Warriors versus Archers

[Sarxis]

Why build warriors after archers are available? Don't, because archers are as good as warriors PLUS they get a ranged attack.

Doesn't make sense, but then again it does.

[MrFun]

I don't know about you, but the Warrior is the best ancient unit for exploration because unlike mounted units, they can cross mountains, and unlike more powerful (and more expensive) units such as Archer, Warriors have double vision range.

I use Warriors every game for exploration until they become obsolete with Monarchy (my modification for obsolete advance with Warrior).

[Guest]

Um, archers cost the same as warriors.

[Sarxis]

That's my point exactly- the cost for both units is the same! Was this intentional?

[MrFun]

Oops - my mistake. But still, the Warrior makes the best ancient exploration unit.

[marc420]

Actually, Archers have double vision range as well.

Unless I see something different that I'm missing, I see no reason to buy Warriors once Archers become available.

Probably something to think of in a Mod. Dropping the Archers Defense or Attack ratings so a Warrior is better in hand-to-hand combat. That might put Archers into a support role of Ranged attacker as part of an Army.

marc

[Sarxis]

So far I have a few ideas for modding my game, some of which apply to the archer unit. I am probably going to give it a vision range of 1 (not 2) and/or increase cost, decrease defense. This should give warriors a longer shelf life within the game.

[Diodorus Sicilus]

In fact, the Archer and Warrior in CtPII cost the same, have the same attack and defense values (10 each), move the same, and have the same vision range (2). The interesting thing, in a half-dozen or so test games, is that the AI seems to recognize the advantage of the Archer unit: I have never seen them build a Warrior after Archers are available, and they do most of their exploring and harassing with individual Archers, not Warriors.
On the other hand, because Archer is a Rnaged unit, not an Attack unit, massed archers don't get used to attack you, while a stack of warriors might. The biggest advantage of an Archer, though, is not its superiority over Warriors but the fact that even a Warrior stacked with an Archer can beat any other single early unit on either attack or defense: Hoplite, Warrior, Mounted Archer, it can beat them all. Put out a Warrior-Archer-Slaver combination on exploration or border defense, and every Barbarian they encounter will be destroyed and added to your population, while a single Archer or Warrior would lose about half the battles.
If you want to modify all this, go into units.txt in the Game Data/Default folder and increase the Warrior attack factor from 10 to about 12 and lower the Archer ranged factor from 20 to 15. This will make the archer that much less useful, and the Warrior a marginally better attack unit (its category) early in the game. What really needs to be done is to add a whole new "layer" of early units: Attack, Defense, ranged, Flanker, and make the Hoplite a later unit, coming about 3000 - 3500 years into the game. This is being worked on in the first "MedModII" for CtP II.

[Sarxis]

But why use an Archer/Warrior combo to attack when you can just use an Archer/Archer combo? I have tested the Archer's hand to hand ability and it is equitable to the Warrior's.

I say the best solution to this very blatant game balance issue is to make the archer be what it should be: a support unit specializing in RANGED attack. Get rid of it's defense ability (hoplite) and get rid of it's scout/attack ability (warrior) or drastically increase it's price.

[Alpha Wolf]

You just described my favor tactic. I send out a ton of warriors to explore. As soon as archers are available, I mass produce them and send them out to pair off with my archers and use these stacks to defend checkpoints and to harass AI settlers. i dont use slavers cuz I think my cities already grow too fast and this way i dont have to fear emancipation.

[Metamorph]

Rather than repeat the obvious, I'll play devil's advocate, and note that while you're researching ballistics, you might wish to pump out a fistful of warriors for a variety of reasons. Upon discovering ballistics, you pump out some archers, then pair off your archers with your warriors.

The result is that each "group" (i.e., archer-warrior pair) is identically strong to a 2-archer group, except now you've made more proper use of the warriors you "wasted" production pumping out.

This is only useful during the period just after having discovered ballistics, of course.

- Metamorph

[IamSlowwHand]

Warriors for exploring, maybe.
Warriors the equivalent of archers? I want what you're smoking.

[Jonny]

After I get Ballistics, I stop building warriors and start building archers. Why? Because they help much more in an early game offensive. An army of 4 archers and 4 hoplites/warriors can be strong while the AI is just beginning to build defenses. In one game I used an army of 4 archers and 4 hoplites to almost completely wipe out an enemy by 1000 BC. (With none of my units killed!) They are also good at exploring when not fighting a war, espically in groups of 2 (for barbarian protection).

[Sarxis]

Fact: Archers are exactly the same as Warriors, except that they get a ranged attack. They cost the same too, so once you get ballistics, don't bother with warriors.

Unless you decide to change some units' attributes, like me.

[hHydro]

I haven't tested this exact theory, but if memory serves, there is a reason why you might want an archer/warrior stack instead of archerx2 stack;

Archers' ranged attack is stronger than their melee, so the trick is to keep them in ranged distance. If you have two archers against 2 or more enemies, aren't they both going to get forced into melee? Whereas with a warrior/archer stack, the archer will stay at missile range until the warrior dies, providing 15 attack, instead of just 10.

I might be wrong. I'm *gasp* at work so I don't have the game handy to test this....