spearman better than archer?

[llukiz]

Why evrybody think that spearmen are beter then archer, and simultaneously archer cost more gold then spearman?

[nebula955]

that way no one ever recruits the bowman! why else?

[PingPangQui]

Why evrybody think that spearmen are beter then archer, and simultaneously archer cost more gold then spearman?

By itself spearman are not better then archers. Though there are very good reasons why a loyalists force consists usually of a higher amount of spearman then archers.

- First they are cheaper. Although it is just 1 gold, it does matter.*
- They have a decent melee attack 7-3 (first strike) which is good, since most enemy units are melee based. Why is that actually good then? Because the spearman is the guy who holds the lines.
- The spearmans main attack does more damage then the archers main attack.

I could mention a couple more reasons but i think thats basically it.

Archers have also their uses, especially when fighting loyalists or drakes. Though they are not the main force. What's more, I prefer mages for initial attacks**, i.e. to break the enemies lines (taking out units on high defense positions) and charge in with spearman and scouts/horseman thereafter.

* The price should be part of the decision and not be excluded as you did.
** The same applies actually when playing elfes - unless one is fighting loyalists or drakes, the mage is often (i.e. not always) a better choice for a ranged focused unit then the archer.

[Tmoiy]

Spearmen also have more HP. That's one of the most compelling reasons, actually. Anyway, spearmen aren't better than bowmen; they just have more general utility, and are less easily replaced. This is in large part because of their low cost.

[billdoor]

Maybe on 1/1 a spearman would be better than an archer, but the key word in a battle is diversity: for example you'd rather attack a drake gladiator or a troll with an archer...

** The same applies actually when playing elfes - unless one is fighting loyalists or drakes, the mage is often (i.e. not always) a better choice for a ranged focused unit then the archer.

As for elves, the archers have great promotions, more HPs (on level 1), promote faster, have better melee attacks, move faster (1 more movement and don't suffer any penalty in forest), have better protection in forests, are cheaper... so unless you fight undeads, use both archers and mages...

EDIT: I forgot to quote PingPangQui, thus my statement was probably confusing.

[Velensk]

As for elves, the archers have great promotions, more HPs (on level 1), promote faster, have better melee attacks, move faster (1 more movement and don't suffer any penalty in forest), have better protection in forests, are cheaper... so unless you fight undeads, use both archers and mages...

Your statment confused me. If you are talking about humans compared to elves, I think that elves are the ones with the great promotions, move quicker, and have the forest advantage.
However if you are comaring elves to humans. Humans have more HP and a better melee attack.

For the loyalists I ussualy find mages more useful than bowmen. However bowmen are cheaper, tougher, and deal peirce damage.

For the rebels I chose my ranged unit based on my enemy. Generaly
vs rebles: both
vs loyalist: archer
vs knalgan: both favoring mage
vs northerner: both
vs drake: archer
vs undead: mage

[Rhuvaen]

the spearman is level 0 and thus doesn't cost upkeep, while the archer has a decent fire attack

[tsr]

the spearman is level 0 and thus doesn't cost upkeep, while the archer has a decent fire attack

What version/unit are you thinking about? AFAIK spearmen are level 1.

/tsr

[Herduk]

the spearman is level 0 and thus doesn't cost upkeep, while the archer has a decent fire attack

the goblin spearman it's a level 0 unit.

[billdoor]

Goblin spearmen (northerners) are level 0, loyalist spearmen are level 1...

It seems that everybody was talking about Loyalists, but it sure isn't clear.

NB: I've edited my previous post.

[Elvish_Pillager]

He doesn't realize we're talking about Loyalists. Probably because people are saying "archer" when they mean "Bowman".

Diversity is right - if you have a bunch of spearmen, it's good to have a bowman instead of one of them.

- the bowman is almost a mixed melee/ranged unit - 6-2 or 7-2 vs 6-3 is much less than the difference between most units' melee and ranged attacks. Archers can hold the line too (although not quite as well.)
- the Spearman's ranged attack is quite weak - the Bowman is less good at melee, but the Spearman isn't "less good" at ranged; it can hardly function as a ranged unit at all.

That said, Spearmen are the staple of the Loyalist army and are a better choice in the abstract.

[krotop]

He doesn't realize we're talking about Loyalists. Probably because people are saying "archer" when they mean "Bowman".

I'd rather bet on a joke taking advantage of the confusion.

More related to the thread : the rounding of damages at day is also more interesting with spearmen plus the fact the strong trait benefits to the spearman's primary attack making him a "heavier hitter" than the bowman compared to price. Still the bowman is a necessity in the army most ofthe time, as others already said.

[Xandria]

Well, the bowman is quite hardy for a ranged unit - though the mage is the loyalist who does the heavy ranged damage. I see about one archer for three sprearmen, except vs. the Undead (I guess no archer at all and only a few spearmen to poke an adept or kill a bat... and to get blasted by adepts instead of a mage or heavy infantry.

[bert1]

I find archers are good for defending generally, as they will do significant ranged and melee damage, so there's no safe way to attack them. They're a good unit to defend vs undead (if there are adepts) at night, if you can't run away quick enough.