Archers VS Ballistae

[DeletedUser]

So far I've seen quite a lot of people who love using archers, but IMHO ballistae seem like a better choice. A squad of 4 ballistae in your army can wreck the opponent's long-range units before the second turn, which can be crucial for determining the outcome of a battle. So, I would like your opinion on this - why are archers better than ballistae, and vice versa.

Ballista

Pros
- Able to strike within the first round.
- Counters heavy units.

Cons
- Low movement value.
- Lower damage compared to archers.
- Second highest priority target for enemy units.
- Fragile: If more than two enemy ballistae are still alive by the second round, they WILL take at least one of your own out.
- Low damage.
- Building is expensive in terms of population and cost.

Archers

Pros
- High damage.
- Counters heavy units.
- Most maps have many rocks for archers to "camp" at.
- Cheaper than ballistae

Cons
- May need to get within the enemies' attack range to attack - AKA if he doesn't die first, you're dead.
- Highest priority target for enemy units.
- Fragile.
- Enemy long-ranged units have an annoying habit of wrecking you.

 

[DeletedUser]

Not for long.

There are stronger units that will defeat both your archers and ballista in the further advancement.

 

[DeletedUser]

I've won numerous battles using archers without even one injury. I cannot imagine that happening with ballista, they don't deal enough damage.

 

[DeletedUser]

Give me archers any day! I could not wait till I could get ballista's and finally even the score. It took about an hour to rip it down (losing all 4) TOTAL waste of time and resources. 6 archers and 2 soldiers will walk over anything all the way through the early middle age. There is no reason to build armored infantry or heavy cavalry. Archers are by far the most over powered unit in the game (against AI). The problem is that 2 hits to kill them = 2 hits to kill them. It does not matter if the first hit takes them down half way or down to only a sliver left. Since the AI is so determined to chase them down, you just group them at first and then scatter them to the 4 corners. Placed right the AI will go after the closet and not the one that is closest to death. As long as they get that extra shot off before they die you are all good. This will give you more then enough time to get your 2 ignored soldiers into the enemy backfield and clean up any ranged weapons.

The only thing that will wreak havoc on archers is Mercs. They are very good at cutting off the map against archers. But I have yet to see any battle where they overloaded with Mercs so not an issue.

 

[DeletedUser]

i think the only battle that was truly difficult using 8 archers was the 8 knights in sturmhohen, took quite a beating. it takes 3 shots from an archer to kill a knight ,2 if both shots are from rocks and you infiltrated, and its nearly impossibly to avoid them

 

[DeletedUser1688]

I conquer province with 3mounted archers and 5 archers VC 3catapults and 5 mixed mounted archers,heavy cavalry in EMA I eliminate balistas becouse I wasnt able to take province with them mixed with mounted archers.My vote is on archers side, building take less space ,ceaper for training and more efective thats my expiriance.

 

[DeletedUser]

Personally i like both - archers and balistas (and their better versions except for mounted archers). I cleared all maps with some mixture of them. Usually i used balistas mostly to counter AI's balistas and archers from afar while archers killed short ranged units when they were coming at me. Most important thing in such strategy is to scatter and slow down the enemy using map features.