|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2021 13:41:15 GMT
After thinking about it, and playing the game for 8 days now, it has now been quite apparent to me how dominant archers are, atleast in the mid to end game. Range is just too good, and the ability to attack and counterattack from 1-2 or even 1-3 range is just too strong. Cavalry are stronger earlier on due to strong initiative, and the fact that the the best cav general, Attila, is available early on. Once enemies start to get stronger tho, this is where archers come into play. They either weaken the enemies from a distance to allow the cavalries to take them out in a turn, or they assassinate threatening enemies straight up. AI autos are also plentiful in this game, and reading through stoic 's comments on Attila running away from an enemy dying in the arena , and me seeing it happen not once, but twice, and how dominant Washington,Nobu and Moctezuma decimate the enemies in the arena(with the help of the cavalry guys), it's already clear to me how the meta revolves around archers. Of course, infantry is there to save the day, but the problem for infantry is that they aren't as fast paced as cavalry, and are still 1 range. They would be strong if they could get to the archers, but the problem i see is how Attila is one of the central generals bought regardless of comps, along with other generals like Genghis and Hannibal, and best girl Suri added into the mix. Damage reduction for infantry is strong, but the problem is that they aren't as numerous as cavalry generals that decimate infantry( fact check this pls Iron Duke , thanks). I dunno, i'm still at the Discovery age(1 day away from gunpowder, despite my talk of farming conquest, never got much time to do it), so my opinion doesn't hold much compared to the veterans who played the game for years now. Artillery is strong btw, although their main use is to destroy cities, so they're more of a niche group compared to the main 3. I may be underselling infantry as well as a group, and i certainly lack experience using them aside from alexander, so i might be a bit biased against them. They certainly would be much sturdier against archer fire compared to frontline cavalry, so they do have merit. Outside arena, they are also dominant in campaigns and other game modes. Especially the debuffers like Nobunaga, even against infantry that resist their damage, they can be debuffed. That, and Attila and the cav guys can deal with them. I need more info as i advance in the game, so i might be wrong. I also want to say how jarring this feels to me as someone who played Great Conqueror Rome, as i'm used to archers getting blown up when anything touches them. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Nov 16, 2021 14:39:20 GMT
On a surface it seems to be a keen observation, but things are kind of more complicated, I believe. More often than not our key targets are heavily guarded by dozens of units. And no-one is better for clearing up the way than cavalry. Unlike GCR and EW6 we have a guaranteed 100% probability to attack again after destroying a unit. And this is huge. You simply can refill Attila's rage bar in one turn, I was a witness to this many times. And not only Attila. Blucher, who doesn't have any bonuses against any unit type, can do the same. It's true AI's control over cavalry us awful, to put it mildly. But the most important battles are under control of a player.
Infantry also has several trumps. My first run was with 4 Infantry generals and it was even before Infantry generals were buffed. Probably it is not as easy to manage as archers or cavalry, but, for certain, good Infantry generals are able to provide a defensive screen for our archers.
Archers are great, don't get me wrong here. But there are several missions when a steady march of archers might be too slow to take or to destroy all objectives.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2021 14:56:39 GMT
On a surface it seems to be a keen observation, but things are kind of more complicated, I believe. More often than not our key targets are heavily guarded by dozens of units. And no-one is better for clearing up the way than cavalry. Unlike GCR and EW6 we have a guaranteed 100% probability to attack again after destroying a unit. And this is huge. You simply can refill Attila's rage bar in one turn, I was a witness to this many times. And not only Attila. Blucher, who doesn't have any bonuses against any unit type, can do the same. It's true AI's control over cavalry us awful, to put it mildly. But the most important battles are under control of a player. Infantry also has several trumps. My first run was with 4 Infantry generals and it was even before Infantry generals were buffed. Probably it is not as easy to manage as archers or cavalry, but, for certain, good Infantry generals are able to provide a defensive screen for our archers. Archers are great, don't get me wrong here. But there are several missions when a steady march of archers might be too slow to take or to destroy all objectives. In those situations where archers can't dominate the damage game, they're great at dealing chip damage to the enemies to set-up cavalry gens for easy clean-ups. And it's true that all advantages are just that, advantages, and they can be negated, it is also true that they are still advantages, and in the players hand they can be used properly. As much as i love Attila and Hannibal(although my hannibal doesn't have max braveness yet, so he's just following Attila around), most of Attila's success are set-up by my archer generals. And when my archer generals have trouble with infantry generals, Attila is there to save the day. In arena, i'm quite confident when saying that archers rule supreme, as most of the strategies revolve around them. For campaigns, their utility is great. When Attila fails to do his sweep, it sucks. But when Moctezuma or Nobu fails to kill, that's fine, debuffs for days. And they can do it from a safer distance. Of course, not all archers have debuffs, but even for those archers who do not have debuffs, they can still safely chip the health of infantry and cavalry. Unlike in GCR where archers get chunked fast, archers in this game aren't too fragile compared to their GCR counterpart, which add more room to maneuver. I'm not saying of course that archers are so good that they invalidate the other units classes, just that archers, atleast on paper, have more cards up their sleeves compared to the other classes. And i would even dare say, even in practice. That doesn't mean that they are better in all situations of course, just that in most situations, they have something to fall back on. |
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on Nov 16, 2021 15:49:14 GMT
Archers are probably in a similar spot as Artillery where almost every comp wants atleast one or two, mostly because Nobunaga is incredible. The ability to hit over walls or debuff or cripple a problem enemy without having to eat a counterattack is something all comps can appreciate. Plus there's some situations where you HAVE to have range or else you can't do anything. I'm thinking of Greek Trial III primarily.
That doesn't mean they're good at everything, they're not tough (with one exception, and this really dampens their counterattack potential), and they can't blast through enemy lines as well as cav can. It's also more difficult to put together an archer based comp as all of the Archer commanders have awful availability or other problems.
The reason the AI can use archers is that cav and infantry requires playing much better to make good use of. It's still kinda bad with archers actually. They'll attack artillery or towers at range or infantry and cav at melee where they can get counterattacked IF they don't have to move to target them.
I wouldn't say they're super dominant, you can play basically any type of comp you want and you'd have advantages and disadvantages, but they're very useful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Iron Duke on Nov 16, 2021 18:29:38 GMT
After thinking about it, and playing the game for 8 days now, it has now been quite apparent to me how dominant archers are, atleast in the mid to end game. Range is just too good, and the ability to attack and counterattack from 1-2 or even 1-3 range is just too strong. Cavalry are stronger earlier on due to strong initiative, and the fact that the the best cav general, Attila, is available early on. Once enemies start to get stronger tho, this is where archers come into play. They either weaken the enemies from a distance to allow the cavalries to take them out in a turn, or they assassinate threatening enemies straight up. AI autos are also plentiful in this game, and reading through stoic 's comments on Attila running away from an enemy dying in the arena , and me seeing it happen not once, but twice, and how dominant Washington,Nobu and Moctezuma decimate the enemies in the arena(with the help of the cavalry guys), it's already clear to me how the meta revolves around archers. Of course, infantry is there to save the day, but the problem for infantry is that they aren't as fast paced as cavalry, and are still 1 range. They would be strong if they could get to the archers, but the problem i see is how Attila is one of the central generals bought regardless of comps, along with other generals like Genghis and Hannibal, and best girl Suri added into the mix. Damage reduction for infantry is strong, but the problem is that they aren't as numerous as cavalry generals that decimate infantry( fact check this pls Iron Duke , thanks). I dunno, i'm still at the Discovery age(1 day away from gunpowder, despite my talk of farming conquest, never got much time to do it), so my opinion doesn't hold much compared to the veterans who played the game for years now. Artillery is strong btw, although their main use is to destroy cities, so they're more of a niche group compared to the main 3. I may be underselling infantry as well as a group, and i certainly lack experience using them aside from alexander, so i might be a bit biased against them. They certainly would be much sturdier against archer fire compared to frontline cavalry, so they do have merit. Outside arena, they are also dominant in campaigns and other game modes. Especially the debuffers like Nobunaga, even against infantry that resist their damage, they can be debuffed. That, and Attila and the cav guys can deal with them. I need more info as i advance in the game, so i might be wrong. I also want to say how jarring this feels to me as someone who played Great Conqueror Rome, as i'm used to archers getting blown up when anything touches them. Sorry, what would you like me to fact check exactly? I concur that archers are the best unit, I'e always felt that way, and I have been wondering independently if the recent updates have downgraded the utility of infantry as the front rank: there seem to be a lot of Frost Giants and Minotaurs in hard Mode and nobody kills those better than cavalry. It's just a hunch though. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Nov 16, 2021 18:36:28 GMT
I personally hate Archers, they aren't tanky enough. Of course, they certainly have their place, and attempting a run without Nobunaga would simply be foolish. They are the best way to get rid of Cavalry, and they can hit without being hit back. Their Damage is good. However, they have like three commanders. In addition, they will take around 3 hits, which is horrible. I think their primary role is like that of Artillery: debuffers that can hit important targets. That being said, I place them last in the field of units. And yes, Washington and Nobunaga are dominant, primarily because they have decent stats like defense and HP. Mocte is good early game, but once I took him to Discovery, I kept finding him worse than even my main infantrymen.
My personal favorites are infantry and Artillery, because they are very tough, deal great damage, and infantry can counter any unit (including cavalry), while Artillery hit what infantry cannot. Cavalry is way to fragile against archers, and Archers really are only useable on your turn, like Artillery. Unlike Artillery, they are pretty replaceable, again with the exception of Nobunaga.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thortilla on Nov 16, 2021 20:16:41 GMT
My problem with Archer Generals is that they need to be protected by their comrades. Missions like Yorktown or Defending Beijing are missions where your team is divided, you fight in tight spaces and against many Enemies. Where your Generals will be quickly surrounded. Infantry Generals can break through because they are Human Tanks. Cav Gens can break through too, the problem is that they are also very weak. In my opinion 4-5 Generals of Infantry, 1-2 of Cavalry, 1 Archer and 1 of Artillery. it would be a good main team. (Obviously you have to have other Extra generals for Specific Missions)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2021 2:05:00 GMT
After thinking about it, and playing the game for 8 days now, it has now been quite apparent to me how dominant archers are, atleast in the mid to end game. Range is just too good, and the ability to attack and counterattack from 1-2 or even 1-3 range is just too strong. Cavalry are stronger earlier on due to strong initiative, and the fact that the the best cav general, Attila, is available early on. Once enemies start to get stronger tho, this is where archers come into play. They either weaken the enemies from a distance to allow the cavalries to take them out in a turn, or they assassinate threatening enemies straight up. AI autos are also plentiful in this game, and reading through stoic 's comments on Attila running away from an enemy dying in the arena , and me seeing it happen not once, but twice, and how dominant Washington,Nobu and Moctezuma decimate the enemies in the arena(with the help of the cavalry guys), it's already clear to me how the meta revolves around archers. Of course, infantry is there to save the day, but the problem for infantry is that they aren't as fast paced as cavalry, and are still 1 range. They would be strong if they could get to the archers, but the problem i see is how Attila is one of the central generals bought regardless of comps, along with other generals like Genghis and Hannibal, and best girl Suri added into the mix. Damage reduction for infantry is strong, but the problem is that they aren't as numerous as cavalry generals that decimate infantry( fact check this pls Iron Duke , thanks). I dunno, i'm still at the Discovery age(1 day away from gunpowder, despite my talk of farming conquest, never got much time to do it), so my opinion doesn't hold much compared to the veterans who played the game for years now. Artillery is strong btw, although their main use is to destroy cities, so they're more of a niche group compared to the main 3. I may be underselling infantry as well as a group, and i certainly lack experience using them aside from alexander, so i might be a bit biased against them. They certainly would be much sturdier against archer fire compared to frontline cavalry, so they do have merit. Outside arena, they are also dominant in campaigns and other game modes. Especially the debuffers like Nobunaga, even against infantry that resist their damage, they can be debuffed. That, and Attila and the cav guys can deal with them. I need more info as i advance in the game, so i might be wrong. I also want to say how jarring this feels to me as someone who played Great Conqueror Rome, as i'm used to archers getting blown up when anything touches them. Sorry, what would you like me to fact check exactly? I concur that archers are the best unit, I'e always felt that way, and I have been wondering independently if the recent updates have downgraded the utility of infantry as the front rank: there seem to be a lot of Frost Giants and Minotaurs in hard Mode and nobody kills those better than cavalry. It's just a hunch though. Ah, i wanted you to fact check my claims if cavalry with stomp or assault as 6 star was higher than infantry generals that are sturdy, but i guess it's irrelevant when both cavalry , archer and artillery focus fire on them in arena. And yay, a veteran agreeing with my conclusions  . Of course, i understand stoic 's point, but we weren't really disagreeing, just that you pointed out situations where archers might not be the best, while i pointed out that in most situations, archers are useful and therefore being the overall best. I enjoy discussions like these personally. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2021 2:10:11 GMT
My problem with Archer Generals is that they need to be protected by their comrades. Missions like Yorktown or Defending Beijing are missions where your team is divided, you fight in tight spaces and against many Enemies. Where your Generals will be quickly surrounded. Infantry Generals can break through because they are Human Tanks. Cav Gens can break through too, the problem is that they are also very weak. In my opinion 4-5 Generals of Infantry, 1-2 of Cavalry, 1 Archer and 1 of Artillery. it would be a good main team. (Obviously you have to have other Extra generals for Specific Missions) In my few fights where my archers are isolated and had to fight in tight spaces, they did well, although not as good as cavalry. That's just my experience tho, so maybe harder fights like that would reflect your statement. That said, that's just one situation where archers might not do as well, but they can still fight on due to being able to attack in 1 range, and fight off ranged units as well at the same time. But i do concede that only certain archers can do that, the archers with leadership and healing(basically moctezuma and archers with a healing item), and washington. And even if we conclude that they are horrible in this situation, then this is just one situation among a lot of other situations where they great. I know you weren't really arguing with my points but rather giving off your thoughts on a problem about archers, but i can't help myself from discussing my own points. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2021 2:14:53 GMT
Archers are probably in a similar spot as Artillery where almost every comp wants atleast one or two, mostly because Nobunaga is incredible. The ability to hit over walls or debuff or cripple a problem enemy without having to eat a counterattack is something all comps can appreciate. Plus there's some situations where you HAVE to have range or else you can't do anything. I'm thinking of Greek Trial III primarily. That doesn't mean they're good at everything, they're not tough (with one exception, and this really dampens their counterattack potential), and they can't blast through enemy lines as well as cav can. It's also more difficult to put together an archer based comp as all of the Archer commanders have awful availability or other problems. The reason the AI can use archers is that cav and infantry requires playing much better to make good use of. It's still kinda bad with archers actually. They'll attack artillery or towers at range or infantry and cav at melee where they can get counterattacked IF they don't have to move to target them. I wouldn't say they're super dominant, you can play basically any type of comp you want and you'd have advantages and disadvantages, but they're very useful. My argument is that even in situations where they aren't the best, they can still do well, while in situations where infantry are in a bad spot, they usually can't do anything, and to some extent, cavalry if they can't damage their way out. They're great at supporting other units, and at the same time fend for themselves. I concede tho that not all archers are sturdy, but the top tier archers are sturdy. Also dominant maybe too much of a hyperbole, and that "having the edge over the majority of situations" would have been better used, it would be quite a long title tho. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2021 2:24:33 GMT
I personally hate Archers, they aren't tanky enough. Of course, they certainly have their place, and attempting a run without Nobunaga would simply be foolish. They are the best way to get rid of Cavalry, and they can hit without being hit back. Their Damage is good. However, they have like three commanders. In addition, they will take around 3 hits, which is horrible. I think their primary role is like that of Artillery: debuffers that can hit important targets. That being said, I place them last in the field of units. And yes, Washington and Nobunaga are dominant, primarily because they have decent stats like defense and HP. Mocte is good early game, but once I took him to Discovery, I kept finding him worse than even my main infantrymen. My personal favorites are infantry and Artillery, because they are very tough, deal great damage, and infantry can counter any unit (including cavalry), while Artillery hit what infantry cannot. Cavalry is way to fragile against archers, and Archers really are only useable on your turn, like Artillery. Unlike Artillery, they are pretty replaceable, again with the exception of Nobunaga. I'm not sure i agree with your points. Mocte's doing a lot better in my team. He isn't as good as nobunaga or washington, but his utility carries him through. He hits decently hard, so i can't see how he falls off. As for your other points, artillery is great. But they are a lot more reliant on front line than archers. Archers are fine if someone melees them, while artillery are boned once their frontline falls. Artillery don't do as much damage to units compared to structures( with some exceptions), although some of them can do splash damage and are top tier, but by using this argument, then we are simply arguing among the best of the classes, and even in that case, then i would place the top tier archers over the others in terms of utility(and natural range advantage over the other class). But i get your points. Artillery supported by sturdy infantry is great. My only problem is how reliant they are with each other, while archers can do fine alone. I also don't think archers are too fragile. If they were GCR archer fragile, then i would simply think of them as a niche group that's good at taking out cavalry. It's true that i'm Nobunaga and Washington, which are the top tiers, but i also Moctezuma and Jhansi, and they don't blow up in 1 or 2 hits. |
|
|
|
Post by mayankshadow on Nov 17, 2021 6:17:27 GMT
One thing i might want to add, if u do a pure cav run (only and only and only cav from beginning) including any cav possible (genghis too), and do same with infantry; infantry overpower cavs. Not in numbers but overall it is easier to end game with inf then cav and this observation of mine was just after norse was added. Arty are of course least powerful in pure run they still satisfy more than cavs. Archs are of course best.
In 1v1 cav defeat inf,inf defeat arch,arch defeat cavs in most conditions but thats a circle and not a line. Dont underestimate inf. They have five comms and that makes ur damage 760 percent. And even if we see in the way, cavs are much more vulnerable to arch than inf are to cavs. This way too inf are stronger option(of course arch is best).
Arch still are on other lvl in comparison but they cant make it all. And inf+cav make better support to arch then just inf and just cav. So stop comparing hulk to the thing, or superman to thor. That is pointless
|
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Nov 17, 2021 6:34:15 GMT
I personally hate Archers, they aren't tanky enough. Of course, they certainly have their place, and attempting a run without Nobunaga would simply be foolish. They are the best way to get rid of Cavalry, and they can hit without being hit back. Their Damage is good. However, they have like three commanders. In addition, they will take around 3 hits, which is horrible. I think their primary role is like that of Artillery: debuffers that can hit important targets. That being said, I place them last in the field of units. And yes, Washington and Nobunaga are dominant, primarily because they have decent stats like defense and HP. Mocte is good early game, but once I took him to Discovery, I kept finding him worse than even my main infantrymen. My personal favorites are infantry and Artillery, because they are very tough, deal great damage, and infantry can counter any unit (including cavalry), while Artillery hit what infantry cannot. Cavalry is way to fragile against archers, and Archers really are only useable on your turn, like Artillery. Unlike Artillery, they are pretty replaceable, again with the exception of Nobunaga. I'm not sure i agree with your points. Mocte's doing a lot better in my team. He isn't as good as nobunaga or washington, but his utility carries him through. He hits decently hard, so i can't see how he falls off. As for your other points, artillery is great. But they are a lot more reliant on front line than archers. Archers are fine if someone melees them, while artillery are boned once their frontline falls. Artillery don't do as much damage to units compared to structures( with some exceptions), although some of them can do splash damage and are top tier, but by using this argument, then we are simply arguing among the best of the classes, and even in that case, then i would place the top tier archers over the others in terms of utility(and natural range advantage over the other class). But i get your points. Artillery supported by sturdy infantry is great. My only problem is how reliant they are with each other, while archers can do fine alone. I also don't think archers are too fragile. If they were GCR archer fragile, then i would simply think of them as a niche group that's good at taking out cavalry. It's true that i'm Nobunaga and Washington, which are the top tiers, but i also Moctezuma and Jhansi, and they don't blow up in 1 or 2 hits. 6 star Moctezuma loses his bonus against cavalry and gets a trait that reduces damage against cavalry instead. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2021 6:54:12 GMT
I'm not sure i agree with your points. Mocte's doing a lot better in my team. He isn't as good as nobunaga or washington, but his utility carries him through. He hits decently hard, so i can't see how he falls off. As for your other points, artillery is great. But they are a lot more reliant on front line than archers. Archers are fine if someone melees them, while artillery are boned once their frontline falls. Artillery don't do as much damage to units compared to structures( with some exceptions), although some of them can do splash damage and are top tier, but by using this argument, then we are simply arguing among the best of the classes, and even in that case, then i would place the top tier archers over the others in terms of utility(and natural range advantage over the other class). But i get your points. Artillery supported by sturdy infantry is great. My only problem is how reliant they are with each other, while archers can do fine alone. I also don't think archers are too fragile. If they were GCR archer fragile, then i would simply think of them as a niche group that's good at taking out cavalry. It's true that i'm Nobunaga and Washington, which are the top tiers, but i also Moctezuma and Jhansi, and they don't blow up in 1 or 2 hits. 6 star Moctezuma loses his bonus against cavalry and gets a trait that reduces damage against cavalry instead. Interesting. Useful for face-tanking cavalry like Attila, and he's not used too much for his damage much anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by mayankshadow on Nov 17, 2021 8:03:59 GMT
6 star Moctezuma loses his bonus against cavalry and gets a trait that reduces damage against cavalry instead. Interesting. Useful for face-tanking cavalry like Attila, and he's not used too much for his damage much anyway. U r wrong here. Mocte is best suited to be back and deal dmg instead of tanking. His skills make it worth more if he stays alive longer. |
|
. Of course, i understand 
