Slavic archers does 14 damage... lol

[Flying General]

zzz

[Pervy]

If they nerf the posion arrows to much the faction it self is fcket..
they dont have much else then there op range.. all your melee is just there to defend your general and the archers till they can posion them to death

[eCapter]

archers suck anyways....crossbow is accessable from the beginning and are better than elite archers.....

[Matze3]

Originally posted by eCapter:

archers suck anyways....crossbow is accessable from the beginning and are better than elite archers.....

nope. it depends on the enemies army and on your own army composition. if they have many light units archer are better because of their much faster rate of fire. against heavy units crossbows are better. the rate of fire for crossbows is very low so against light units they won´t even shoot 25% of their ammo while archers will use most of their ammo and make much more damage.
my usual army is made of 1 general, 5 heavy swordsmen, 5 heavy spearmen, 5 crossbow and the rest depends on the type of army i want. so it might be just because of my preference for heavy units that i choose crossbows over archers... but then again in a siege battle without siege weapons crossbows will loose many men more than archers against towers

[eCapter]

i allways use 1 gen, 4 crossbow, 4-6 heavy riders, maybe 2 spearmen, rest swordmen. In all big fights so far my archers were out of ammo fast while the crossbowmen were shooting the whole battle and killed a lot. And you dont have to research or build anything expensiv to have them. research good archers takes about 100000 rounds

[Pervy]

Originally posted by eCapter:

archers suck anyways....crossbow is accessable from the beginning and are better than elite archers.....

Crossbows fire sloooow and slavic archers beat crossbows
and if not i would use spear throwers any day insted of using slow bows

[Matze3]

Originally posted by eCapter:

i allways use 1 gen, 4 crossbow, 4-6 heavy riders, maybe 2 spearmen, rest swordmen. In all big fights so far my archers were out of ammo fast while the crossbowmen were shooting the whole battle and killed a lot. And you dont have to research or build anything expensiv to have them. research good archers takes about 100000 rounds

and sieges? how many units do you loose against the towers?

but after all that is still a good composition for an army.... it is more mobile than mine but if i had to take a guess a longer battle with a big enemy superiority won´t go well for you. especially if the enemy got enough spearmen to counter your big cavalry. of course you could try to attack them before their reinforcments can help them but i would use an army like yours more to hunt down weakend enemy armies instead of using it for the main battles...

[StarofTanuki]

Originally posted by eCapter:

archers suck anyways....crossbow is accessable from the beginning and are better than elite archers.....

http://upic.me/show/57961184

[Uugly]

Horse archer charge foot archer. Also foot archer fire an extremely low rate of fire. Despite of what people said that horse archer tend to dismount their horse to fire. Horse archer just basically fire more often. That is explained a lots why foot archer is just basically useless. You can't really spam them like horse archer.

[Cuddlefission]

Originally posted by no1:

Horse archer charge foot archer. Also foot archer fire an extremely low rate of fire. Despite of what people said that horse archer tend to dismount their horse to fire. Horse archer just basically fire more often. That is explained a lots why foot archer is just basically useless. You can't really spam them like horse archer.

Do you have a source for that? It doesn't really mesh with the traditional tactic of riding in close to fire, then back out before the enemy can retailiate, and essentially keeping up a stream of 'shooting parties' like that so the enemy can't let their guard down for a moment but you aren't exposed to much danger.

[[*UNITY*]_ james]

Originally posted by Mile pro Libertate:

Originally posted by Fanest:

there is historical basis for anteans using poison arrows alot, but i doubt they were that effective in combat :P. still this is the only thing that slavs are good at at the moment, if they dont use poison they are pretty bad overall (no shock cav, melee cav )

In other words, they'd end up as petty domains like irl if they didn't have some "vondeer veepon".

Honestly, this entire Slavic dlc idea was silly to begin with. The Slavs were not players on the stage like the Frankish kingdoms or the Lombards or the Norsemen.

If CA wanted to do it right in AoC they'd have kept the map extended eastward, then you could take over those communities in the east and reach imperium lvl 3 or whatever and establish a kingdom of Rus or something.

I hope you realize that this is just the Grand Campaign we are talking about here, not AoC.

[Pumis]

They kill people even if unit will block missiles. They are OP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs8WCUCvIf0

[𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖛𝖚𝖘]

Originally posted by Pumis:

They kill people even if unit will block missiles. They are OP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs8WCUCvIf0

Yeh broken as hell, full chemical warfare. You can call them ebola arrows from now on.

[Imposter]

What was CA thinking? I hope their OP arrows were intentional. If not, why did they not test this feature?? I also noticed on the 'official Attila forums; no one has said anything about these Arrows I guess people don't want them *ehem* messed with.

[Mile pro Libertate]

Originally posted by |-TsR-|| james:

Originally posted by Mile pro Libertate:

In other words, they'd end up as petty domains like irl if they didn't have some "vondeer veepon".

Honestly, this entire Slavic dlc idea was silly to begin with. The Slavs were not players on the stage like the Frankish kingdoms or the Lombards or the Norsemen.

If CA wanted to do it right in AoC they'd have kept the map extended eastward, then you could take over those communities in the east and reach imperium lvl 3 or whatever and establish a kingdom of Rus or something.

I hope you realize that this is just the Grand Campaign we are talking about here, not AoC.

Yeah that's actually part of my problem with the DLC.

The Slavs were not anything like a cohesive group, let alone power brokers, in 400 AD.

So if CA wanted to include Slavs as fully fleshed out factions they'd have them in AoC, not Attila base. And further, AoC map should have been left extended into Eastern Europe and Eurasia instead of cutting it off by Dalmatia.

The only real kingdoms with Slavs in significant amounts at this period was Rus in Kiev and the city state of Novgorod, and both were started and dominated by Norsemen: that's actually where the name "Rus" or Russian comes from, it's not Finno-Ugric, it's Germanic.

The Slavs were either subjects in the Norse realms, or were living as small tribes throughout central Europe with no larger organization or anything like a polity. That wouldn't happen till much, much later.

It's totally fantasy: if CA has Slavs as they do, they might as well have made a Mongol DLC or Norman DLC, because it would make just as much sense.

[Mile pro Libertate]

Originally posted by Pumis:

They kill people even if unit will block missiles. They are OP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs8WCUCvIf0

Yeah the video evidence seems irrefutable. Now the cries for patching commence...