Sources for archer vs other unit comparisons?

score:1

Accepted answer

This is essentially the core of combat in a game when you strip advanced ai considerations and factors and just have units go at each other when half have 1 range the other half have more than 1 range.

What you described is Totally Accurate Battle Simulator which is anything BUT a totally accurate battle simulator. It's a joke, but the joke perfectly illustrates why this sort of comparison is useless in reality. The game lets you do exactly what you want, line up 100 poachers (shortbow archers) against 100 swordsmen and let them go at it.

enter image description here

This isn't how battle works and Totally Accurate Battle Simulator hilariously illustrates why.

No, the core of combat is not numbers or types. It's all the things KorvinStarmast covered. Terrain. Training. Communications. Logistics. Morale. Tactics. All these are far more important than mere numbers and types. Hannibal Barca was able to humiliate the armies of Rome for years not because he had X light cavalry or Y heavy infantry, he was usually outnumbered, but because he outmaneuvered and out-thought the Romans. The Battle of Cannae, still studied today as one of the first examples of a pincer movement, was won by superior tactics.

The game which best encapsulates everything that goes into an ancient battle is probably the Total War series. Unlike many other RTS they model terrain, formation, and morale. Give Total War: Rome or Medieval II: Total War a shot. You'll learn some hard lessons.

For modern combat, there's probably better ones now, but I always liked the Close Combat series. It attempts to model morale, experience, and stamina. It drastically changes your tactics when, for example, your infantry simply refuse to charge a machine gun. Or when you can use suppressing fire to keep the enemy's heads down.

Skallagrim has a good video about all this: The pointless question: "Who would win?" (samurai vs knight, etc).

Upvote:4

The comparisons you present are incomplete, to the point that they have little meaning1.

Most battles were not fought on a flat, featureless piece of terrain.

The US Army teaches an analytical method: METT-T, {now METT-TC}. Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Troops available, Time, and {civilian (non combatant) considerations}. It's a very good template for assessing relative chances for success depending on the situation. Given the troops you have in question, you need to flesh out those factors to weigh relative prospects for each unit to accomplish its mission.

Without the minimum framework of terrain, time, and mission your example question has no meaningful answer. The troops (archers) may not even fight if there is no mission, but instead may flee, withdraw, or otherwise avoid contact. On the other hand, if they are defending their home village, they might fight to the death, use cover, etc.

For a historical example of how critical terrain is, T.E.D. made this point in a comment.

Terrain is crucial. For example compare longbows with heavy cavalry. If the ground is conducive to cavalry charges, the longbows may get off a volley or two before getting overrun. However, if its bad ground for cavalry (eg: a swamp), you get Agincourt; the cavalry is massacred.

An additional example would be the battle at Thermopylae.

1 ... beyond assigning point values for troops for table top miniature games like Chainmail

More post

Search Posts

Related post