Is there any reason to use the Archer unit as the Empire?

[Goatmanpig]

Title, also the Deathjacks suffer the same problems

It's 120 range just kills it imo and it's so easy to get crossbows which I feel are much more effective.

[A.Pot]

They are cheap that is it. Even Bretonnian Peasant Bowmen and Ungor Raiders will give you your money's worth and then some.

[Ashley]

Cost mainly comes to mind. I know they have weak against armor trait but what that means is unknown to me. Yes I know what armor is but weak as in how much. High tier troops with nearly 100 armor yeah I expect them to do poorly against. But I don't get why they'd have the trait while crossbowmen which aren't armor piercing unless i'm missing something would be weak against.

[Wyvern]

Besides cost theres no real benefit(they also have loose formation i guess, which helps a bit vs cav and arty, but who really cares about that vs AI)
theyre considered weak vs armor because their damage per shot is split 17-2(thus ~11% of their damage is AP), while crossbows do 18-6(25% AP). They have the second worst damage per volley of any empire foot skirmisher(only free company is worse at 1260 total vs 1292, but they double as a hybrid melee unit), and they literally have the worst AP value of any empire missile(136 AP per volley vs the 180 on free company, with everything else being much better)

[Tavio]

there will always be "that one unit" , like why there be spearmen without shields when there are shield spearmen not too far ahead either.

but as others have said, cost is the key word, theyre really good against things without armor, like other early game archers/ranged units, and with them being a little scattered makes them trade a bit better too.

but i think of them as a really good early game unit, recruit a few of them, 3 or 4 on reikland's start up, along with some free man militia and swordmen, and it helps greatly against the seccesionists crossbowmen, as well as when shooting into the blob, and not having to wait thet urns to get the crossbowmen building up, means i can take the cities as fast as possible and even siege helmgart still on the single digit turns or even early two digits if i had a mess up

after that yeah, they never form part of my main army, but every once in a while i f i know aplace is going to see a lot of action and i dont have the funds to have two armies, a small army with archers can help a lot

usually after taking helmgart i get a second lord, switch up some units, mostly leaving behind the archers there at the fort, and each time the greenskins come knocking, theyre able to get a huge number of kills, paying hteir price

[Sn3z]

They can be used in conjunction with crossbows, 2-3 ratio put them on flanks not center like you would with crossbows, with Empire you should be making cavalry a priority anyway they can protect them, later swap the archers for huntsmen or just muster mid/game stacks with huntsmen.

[Lord Holland of Wessex]

Originally posted by Sn3z:

They can be used in conjunction with crossbows, 2-3 ratio put them on flanks not center like you would with crossbows, with Empire you should be making cavalry a priority anyway they can protect them, later swap the archers for huntsmen or just muster mid/game stacks with huntsmen.

Wrong, artillery should be your focus as Empire. Inb4 you bring up your usual tiering rubbish.

[Kaaz]

they are an ok cheap early starter, but quickly replaced. for wulfhart i kept them as a main ranged unit rather than crossbowmen (later upgraded to huntsmen) but for other lords i imagine they are more redundant

[Sn3z]

Originally posted by Lord Holland of Wessex:

Originally posted by Sn3z:

They can be used in conjunction with crossbows, 2-3 ratio put them on flanks not center like you would with crossbows, with Empire you should be making cavalry a priority anyway they can protect them, later swap the archers for huntsmen or just muster mid/game stacks with huntsmen.

Wrong, artillery should be your focus as Empire. Inb4 you bring up your usual tiering rubbish.

Logically it makes more sense to put cavalry in first, then it does to start the process of phasing out missile infantry units like crossbows or militia and its stronger now because of huntsmen). Empire buildings and recruitment are structured in this way on campaign you need X before Y, their armies have a methodical approach to them. If flagellants weren't so isolated and being in T3 artillery would be a legit first option. Empire knights being moved to T2 would allow the jump into artillery quicker.

[Hand_Of_Glory]

Empire Archers would be OK, if they either had something like a variable Reload Time: 7.0-7.6 with units being 100-120 models instead of the pathetic 9 and paltry 90 respectively.
Yes they currently have a reload time equal to the Longbows of their Huntsmen counterparts(9.0) along with the same number of models 90.

Crossbows:

Originally posted by Ugandad Commando:

Cost mainly comes to mind. I know they have weak against armor trait but what that means is unknown to me. Yes I know what armor is but weak as in how much. High tier troops with nearly 100 armor yeah I expect them to do poorly against. But I don't get why they'd have the trait while crossbowmen which aren't armor piercing unless i'm missing something would be weak against.

Well all ranged weapons have varying base armour piercing as far as I can figure out.

Empire Crossbows start with a 6.0 to armour piercing, Huntsmen (Longbows I guess) start with 4 and then the poor Empire Archers well their starting stat is 2.0.

While f.ex Goblin Archers only have 1.0 AP.. Difference Being that they have 120 models and a starting RT of 7.2.. The disparity is increased greatly when one takes into consideration the tech upgrades and ontop of that the new Scrap upgrades for Greenskins.

Empire Archers are literally crapulous for anyone other then Markus Wulfhart with his 50-70% upkeep reduction early on. This is also really only so due to Lizardmen not being heavy on armour other then the natural.. Flank and shoot em in the back kinda situation.

As to the Imperial Archer VS Crossbow units.. My opinion, Well CB's are clunky, they take their sweet time reforming into their perfect ranks etc.. Archers come across as more fluid..

All depends on what you are looking for and tbh its situational.

[AkumulatoR]

You can recruit them from basic settlement building. That's about all they're good at. In some situations it's worthwhile to recruit them if you need ranged units asap but don't have recruitment building yet for anything better.

[Coldhands]

A couple archers'll run off skirmishers alright, or focus down enemy ranged. Depending on who you're going up against and with what army, archers can fill a role as well as more expensive options, they just wont be as flexible.
I generally take archers against Skarsnik, and have them on the flanks with a unit of shielded spears to drive off the wolf and spider riders that I don't want my knights chasing all over the map.

Even late game, if there's an enemy faction that's lost access to higher tier recruitment buildings, so they're just ****ting out armies of low end units, I'll build a new mop-up army under a huntsman general and put archers in it. That way my better, more expensive armies can go deal with bigger, more expensive threats.

[Mack Yuu]

While in a vacuum, xbows are better, archers do have niche applications, and you may want to use them in certain conditions:

1) Archers have loose formation, making them better in skirmish-battle situations. The AI does tend to bum-rush if they start to lose the skirmish battle, though, so the usefulness of this attribute is questionable.

2) Hunstmen Generals have buffs for Archers and Huntsmen that don't apply to Crossbowmen. It's sometimes useful to recruit and level a Huntsman General early, then disband him to have him on-call for sudden settlement defenses, because

3) Archers are recruited from the main settlement building. Meaning if you need troops and have a 1-turn grace period before the big ugly comes knocking, you're going to get archers, not crossbowmen, in many cases. Also, early-game, when building slots are tight, this lets you focus more on economy/PO, and lets you build a different recruitment building for, say, Empire Knights, Pistoleers, Outriders, or Artillery.

3b) Alternatively, if you're playing Markus, who comes with his own cadre of Heroes, you can run without recruitment buildings entirely, focus only on eco/PO, and use Imperial Reinforcements to fill out armies that you're manning with basic spears/archers.

[JODEGAFUN]

You can recruit them everywhere, consider them as an expandable cheap unit which you should replace as fast as you can. But they can save you, and as mentioned above, they can be pretty usefull if you use huntsmen as general as cheap "keep order armies"

[kekkuli]

They are actually quite good against low armor units, i've noticed them getting more kills than crossbows very often when fighting things like state troops, goblins, orc boyz etc.

[Scrotum Scratcher]

they're extremely good in the early game, especially for taking helmgart and marienburg in the first few turns. you can shoot everything off the walls if you spam enough. very cheap and cost effective unit.

i think they need more models or a faster reload though