We have tweaked archers a little... There are two types, greek archers who do a little more dmg but less range, and then the traditional archers with longer range like Persia, Maury and Kush. While they actually dont have faster rate of fire with us... slingers are faster, then archers then Javs.  Each of the 3 major archer civs has a unique advantage.  Kush has added poison dmg which by passes armor all together.  Maury does have a little extra pierce dmg and Persia's rate of fire decreases by phase.  So I am not too particularly worried with where archers are.  Potentially could bump up dmg just a little, but then would decrease spread (accuracy.)  Yes a volley of Persian arrows could be deadly and do a lot of dmg, but they didn't exactly hit the targets they were aiming for. They just unleashed a lot of arrows towards the enmey and they fell where they fell.

You are right @Deicide4u, archers would be too good, but I feel like it would be more accurate

I'm not sure if you want to do this. The major advantage of archers is their range. Because of that, you can better snipe with them, and they don't overkill as much as slingers or javelins.  Don't forget their faster rate of fire, as well.

Maybe for cavalry, boats, and siege, but normal units are probably fine. I also think archers should do more damage, it seems like someone in game could get hit with 10 arrows and still be fine (with less health ), and still be charging

DE has implemented a "Civic Spaces" aura around the CC which reduces grain gathering by 50%.