Some issues and questions with massed shooters

[Horde]

First, I think that massed shooters are useful against cavalry, when combined with other units. For instance, I played a Bulgarian army against AI Mongols and I won by using massed infantry archers combined with lights to soften their cavalry and lancers to deliver the punches. In another game where I was using Mongols, the enemy player used dismounted lithuanian cavalry (bowmen and swordsmen) to destroy part of my army; it was a draw, but the archers were the part of his army that I couldnt destroy. Crossbowmen are useful against knights in the flanks, if carefully managed.

Now, if they face infantry-heavy armies I found both archers and crossbowmen next to useless even against light-armoured armies. Perhaps they are lucky and manage to disrupt an enemy unit, if you use two or more shooting units combined, but then they get wrecked when enemy line advances. Crossbowmen are no good shooting against infantry, and massed archers have a penalty in short distance when the enemy attacks so they rarely manage to do anything. Also, usually you have a few skirmishers, so you cant use them to reinforce the fire of the massed units and cause disruptions. So, I think there´s three issues:

1-First is relatively minor. The shooters will be more time in melee than shooting; the enemy will advance on them if he has melee superiority, even if he has shooters too. In reality, men are many times reluctant to close against shooters and engage in melee, because they have to advance through their field of fire, but in the video game they dont refuse your orders. In a MP game, where I was playing as the Germans against a Polish early army, my opponent had three or four massed archers units. I defended a hill with crossbowmen. Instead of playing the shooting game, I inmediatly charged with them; their 50% swordsmen gives you a fair chance of winning. I suppose that crossbowmen are better in melee combat because in western countries they were usually mercenaries or semiprofessional warriors, but I feel that perhaps is not a historical viable tactics. I suspect that if I was a medieval commander, my crossbowmen wouldnt have obbeyed my command of unsheating their swords and charge against stationary bowmen, even if it was sound.

2-The second one is a question. I found that against Free Cantons, Low Countries, scandinavian lists, Irish and Baltic tribes shooting units get destroyed without doing a damage that justifies their point cost. It is the result that the developers wanted? I dont know a lot about the wars in which these armies participated in medieval times, so perhaps proyectiles were not so useful against them.

3-Third, I use to play against the AI in duke difficulty, so AI has about 30% more points than me. When I played with a feudal army against another (French, German, English, Bohemian, Polish, etc), if I pick an army with a mininal amount of shooters is easier to win against the combined arms of the AI. The game picks massed shooters, even raw crossbowmen, and puts them in the infantry line; you just charge them with whatever youve got as soon as possible and wreck them. If they have archers or longbowmen is specially easy. I would struggle if the enemy has spent the points in infantry or cavalry; so I found its easier to fight against English than Germans, for instance.

Now, I understand that its my opinion. Perhaps its just that I´m not a very good player and I´m not using the right tactics, or that I have an approach to the game that doesnt fit this units. But I would like to know if other players have found this issues.

[ZygfrydDeLowe]

All good points and I made similar observations myself. Ranged foot units are rarely worth their cost - except when facing heavy foot army on a map with rough terrain perhaps.

[vaalen]

I agree. I have found shooters like crossbowmen and long bowmen to be useless against infantry armies, such as Baltic foot and the Irish. Longbows or crossbows, they get chewed up in melee after a couple of shots, and break fairly quickly.

I have tried mixing them in a line with spearmen and my own warriors, but they still get charged and destroyed.

They might do better if you can put them on top of hills or in rough terrain, but they are a liability against infantry in the open.

[rbodleyscott]

It is certainly true that shooter units are harder to use well than melee units, but they can be effective when they are. Armies with lots of massed shooting infantry may not be a good pick, and certainly not for beginners.

When we get to the 14th century, there will be a lot of much better-equipped longbowmen, and then having lots of those definitely will be a good thing. But they will still have to be used skillfully to avoid being overrun.

[vaalen]

It is certainly true that shooter units are harder to use well than melee units, but they can be effective when they are. Armies with lots of massed shooting infantry may not be a good pick, and certainly not for beginners.

When we get to the 14th century, there will be a lot of much better-equipped longbowmen, and then having lots of those definitely will be a good thing. But they will still have to be used skillfully to avoid being overrun.

It will be very interesting to see how those armies of well equipped Longbowmen do. In the meantime, it would be helpful to hear from those who have had success using mass shooter infantry in the game as it stands now.

[companion]

Some armies get deployable field fortifications when defending. Mass shots are very good at such, albeit limited, situation and of course anti cav role as you've mentioned.

Even perching them on rough patches won't do much against heavy spears; I was forced to use checkerboard line regardless of roughs.

[Horde]

All good points and I made similar observations myself. Ranged foot units are rarely worth their cost - except when facing heavy foot army on a map with rough terrain perhaps.

Then they could be helpful to goad the heavy infantry into attacking. Rough terrain and hills, as Vaalen says, improve their performance, but even then, when against infantry-only armies, they are destroyed.

It is certainly true that shooter units are harder to use well than melee units, but they can be effective when they are. Armies with lots of massed shooting infantry may not be a good pick, and certainly not for beginners.

When we get to the 14th century, there will be a lot of much better-equipped longbowmen, and then having lots of those definitely will be a good thing. But they will still have to be used skillfully to avoid being overrun.

I started a couple of MP games with balanced armies (autocreated), each with some shooter units, against infantry-heavy armies, to try them more. I really prefer the combined arms approach, and I think that against cavalry shooters have a brilliant sinergy with spearmen. Shooters alone in the open will be destroyed by enemy cavalry; spearmen or men at arms alone can repel but not destroy enemy knights. But a combined force of shooters and infantry can succesfully destroy enemy knights. Is the tactic of the armies of Al Andalus, English or Portuguese, as far as I know, and I like it a lot. But I fail to create the same sinergy when the enemy is infantry.

It will be very interesting to see how those armies of well equipped Longbowmen do. In the meantime, it would be helpful to hear from those who have had success using mass shooter infantry in the game as it stands now.

I agree. I tried to combine shooters+cavalry against massed Irish infantry in SP, but I failed; perhaps part of the problem is that in higher difficulties the enemy has a lot of units, specially in cheap armies like the Irish, so even if you have a nice amount of arrows, they have many more bodies.

Some armies get deployable field fortifications when defending. Mass shots are very good at such, albeit limited, situation and of course anti cav role as you've mentioned.

Even perching them on rough patches won't do much against heavy spears; I was forced to use checkerboard line regardless of roughs.

This is very interesting. But well, perhaps the most succesful shooting armies of medieval times had to employ these tactics, and shooters in the open field werent so useful: Hussites with their fortified wagons, English with their field defenses. In the Reconquista there were fortified camps too, I think. In the Hungarian Black Army, as far as I know, the defenses were heavy infantry and the shooters were something more like the game´s light infantry. I dont know how were French or German crossbowmen deployed in the battles of the XII century, though. Perhaps they were light infantry too when they didnt have fortifications?

[VenG]

I usually disperse them between the infantry or cavalry units, if in the open, combined with knights they are devastating against enemy horsemen.
They also can soften the enemy infantry line.

[SimonLancaster]

I think Crossbowmen are good. There is an argument actually to make them more expensive so many players don't see them as useless. They get all the shooting ability plus 50% swordsmen.

Also the game is modelled more on morale than actual casualties. Getting cohesion checks on infantry units can change the tide of a battle.

[gribol]

Now, if they face infantry-heavy armies I found both archers and crossbowmen next to useless even against light-armoured armies.

1-First is relatively minor. The shooters will be more time in melee than shooting;

2-The second one is a question. I found that against Free Cantons, Low Countries, scandinavian lists, Irish and Baltic tribes shooting units get destroyed without doing a damage that justifies their point cost. It is the result that the developers wanted? I dont know a lot about the wars in which these armies participated in medieval times, so perhaps proyectiles were not so useful against them.

3-Third, I use to play against the AI in duke difficulty, so AI has about 30% more points than me. When I played with a feudal army against another (French, German, English, Bohemian, Polish, etc), if I pick an army with a mininal amount of shooters is easier to win against the combined arms of the AI. The game picks massed shooters, even raw crossbowmen, and puts them in the infantry line; you just charge them with whatever youve got as soon as possible and wreck them. If they have archers or longbowmen is specially easy. I would struggle if the enemy has spent the points in infantry or cavalry; so I found its easier to fight against English than Germans, for instance.

Now, I understand that its my opinion. Perhaps its just that I´m not a very good player and I´m not using the right tactics, or that I have an approach to the game that doesnt fit this units. But I would like to know if other players have found this issues.

Every single unit can be usefull, if they are used properly.

ad.1 Its depends, how you use them. I always have got problems with lack of ammunition.
ad.2 see point 1, and maybe some historical reasons, for example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Falkirk
ad. 3 Against AI every tactic is ok, because AI is not too clever.
Try that in MP against some experienced player, and you will find out, that shooters can be usefull.

So, as i write at the beginning, every single unit can be usefull, if its used properly (in my oppinion).

[Horde]

I usually disperse them between the infantry or cavalry units, if in the open, combined with knights they are devastating against enemy horsemen.
They also can soften the enemy infantry line.

I think Crossbowmen are good. There is an argument actually to make them more expensive so many players don't see them as useless. They get all the shooting ability plus 50% swordsmen.

Also the game is modelled more on morale than actual casualties. Getting cohesion checks on infantry units can change the tide of a battle.

Every single unit can be usefull, if they are used properly.

ad.1 Its depends, how you use them. I always have got problems with lack of ammunition.
ad.2 see point 1, and maybe some historical reasons, for example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Falkirk
ad. 3 Against AI every tactic is ok, because AI is not too clever.
Try that in MP against some experienced player, and you will find out, that shooters can be usefull.

So, as i write at the beginning, every single unit can be usefull, if its used properly (in my oppinion).

Thanks for your replies, its always enlightning to see different opinions.