Tweet
First, I must start off by saying I used to hate Archers. Abhor Archers. They were slow, they had a poor upgrade path, they weren't exactly cheap and they weren't effective (opinion 
)...
Which is the main problem: they weren't cost effective. Why build Archers when you can build vet Warriors and upgrade them to vet Swordsmen for chump change? Sure, China et al. can use them for an early rush on a weak AI civ, but come on now, you can basically wipe out an AI no matter what you use whenever you use it unless you're playing on Deity. Why waste shields on inferior units that don't upgrade for a long time (and upgrade to pretty crappy units even when they do) when you can build units that are more effective at the time and can be upgraded to something better?
But that was pre-Conquests.
After Conquests, I've learned to befriend the Archer, and use it more to my advantage. I'll run down the things I see as its newfound strengths and why I now find them more useful.
Range-0 Bombardment
The obvious Conquests improvement to Archers is the ability to bombard defensively. While it doesn't often prove of much use while fighting against the AI (though occasionally it does), it has much greater application in games against other humans, where the battles are bigger and bloodier, and a handful of Archers can take a few knocks off attacking units.
Changes to Upgrades
Upgrading in Conquests is now more expensive than it was in PTW, which means the Warrior-to-Swordsman upgrade scheme is no longer anywhere near as reliable as it once was. Having to fork over 40 gold to upgrade Swordsmen early on was doable, but it would cost you, as you can't really generate large amounts of gold early on without turning down research significantly... but now it's 60 gold. Seriously now... who has 120 gold to upgrade just 2 Warriors as a modern force? Upgrading is now really only effective as a means of making obsolete units useful again for a high cost, as it was designed. Not as a means to build a cheap army and then upgrade it to a modern one in quantities much greater than should normally be possible.
Also, the fact that you can't do 40-turn research any more means that if you want to turn down science to save gold... you actually have to turn down science. You can't just do a 40-turn tech while building up gold and hope to remain anywhere near the forefront of science.
Since it's no longer as economical to rely on Warrior-to-Swordsman upgrades, that leaves a void in the offensive lineup before the point where a civ has the industrial base to produce Swordsmen from scratch. This void is now filled by the Archer, as it was originally designed to do. If you want attackers in this era, they're going to have to be Archers.
Changes to Barbarians
In Conquests barbarians are a lot more of a handful than in PTW and Civ 3, mainly because almost every time a hut is popped it gives barbs. And in order to kill these guys you're going to need attackers. Previously, a couple upgraded Swordsmen could handle the minor barb threat easily enough, but now a few early Archers will have to do the job instead (due to the new huts and the other aforementioned issues). If you're going to pop a hut near one of your cities and you get barbs (as happens more often than not), you're going to need a unit to clean them up. Letting barbs wander about your empire isn't really a good idea, especially when you have a ton of Workers scurrying about (as any good civ player should).
These three main changes in Conquests have given the Archer a new light for me. Having a mixed Archer-Sword-Horse army in the middle of the Ancient Era is now a more common site and can be a wise investment on the part of the player.
)...Which is the main problem: they weren't cost effective. Why build Archers when you can build vet Warriors and upgrade them to vet Swordsmen for chump change? Sure, China et al. can use them for an early rush on a weak AI civ, but come on now, you can basically wipe out an AI no matter what you use whenever you use it unless you're playing on Deity. Why waste shields on inferior units that don't upgrade for a long time (and upgrade to pretty crappy units even when they do) when you can build units that are more effective at the time and can be upgraded to something better?
But that was pre-Conquests.
After Conquests, I've learned to befriend the Archer, and use it more to my advantage. I'll run down the things I see as its newfound strengths and why I now find them more useful.
Range-0 Bombardment
The obvious Conquests improvement to Archers is the ability to bombard defensively. While it doesn't often prove of much use while fighting against the AI (though occasionally it does), it has much greater application in games against other humans, where the battles are bigger and bloodier, and a handful of Archers can take a few knocks off attacking units.
Changes to Upgrades
Upgrading in Conquests is now more expensive than it was in PTW, which means the Warrior-to-Swordsman upgrade scheme is no longer anywhere near as reliable as it once was. Having to fork over 40 gold to upgrade Swordsmen early on was doable, but it would cost you, as you can't really generate large amounts of gold early on without turning down research significantly... but now it's 60 gold. Seriously now... who has 120 gold to upgrade just 2 Warriors as a modern force? Upgrading is now really only effective as a means of making obsolete units useful again for a high cost, as it was designed. Not as a means to build a cheap army and then upgrade it to a modern one in quantities much greater than should normally be possible.
Also, the fact that you can't do 40-turn research any more means that if you want to turn down science to save gold... you actually have to turn down science. You can't just do a 40-turn tech while building up gold and hope to remain anywhere near the forefront of science.
Since it's no longer as economical to rely on Warrior-to-Swordsman upgrades, that leaves a void in the offensive lineup before the point where a civ has the industrial base to produce Swordsmen from scratch. This void is now filled by the Archer, as it was originally designed to do. If you want attackers in this era, they're going to have to be Archers.
Changes to Barbarians
In Conquests barbarians are a lot more of a handful than in PTW and Civ 3, mainly because almost every time a hut is popped it gives barbs. And in order to kill these guys you're going to need attackers. Previously, a couple upgraded Swordsmen could handle the minor barb threat easily enough, but now a few early Archers will have to do the job instead (due to the new huts and the other aforementioned issues). If you're going to pop a hut near one of your cities and you get barbs (as happens more often than not), you're going to need a unit to clean them up. Letting barbs wander about your empire isn't really a good idea, especially when you have a ton of Workers scurrying about (as any good civ player should).
These three main changes in Conquests have given the Archer a new light for me. Having a mixed Archer-Sword-Horse army in the middle of the Ancient Era is now a more common site and can be a wise investment on the part of the player.
Maybe maps if you are lucky.
Comment