Plasquar said:
Has anyone tried using no archers in a siege?
It does sound challenging but maybe to a point where it's just "unfair" challenging.
I did. Siege offense is actually easier with crossbowmen as they bend over upon reloading and the defenders often miss them upon doing so. Then the damage per shot on average is higher for crossbowmen and they can penetrate shields easier too. And then they can maintain their firing for much longer than archers, and due to the slower rate of fire, less shots are wasted (as less units are able to shoot at the same enemy at once). So yeah, crossbowmen are made for siege offense when retreat is not an option
Siege defense however is clearly harder with xbowmen as opposed to having elite archers. Much more enemies will be able to reach the walls.
For maximum efficiency and for the best of both worlds, I settled down to a 1:1 ratio of archers and crossbowmen. I find it to be a good balance overall when there's no restriction towards these units in my game setup. Around 60-65% of my army is composed of such ranged units when I exclude the use of cavalry.
I did a Mettenheim-style playthrough twice in PoP (no mounted units and no archers). It was fun for sure. One was with only western/knightly units allowed, the other one was an all-around infantry fest. For reference, @Mordred also did one back in the days. Although he did allow cavalry units, he just always dismounted all of them at the start
Knights of the Ebony Gauntlet, Empire Immortals, Empire Armored Crossbowmen and Mettenheim units ftw!
And now there are Kraken Riddari as well to hold the lines like demigods. I like to think of them as a bunch of mini Gandalfs: "You shall not pass!"