Is SIEGE ARCHERY good? (March PUP update)

Let’s talk about this here card:


:arrow_right:Let’s check the concept

Siege archery is a card that allows the British Longbowmen to do their regular siege attack at the same range as their base attack, so for a veteran LB. it would be 22 range, and with the fortress age card, it would be 26 range tops.

Normal Longbowman
Longbowman with Siege Archery
Longbowman with Siege Archery and longer range card

It also splits damage in 2 while increasing speed by 2 (So it´s the same output, just more convenient).

The last part about the card is it says it also keeps buildings burning for a bit when shot by the incendiary arrows. However, just how much is that?

:arrow_right:Let’s check the number

To do the test I used an imperial longbowmen with a base output of 10 siege damage.

-at a house to see how much damage would the fire do, and… nothing, at least on the first shot.

Sometimes it shows up, sometimes not, so I made sure to shoot 10 times and check how much extra I was getting.

With that, i got that in 10 shots, which with 10 base damage should do 100 siege, actually did 130.
So that’s a 30% increase in the damage output.

Now, 30% siege damage upgrade isn’t much of anything when it upgrades a 10 siege damage dealing unit like light infantry, but, then again, the longbowmen does it all with a LONG range and cheap-ish cost, so it takes that on advantage.

:arrow_right:Well? Is it worth it?

It’s up to you to decide I believe, I personally love the functions this can have when short on artillery or an opportunity to get close with closer range siege units (like pikemen).

As for the cost of a shipment, 30% damage plus range and rof convenience is legit nice. Right on par with the rest of 3rd age shipments value.

If you like using longbowmen, you can use this card to make those guys into light mortars basically, truly nice to slowly put pressure from a safe distance (Emphasis on slow tho, they are still light infantry).


It will probably be a niche card that will be useful under some build orders that involve the longbowman. Since the logistician is now actually viable, grants a free arsenal upgrade and no longer destroies your economic boom, I can see some pushes/harassment options opened up for longbowmen. Siege archery opens up the possibility of map control, sniping trade posts, outposts guarding resources, etc


I haven’t played AoE3 in a long time, years at this point, and I played like 2 games when DE came out and

I don’t know what the card is and I don’t know when it was added, but this kind of stuff I love about AoE3, the freedom with unit design that is possible, plus the whole cards and upgrades system. Card seems really cool, I remember in TR/FFA decks I couldn’t quite find enough stuff to put in as Brits, so it would be a nice addition, even if it doesn’t do all that much on paper.

Also all the frequent patches and DLCs I have been seeing, very healthy state of the game and the playerbase, and the development process. It’s a great game over there, maybe I should switch back from AoE2, who knows.


It turns Longbows into 1 pop arrow knight, that alone makes it pretty strong

1 Like

How do they compare to arrow knights pop/cost/damage output wise?

like all units, it seems like they outperform arrow knights per population in pretty much every regard

  • LB. cost 100 resources, between 60f and 40w.
  • AK. cost 135 resources, between 55f and 80g, AND 2 pop.

  • At age 3, the Veteran LB with siege archery does 7,8 siege every 1,5 seconds at 22 range.
  • At age 3, the Archer Knight fresh from the nobles hut does 39 siege every 3 seconds at 30 range, AND with x2 against ships.

  • At age 5, the Imperial LB with siege archery and longer range does 13 siege every 1,5 seconds at 26 range.
  • At age 5, the Legendary Knight with all upgrades does 87 siege every 3 seconds at 30 range, AND with x2 against ships.

After looking at the basic numbers, the LB is indeed just a 1 pop AK, it does around the same at half the cost and output.
When we get to age 5 however, the AK wins with more output as the LB starts falling a bit short on siege.
The real kicker is the range and the extra multiplier that SIEGE does for the AK (We are not counting basic attack).

Though in the end, not sure why we should even compare the 2 very different units hahah.
It’s not like while playing the British or Aztecs you can choose between the 2 in 1 game.

I’d really like to see it also enable training Longbowman from Outposts like the old Logistician did. That way it wouldn’t be completely useless if the Rangers card is sent.


Thanks for the analysis! I asked only for a reference, ofc British can’t train AK lol

1 Like

I think that every longbow cards have to benefit rangers, which is a feature highlighted by the developers.

Perhaps Siege Archery should also directly increase the siege damage of rangers by about 30%.

1 Like

Siege Archery and Yeoman thematically have nothing to do with Rangers. They only share upgrades because they completely replace them which I think is a bad approach to the units. Rangers ought to have their own upgrades and cards such as Baker Rifles that could up their range instead of Yeoman

I think a better way to do things would be to replace the Imperial Longbow upgrade with one that instead replaces them with Rangers at the Barracks and Caravels and enables both at Forts. Then the Rangers card could be replaced with something that gives them decent range.

1 Like

I prefer to totally replace Longbowmen with Rangers, which is the current way and is more reasonable in my opinion. This means that the British finally enter the 18th century. Throw away the bows and learn to use the new weapons.

Making Longbow cards benefit Rangers is actually quite a clever design, making the gameplay of transition from Longbowmen to Rangers smoother. Longbowmen and Rangers are designed to be bound, and it is very unwise to upgrade them separately.

No need to insist that Yeoman is culturally unrelated to Ranger. That would be too much to ask, otherwise we shouldn’t have had a medieval weapon like the longbow in the game at all.

1 Like

That’s not really consistent with the rest of the game. Every other faction with Crossbows doesn’t lose the ability to create them, they just get superceded by Skirmishers. That could also be the case for Longbows if their late game upgrades were removed and the unit was disabled at the standard production buildings.


I feel like if you want to send a card to have long range siege in age 3 you may as well send advanced artillery and make some mortars. That said it is kinda funny seeing 26 range fire arrow long bows and for this reason alone, I would say it is worth it (at least for a couple of games)

Mortars don’t do the hit and run part very well.


You should understand that Skirmisher and Crossbowman are just different units, and that Ranger is more similar in design to being another form of Longbowman than just a British version of Skirmisher.

Ranger and Longbowman share same upgrades, and can only be converted through the card in the late game. Whether or not to convert the form is a strategical and irreversible decision. These kinds of design are the most important and interesting purposes to introduce Ranger, and essentially different from the relationship between Skirmisher and Crossbowman or between Pikeman and Halberdier. Otherwise it will be boring if players just get a British version of Skirmisher.

The card looks interesting and quite fun to use, I suppose it will serve to be more annoying than anything with longbows being able to siege long range but culvs being useless vs them. As brits are a civ with incredibly strong musk it’d be tough to just send some hussars in and I imagine we’ll see a lot of dancing back and forth with the longbows sieging protected by some musk.