Why bother buying Archer, if you can have Amphibian?

Hello groovers,

recently i noticed, how much more superior the amphibian is, compared to the archer!?

Here are the stats in comparison:

• Range: AM = 1-2 - AR = 1-3
• Movement: AM = 2 on land and 5 (!) in water - AR = 3 on land
• Damage: AM = average 28.4 and critical 56.8 (!) - AR = average 73 (!) and critical 98.5
• Price: AM = 250 (!) - AR = 500

the direct duel between those units is:
Archer vs Amphibian: 75 (crit 101)
Amphibian vs Archer: 40 (crit 80)

Range: Isn't this brutal, that the Amphibian has a ranged attack? On top of that, the critical hit is shot from either a river or a sea! That means, a critical hit can happen more often in certain maps. Today I demolished a commander (57%) with just two of my Amphibians, moving 5 squares in the sea and shooting the commander.
(2 x 30% damage)

Rarely enough the Archer can make critical hits. He is just too slow, too often. At least, he can fight air units, but with so little effect, it almost doesn't matter.

Conclusion: equal

Movement: Now, this is where it get's messy. The Amphibian is only one square slower than the slow archer. But on the water, she is a killer! Not only can the Amphibian easily avoid any non ranged attack, by jumping into the deeper water to safety, but can also shoot from this spot.

The Archer is always an easy target, unless protected well by the other units.

Conclusion: Amphibian winner

Damage: Obviously the Archer has a very high damage from a statistical point of view, but the Amphibian can double damage (!) with his crits, which will happen a lot of times, if you play it right. Now this means, commanders can be hurt with 30 and buildings with 50. (Archer has 14 and 34 crit) But the archer can do significant enough destruction against most of the ground units. But still...Amphibians are stronger against the important units in my opinion. Still, the conclusion is probably...

Conclusion: equal


Price: Not sure what to say here. I will always mass spam the far superior Amphibian and buy more other units with the saved money. So far in multiplayer games, mass spamming Amphibians mostly wins my games quickly. Luckily, they can conquer buildings too.

Conclusion: Amphibian clear winner

This is my point of view. Do you guys feel similarly? Or can you give me some examples, that I am wrong?

My idea would be to at least raise the cost to 350 for the Amphibian?

Besides all of this, I love this game to death! Well done to the developers, you have made a little dent in the universe with this pearl of a game

Cheers

 

Counterpoint: Naval concerns are situational... Land Concerns matter bout every Map & the Archer does better on land. I think ya misjudge the ease in getting Archer Crits as well, don't just charge them in as if ya think they're Knights dude.

Both can move & shoot at the same time but on Land Archers will have the edge & for cost ya'd have 2 Mers to one Archer but the Archer will be able to hit & run so much more effectively, especially if taking advantage of Terrain, like Woods, & make it laughably hard for the Mers to be able to Combat the Archer without being seriously weakened first, then they can forget about retreating effectively. Archer on Shore & Mers in Water, ya are playing into the Mers hands so they're supposed to have advantage there. Also in Land one could ponder fighting them with Soldiers instead, then it's a matter of 2 1/2 Soldier Units per Mer in at cost consideration... if the Soldiers can deal with them just fine why even bother asking the Archer to? Don't forget that though the Mers have Throwing Weapons they are soldier-like in Role so imho it'd be a mistake to compare them to Archers but not also compare them to Soldiers & Pikes.

My 1 1/2 cents.

 

I get your point. And yes, it is very situational of course.

In general I meant the maps with a fair amount of water. Spamming those Amphibians was very often a win for me so far. I also like to use the Archer every now and then, but would always choose the Amphibians over them.

Would love to have a battle with you @Axe Garian and test it out on some games

 

Amphibians can't move over mountains, and the increased range of the Archers means they can fire from a safer distance, either behind more layers of your units or on the other side of forest or mountains.
Archers do higher base damage, and with crits can do a fair amount.
But all of it very much depends on the map.

I find most maps to be insanely small, so if there is naval units at all, there seems to be enough water for them to dominate.
I tried to make a bigger map, didn't make it quite as big as I hoped. Haven't been able to play on it with people, not sure if the merfolk dominate or not.

 

@Fawxkitteh thanks for your opinion. How about I test the map you created with you? Cheers

 

@DonnieDarkcore Sure thing. I'm not sure where on the forums would be best to discuss setting that up.

 

Same. I have trouble having time to MP, but it'd be interesting to get to check out the PvP side of this game some time.

(Though I still have yet to make it through the Campaign yet, so I dunno how much or little worthy an opponent I can be yet... but since when have I ever had any Sense in terms of my picking Fights, & why should I bother to have any Sense now? )

I'm also curious how much or little luck Turtles could have trying to In-Water counter Mer Spam...?

 

Some random comments:

Mermen are stupid vulnerable on the ground. The only time mermen should be walking on land is if there is an effectively uncontested village to grab.
Because Mermen are garbage on land, land units can be almost 100% safe from Mermen by simply staying more then 2 squares away from any Sea tile. If mermen try to walk onto land to fight, even if they get the first strike, they will lose to pretty much anything that's not a swordsman.

Due to the above two points, Mermen are actually pretty situational. Is there enough space on land for ground units to move freely without risking merman harassment? If so, mermen are basically regulated to fighting over sea villages for extra money. If there's not enough room for land units to play around mermen, or if there's contested buildings that mermen can poke from the sea, then mermen are suddenly one of the best units in the game, period.

If you are playing a map where mermen are the best unit in the game (island maps in particular), then you probably have no reason to not buy mermen. If you are not, then that's why archers exist.

I do note that even on maps where mermen are reasonable, archers do not have to worry about turtles rolling in from half way across the map and one shotting them.

As for the cost difference, being an Advance Wars vet I can confidently say that navel units need to be cheaper then ground units. In mixed ground/water maps, water properties are almost always less strategically important then the land properties, so navel combat needs to be cost effective to make the initial cost worthwhile. In water only maps (ie island maps), gameplay slows to a freaking halt if there are no cheap water units that you can get out to start contesting stuff fast.

Seriously, you have no idea how much better Wargroove navel combat is until you've played Advance Wars navel combat (it sucks)