Jariid
Member
In medieval combat regarding archers and the logic behind their use.
Mounted archers should be much more useful against entrenched archers as a suppressing forced due to their movement/evasion and due to the fact they have a high aiming trajectory when assault castles and other fortifications, etc.
Lets go through the Logic I see for medieval combat. There is a mindless mob of infantry who didn't pay their taxes and are bustling towards another mob of infantry who have come to collect miscellaneous items from the warehouse of the former party. Now, they clash, axes fly, and swords/shield jab around trying to block and deflect attacks from left and right. Now, with the combat being engaged by the infantry, the defending sides' archers, using the only advantage they have, range to their advantage, are firing accurate volleys at the infantry who are concentrated and static in combat with the friendly infantry. They can't move, hence why the archers are more useful. Now, the Mounted archers, dedicated to suppress and harrass with their high maneouvrability, run around and avoid being blocked by infantry in order to target the foot archers in defensive emplacements/battlements. The archers, who are in static locations defensible or not, are having their effectiveness cut in half, and their offensive ability, and perhaps their lives are put in jeopardy by the fact they do not have shields large enough to avoid the volleys from the Mounted Archers.
Also, when Archers fire in volleys, logic dictates you aim for large groups to effectively assure the highest casualties. The mounted archers, with their speed will make use of it by either circling to avoid the foot archers from having a small location to focus their volleys, or simply firing and retreating to avoid mass volleys. Regardless, the Mounted Archer is entirely built for high speed and defeating those at range.
In TW2 logic, mounted archers are for killing slowmoving infantry with arrows, who will also conveniently have shields within the mob, in order to deflect arrows by, you guessed it, enemy archers. (Be they mounted or foot-based) The logic continues to suggest that mounted archers are entirely vulnerable to foot archers, who have the speed of course (sarcasm) to effectively engage mounted archers from their place (for some reason the logic suggests that they will be in amongst the infantry) close to where they are. Lets put the luck modifier in charge of bad tactical movements, but surely. If you had a mobile ranged unit, you wouldn't charge them into the same area as the infantry, and instead use them to harass those who cannot move/defend themselves effectively? (Hint hint, it's the archers without shields)
Thanks for reading my rant. TL
R Mounted Archers are for assaulting Archers, and Foot Archers are for targetting slow moving infantry in the open, from another position to allow for high-trajectory shooting. (Which the MA employ against the Foot Archers) The logic was sound in TW1, TW2 should have followed suit.
Mounted archers should be much more useful against entrenched archers as a suppressing forced due to their movement/evasion and due to the fact they have a high aiming trajectory when assault castles and other fortifications, etc.
Lets go through the Logic I see for medieval combat. There is a mindless mob of infantry who didn't pay their taxes and are bustling towards another mob of infantry who have come to collect miscellaneous items from the warehouse of the former party. Now, they clash, axes fly, and swords/shield jab around trying to block and deflect attacks from left and right. Now, with the combat being engaged by the infantry, the defending sides' archers, using the only advantage they have, range to their advantage, are firing accurate volleys at the infantry who are concentrated and static in combat with the friendly infantry. They can't move, hence why the archers are more useful. Now, the Mounted archers, dedicated to suppress and harrass with their high maneouvrability, run around and avoid being blocked by infantry in order to target the foot archers in defensive emplacements/battlements. The archers, who are in static locations defensible or not, are having their effectiveness cut in half, and their offensive ability, and perhaps their lives are put in jeopardy by the fact they do not have shields large enough to avoid the volleys from the Mounted Archers.
Also, when Archers fire in volleys, logic dictates you aim for large groups to effectively assure the highest casualties. The mounted archers, with their speed will make use of it by either circling to avoid the foot archers from having a small location to focus their volleys, or simply firing and retreating to avoid mass volleys. Regardless, the Mounted Archer is entirely built for high speed and defeating those at range.
In TW2 logic, mounted archers are for killing slowmoving infantry with arrows, who will also conveniently have shields within the mob, in order to deflect arrows by, you guessed it, enemy archers. (Be they mounted or foot-based) The logic continues to suggest that mounted archers are entirely vulnerable to foot archers, who have the speed of course (sarcasm) to effectively engage mounted archers from their place (for some reason the logic suggests that they will be in amongst the infantry) close to where they are. Lets put the luck modifier in charge of bad tactical movements, but surely. If you had a mobile ranged unit, you wouldn't charge them into the same area as the infantry, and instead use them to harass those who cannot move/defend themselves effectively? (Hint hint, it's the archers without shields)
Thanks for reading my rant. TL
R Mounted Archers are for assaulting Archers, and Foot Archers are for targetting slow moving infantry in the open, from another position to allow for high-trajectory shooting. (Which the MA employ against the Foot Archers) The logic was sound in TW1, TW2 should have followed suit.