01 January 2007 17:44
I don't think any of the Adventures Booklet scenarios really give archers a good chance to shine except for Agincourt. It's possible that this may solely be because when given a choice of shooting arrows or advancing my swords, I choose to advance but except for that 1st scenario, most of the others only have a couple units of archers to play with.

I think they're powerful enough as they are...the game just seems to lean towards melee rather than ranged.

I also understand why the rule exists, but I really wish I could shoot arrows over my own troops. A rule of "that's allowed as long as the enemy unit is not adjacent to one of your own" would work for me. This would let me use them to support for bold yet still use them offensively while getting into close combat.

A=archer
X=my unit
Y=enemy unit

AX__Y.......okay to shoot.

AXY.........not safe to shoot.

[Aktualisiert am: Mon, 01 January 2007 17:46]

      
skiprydell
Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 56
Registriert:
June 2004
Re:archers understrengh? Mon, 01 January 2007 19:10
I believe the archers in BL represent shortbows. If so they are very appropriately weak. That's why the crossbow supplanted bows on the Continent. The only European bow that was truly effective was the longbow (and not primarily because of its piercing power). I would be very willing to bet that one of the future unit releases is Longbowmen.
      
Talespinner
DoW Content Provider
Rikugun Taii

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 119
Registriert:
March 2006
Re:archers understrengh? Mon, 01 January 2007 22:53
skiprydell wrote on Mon, 01 January 2007 13:10

I believe the archers in BL represent shortbows. If so they are very appropriately weak. That's why the crossbow supplanted bows on the Continent. The only European bow that was truly effective was the longbow (and not primarily because of its piercing power). I would be very willing to bet that one of the future unit releases is Longbowmen.


I concur with this assumption. Despite the fact that the first battle in the book is Agincourt (where Longbows won the day) the way the archer units work I have been calling them "short bows" when explaining the game to people.
      
shryke
Junior Member

Nachrichten: 15
Registriert:
August 2006
Re:archers understrengh? Tue, 02 January 2007 11:08
Basically Archers are weak in the game because archers weren't all that powerful back then. Even the famed longbow wasn't going to win the day for you.

The English won at Agincourt for a variety of reasons, including a copius amount of mud on the ground that slowed and drowned French troops along with lines of sharpened stakes placed in front of the Longbowman to blunt charges and a well chosen location that funneled the frnech troops, keeping them from bringing their full strength to bear all at once. The longbow helped, but it didn't do it on it's own.

The corssbow had it's own strengths and weaknesses too. It was much shorter range and took WAY longer to reload. It did however require very minimal training to use and could punch through armor like it wasn't there, which let crossbowman put some serious hurt on armored knights.
      
TribalBeowulf
Junior Member

Nachrichten: 6
Registriert:
January 2007
Re:archers understrengh? Tue, 02 January 2007 22:04
I agree with shryke. Granted, my experience is more practical than researched, but it's what I've got. From my experience Crossbows are fun because you can pick 'em up and shoot 'em with minimal training. In fact, if you can shoot a bow, you can shoot a crossbow. The reverse is very much not true. Accurately firing a bow over any sort of distance is HARD. On the other hand, even with a foot stirrup, firing a crossbow is half the speed of a bow. As for my experience with longbow vs shortbow, it's all about draw weight. Bigger bow, more force behind the shot. Though I don't agree that crossbows penetrate better than longbows, except that maybe, being lighter, bolts fly faster and so hit harder. But I've practiced with a bow that had a 45 lb draw, and it's LETHAL. I have no difficulty imagining it ripping through heavy armor.

Hey shryke, you get your name from sacrifice or is it just a coincidence?
      
Q-DOWg
Junior Member

Nachrichten: 6
Registriert:
December 2006
Re:archers understrengh? Tue, 02 January 2007 22:58
IMO - I think Archers are "just right."

Firing more dice would be devastating. I think they are meant to whittle down or finishing lone troopers.

Aim at HVTs (high value targets)? Smile

      
AK_Aramis
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 399
Registriert:
January 2006
Re:archers understrengh? Wed, 03 January 2007 03:24
Personally, I think Agincourt should have Blue Archers on the English side.

English longbowmen were notably superior (just read the heralds reports) to common bows... due both to training and better weapons. The British archers trained more thoroughly and more universally than their continental counterparts...
      
BL4EVER
Junior Member

Nachrichten: 28
Registriert:
November 2006
Re:archers understrengh? Wed, 03 January 2007 03:32
I agree that it would make sense to have blue archers in the agincourt scenario. But then again we nust improve the french side aswell since it should be a very uphill battle for the english. From what I gather the bookies probably held the french as favorites 15 to 1. So a victory by the english I think should be even harder to pull off than it already is.
      
Darius McCool
Junior Member

Nachrichten: 6
Registriert:
December 2006
Re:archers understrengh? Wed, 03 January 2007 03:59
A further observation on the crossbow versus short bow. A short bow, or any bow, is fired at an angle (ballistic) whereas a crossbow is fired at the level. While this allowed for very accurate firing by the barely competent, it precluded the high volume fire by large massed units . This was another reason they were so popular for defending from walls where unit depth wasn't possible and each shot needed to count.
      
    
Vorheriges Thema:Lore results and powering creatures' abilities
Nächstes Thema:Basic strategy & tactics for new players
Gehen Sie zum Forum: