The mounted archer

[DeletedUser]

Hello. I do not think this thread is exactly for this place, maybe it should be in Ideas, but I have decided to post it here. The discussion/suggestion is about the Mounted Archer.This unit has 22 movent and 5 range and that means he can strike in a distance of 27 sectors. I made an attack with Colonial age units - Muskeeters. The battle was 8 muskeeters (me) against 8 Mounted Archers(enemy).My enemy had a small boost - under 5%. Guess what - I lost the battle , even if I had 9 % attack and defense and used all terrain bonuses I could use. I think this was caused by the distance the archer can move. I think it is too much - 27( movement + range):this means that the archer can reach almost every point of the battlefield(13 squares by 14). I just do not understand how units from the EMA can beat units from the CA!:confused: I think this is not normal. I suggest making the movement of the Mounted Archer unit between 17 and 20. I think this change should be done. I posted this message not because of my interests, but because of the interests of much more pleyers who fight against this type of units. I know that many who have those units will complain, but the movement + the range of their archers will be still big - minimum 22. This is still alot. I hope we can discuss this and hopefully ask this change to be made.

 

[DeletedUser99588]

The movement is the only thing going for the mounted archer so I would be against changing it. I can't imagine how you lost, was it autobattle? There are plenty of other troops available you could use to beat them if you can't do it with musketeers.

 

[DeletedUser]

Didn't used autobattle. I even used all the terrain bonuses. I had even 9% boosts. He had 5%.The reason is the movement - if the archer can't reach you you can even miss a round. The archers were first so all my muskeets were exposed. I don't know what got wrong, but I lost. The ordinary and longbow archer don't have such big movements. All archers have range and I don't think that the Mounted Archer needs so much movement - he has it's range.

 

[DeletedUser106918]

First of all, 22 movement does not mean that a unit can cover 22 tiles. Each tile has a cost, the cheapest being grass lands with 2, so 11 is the absolute maximum.
Then, mobility is all that unit has, it has less damage than an IA archer. It's good to get a first shot opportunity against most other units, but after that shot, it's dead. Especially against other ranged units or units of higher age. So I can't understand how you'd lose with musketeers, which are both ranged and 3 ages higher. They should 2-shot any mounted archer and tank at least 4 hits of one. You will always come out ahead unless you don't attack at all.
Again, mobility is only good for offense - you cannot use mobility defensively in this game, because you can only use it before an attack, and after that attack you stand still for an entire round. And offense just doesn't work with a 3 age difference.

 

[DeletedUser2989]

It's actually really surprising to me that these units were so powerful as it's long been regarded as a weak and useless unit... (In fact many have suggested a "shoot and move" ability to make it more useful in battles) I'm not exactly sure on the stats of both units but still I would have expected little incoming damage. I'd be very interested to find out if others are having similar defeats or not and then the last question is are these 8 mounted archers defeating more armies than they should be? Keeping in mind they should be winning some fights and not just against same age and lower (though consistently winning against troops more than 1-2 ages higher would be pushing it).

 

[DeletedUser96901]

then it was lucky for the defender that he got such a good terrain for him
normally not all 8 mounted archers can shot in the first round

it is a nice surprise if the defender not only moves first but can reach the attacker in that move
(and that is the only unit that can do that for a very long time in the game: before you can have paratroopers or helicopters)

and there are many cowards attacking, looking what defense is there and then simply retreat if they would get too many damage
so I am against the change of the movement points of the mounted archer because that is the only good thing from them
(even the normal archer from the age below has a higher attack value)

+ the range of their archers will be still big - minimum 22

the movement can only do two things:
reach the enemy in the first move, or need at least 2 moves
if it is 2 moves than it doesn't matter if it is still big (like your 22) or average (maybe 15)

My enemy had a small boost - under 5%.

so actually his units had no boost :eek:
the values of the mounted archer are less than 10 and with 5% (or less) the increase is less than 0,5 and rounded to 0

but I am surprised that the defender has won:
it is hard to win a fight with 8 mounted archers against units of the same age

 

[DeletedUser15432]

The only way that I can see the mounted archers winning against musketeers is if there were a lot of rocky areas in the battle map and then it might be possible for the mounted archers to kill 3-4 musketeers in the first combat round which would result in a maximum of 3 casualties in the second round, then they could possibly kill a further 2-3 musketeers in the second round leaving a maximum of 3 musketeers but probably only 2 which would result in either 1 or 2 casualties depending upon the damage inflicted in the first combat round, therefore, for the third combat round you would have between 3 and 4 mounted archers facing about 2 musketeers

 

[DeletedUser105579]

It's actually really surprising to me that these units were so powerful as it's long been regarded as a weak and useless unit... (In fact many have suggested a "shoot and move" ability to make it more useful in battles) I'm not exactly sure on the stats of both units but still I would have expected little incoming damage. I'd be very interested to find out if others are having similar defeats or not and then the last question is are these 8 mounted archers defeating more armies than they should be? Keeping in mind they should be winning some fights and not just against same age and lower (though consistently winning against troops more than 1-2 ages higher would be pushing it).

I often use an 8x musketeer army and run through my neighbors when going for the free ColA medals... I have come to identify which players have a 4x+ mounted archer def, and I avoid those players, not out of fear of the mounted archers, but the fact that they can put a few points off each of my units...

They shouldn't be close to that dangerous... dani1001, if you attack this person again, could you get a few screenshots in?

Mounted archers are not that powerful. If we do this out:
8x mounted archer vs 8x musketeer:

Defense AI means the mounted archers will attack on first round rather than holding back.
8x Mounted archer: will kill 0-3 musketeers (3 hits to kill a musketeer on average)

Assuming 0x killed (some damaged), musketeer will kill 4x mounted archer
mounted archer will kill 0-2 (now assuming 2)
musketeer will kill 3
mounted archer will kill 1
musketeer will kill 1

You lose 3

Assuming 3x killed, musketeer will kill 3x mounted archer
mounted archer will kill 2x musketeer
musketeer will kill 2x mounted archer
mounted archer will kill 1x musketeer
musketeer will kill 1x mounted archer
mounted archer will kill 1x musketeer
musketeer will kill 1x mounted archer
mounted archer will kill 0x musketeer
musketeer will kill 1x mounted archer

You lose 7

Unless you really mess up your rock boosts, you should not be losing 8.
Remember, you have the advantage of range and attack, all your opponent has is the first turn, if you play it out right you will win with few losses every time.

That being said, I have done battles in the past where I beat 8x riflemen with 8x longbowmen. The point is, attacking has a little bit of chance, it can happen.

 

[DeletedUser]

Maybe it's from the terrain. Never mind, I will research better units and then I will get in battle. Thank you for your responses. I don't attack from a long time and maybe I have to learn some tacktics. I tought that someone will know a current reason. I am grateful that I received any responses, because many will say "he is such a stupid player, how can you lose a battle if you have CA units against EMA ones?!". Thank you for the attention.

 

[DeletedUser105544]

History knows some cases where guys on a horseback armed with arrows and bows kicked foot soldiers armed with firearms.

Cheers for Crazy Horse! )

 

[DeletedUser105579]

History knows some cases where guys on a horseback armed with arrows and bows kicked foot soldiers armed with firearms.

Cheers for Crazy Horse! )

That's why the mongols (coincidentally these same mounted archers) had the largest land empire in history :p

 

[DeletedUser2989]

Maybe it's from the terrain. Never mind, I will research better units and then I will get in battle. Thank you for your responses. I don't attack from a long time and maybe I have to learn some tacktics. I tought that someone will know a current reason. I am grateful that I received any responses, because many will say "he is such a stupid player, how can you lose a battle if you have CA units against EMA ones?!". Thank you for the attention.

It could also help you to simply use fast units (even if they are LMA and not CA ones) as they have a defense and attack bonus against ranged units, you'd still take damage but I think less than if you were using musketeers. A little reality we all face is that escaping damage is nearly impossible now.

 

[DeletedUser105544]

That's why the mongols (coincidentally these same mounted archers) had the largest land empire in history :p

Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns...

Cheers for steppe warriors!

 

[DeletedUser]

Until mounted archers got buffed (extra damage, +1 range) they were utter garbage. They're actually usable now. On Jaims I have a nice little city in EMA with 47/43% attack. I made it my goal to conquer as much of the map as possible with only EMA units.

What I found surprised me. I cleared the HMA easily (not surprising) but even in LMA I have a pretty high success rate just with 8 mounted archers. Based on my experience I would say mounted archers have two very clear weaknesses:
1) Heavy knights. My boosted mounted archers do just 1-3 damage to heavy knights with chivalry, or 1-4 otherwise. If you send 8 heavy knights against 8 mounted archers you won't lose more than 1-2 units.
2) Cannons. They 2-shot mounted archers and mounted archers do very little damage to them due to the dug-in bonus.

Honestly, you could have picked 8 of any other unit and beaten his defense with no problem.

Rangers, grenadiers, and dragoons all take 1 damage from mounted archers. Field guns don't do much worse.

 

[DeletedUser97590]

Didn't used autobattle.

Use it next time.

 

[DeletedUser]

But autobattle is the worse thing you can do - t moves your units in positions where are no terrain boosts. I use autobattle only if I attack 2 spearfighters.

 

[DeletedUser99588]

But autobattle is the worse thing you can do - t moves your units in positions where are no terrain boosts. I use autobattle only if I attack 2 spearfighters.

Sometimes autobattle can do a reasonable job. Defeating the enemy is not always about terrain bonus but other positional strategies. In fact if using 8 muskets v 8 mounted archers you probably don't need to worry about terrain. Two shots from any terrain will kill mounted archer.

 

[DeletedUser]

This is kind of fun.

 

[DeletedUser]

I knew they are so dangerous, but not so that they can kill my 8 muskeets!

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes, but the stupid neighbor changed his defense with Imperial guards and I now regulary breach his defense with no problem!