Posts from Who has the archer stack right now?

I've always based my strategy on having 1-2 stacks of fighter units as cover, with single units to the left of them for flanking and drawing fire. Consequently, archers are positioned in the far-right stack, but I've noticed that many players use the opposite arrangement. Arguments for or against either position are welcome.

I usually use the tactic, and leave the archers in the garrison as soon as possible. :D
But what's the difference anyway? They are symmetrical. Unless you know in advance where the opponent will position their army, then yes.

I usually employ this tactic.

not quite on topic.

I leave archers in the garrison whenever possible.

is that the right level? What's wrong with archers?

And what's the difference anyway? They're symmetrical.

archers? enemies? -- there should be 1-2 stacks of melee units as cover, and to the left of them, single units to draw fire and spread them out.

I don't see a difference either. I voted for the third option.

I almost always position the archers in the bottom right corner for several reasons: - With this arrangement, units with a speed of 1 will move in each round before others, meaning you can immediately use them to counterattack and attack neutral units with your main stack of fighters, rather than waiting, which can be very important in many battles. - If you have a ballista, it's more advantageous to keep the archers at the bottom rather than at the top (next to the ballista), because while the mobs are attacking the ballista, you can either shoot them down or move them to the other end of the field. Of course, in certain situations, you can change the arrangement to the opposite – for example, if you have a siege unit, you can use it as cover, since a unit with a speed of 1 can withstand one hit, while the siege unit can withstand several. In general, it all depends on the situation.

Juristis, so my arguments regarding the lower tier are irrelevant? At least for you.
GoD, I'm saying the same thing. We're talking about a general case, it's not a dogma. I also once decided that in the case of the upper tier, the lower position is also advantageous for neutral creatures.

Juristis, so my arguments regarding the bottom tier are irrelevant? At least for you.

No, it all makes sense, I just never thought about it, and I don't think it's that significant. In one game, I place them at the bottom, and in another, at the top; I only change their positioning in certain situations. For example, if there's a ballista, I always put the ranged units at the bottom. Or in battles where the creatures have equal speed. For example, I have goblins and imps, including their single units, and I fight against orcs on sand. In such a battle, the goblins should be placed at the top, of course.

Here, it largely depends on the situation:
The positioning of archers depends on the speed of the enemy units and the speed of the units in your army (if your army has units with the same speed, it depends on who should move first, especially if their turns are mixed with the enemy's).
Example: playing as the Swamp faction – Lizardmen, Vasas, and Hydras have a speed of 5 (the hero isn't specialized). The opponent (or neutral creatures) also has archers with a speed of 5. If it comes down to a ranged battle, it's desirable for the Lizardmen to shoot first, so they should be placed on top so that they move before the Vasas and Hydras. This is just an example; everything, of course, depends on the situation on the battlefield. (This, by the way, applies not only to archers but also to melee units: this is a separate topic about the order of turns).

P.S. Of course, in any case, if the battle isn't decided in 1-2 rounds, you need melee units to provide cover; in this case, top vs. bottom positioning doesn't matter.
P.P.S. Regarding the group stack of neutral creatures, again, it depends on the speed of the neutral creatures. If you can eliminate them all with ranged attacks, then, of course, it's better to place the archers at the bottom, eliminating the group stack first, and then the rest. If you can't eliminate the group stack, then it's better to do the opposite: place the archers on top and reduce their numbers, and finish off the rest with melee units, although again, this depends on the speed of the neutral creatures; sometimes, it's better to place them at the bottom and eliminate the fast ones (i.e., the group) while the slow ones haven't reached you, and then it will be the slow ones' turn. Again, it depends on the situation: is there an opportunity (or a need) to slow down/distract (or spread out) some stack? A ballista can also distract.

In general, there's no single recommendation: in each individual situation, you need to calculate separately – look at the speed of the units... something like that.

P.P.P.S. A poll in this form doesn't make sense, in my opinion.

We have an article by Vik on our website about playing as Castle – it seems he described everything accurately. For example, if archers and melee units have the same speed, then archers should be placed at the top so that ranged damage is dealt first, followed by contact damage. If the speed of melee units is the same as the speed of neutral creatures, then in most cases it is also more advantageous to place archers at the top. If the battle involves archers with a speed of 6-7, then, conversely, we move the archers down so that griffins go earlier. And so on; you can find more details in the link. /topic/3588/ Post #9

I almost always put archers in a single stack. This way, with equal speed, they can fire first. I also consider the presence of siege weapons to be an important criterion. If there's a ballista, I try to place the archers lower, so that the neutrals reach the ballista first and get a few shots in. If there's a wagon, I almost always put the archers in a single stack. But if there are no siege weapons and the speed is different, then it doesn't really matter. IMHO.

Yes, I hadn't really thought about that either. Although, in my opinion, the question of "how to best eliminate neutrals" isn't that important. But if so, it depends on the specific neutral. For slow ones (those that don't reach the archer in two turns), position them at the bottom. For those that reach in two turns, but not faster, it doesn't matter: they usually skip their turn to avoid being brutally shot down by a direct arrow. For those that reach in one turn, position them at the top: then, during the hero's first turn and with the "haste" skill, you can try to shoot before their turn. However, with the "slow" skill, it's still better to position them at the bottom, and if there are no fast units, there's no difference. The previous comment about the ballista was correct. When fighting against archers, position them at the top. And it's still best to acquire the "tactics" skill as soon as possible, as the terrain is just as important in this matter.

the question of "how to best defeat neutrals" doesn't seem too important to me

meaning, do you just tear through everyone??)

it doesn't matter who reaches the destination in two turns, but not faster: these usually skip their turn themselves

first they skip, then they are forced to go under direct fire - if we have someone to wait with before the archers. If not, then on the contrary, their top stack goes forward and here the archers have an advantage from above - they can reach directly, and the lower ones may not.

when fighting against archers -- go up

only if the speeds are the same (and we don't have anyone faster) - it was mentioned in the obvious exceptions.

and it's still better to take tactics as soon as possible

still, tactics are not the most important thing; there is also the turn order.

I assign different values depending on the considerations that have already been expressed here. I will only add a couple of points.
Sometimes, in the lower slot with archers and the main stack, it is more difficult to properly protect them with units that have an initiative of 1, because the lower units hinder the movement of the upper ones; Rampart is a prime example of this.
It is usually easier to lure neutral units that move slowly downwards, as the upper units hinder the movement of the lower ones, and overall, they then crawl more slowly.

Yes, I hadn't really thought about that either. Although, I don't think the question of "how to best defeat neutrals" is that important.

How can it not be important? There are different types of neutrals, and their numbers also vary. Still, you want to deal with them as quickly as possible.

How can it not be significant? There are different types of neutral creatures, and their numbers vary as well. I still want to implement it as soon as possible.

Even with the most challenging neutral creatures, it's easier to cope than with an average player, provided you assess the situation adequately.