The predominant tactic to emerge from the early 16th century was a formation called Pike and Shot. It consisting of a square center of Pikes(Pikemen) along with an equal number of shot(Musketeers/Arquebusiers) ahead of and flanking of the formation. Its creation is attributed to the Spaniard Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba, the first formation called a colunella. Eventually, they were made into large formation called tercios, similar to a large regiment, which themselves operated brigades of three. The success of the Spanish tercios during the Italian Wars lead to the adoption of Pike and Shot formations by many other European nations.

The overall tactic of Pike and Shot was relatively simple. The shooters could fire their weapons and, if threatened, fallback to the safety of the pikemen. Though the tactics did change throughout the 16th and 17th centuries. Maurice of Nassau changed the shape of his formations from squares to rectangles, more akin to line of battle formations from the 18th century though still not as thin.

The military revolution which fills the century between 1560 and 1660 was in essence the result of just one more attempt to solve the perennial problem of tactics--the problem of how to combine missile weapons with close action; how to unite hitting power, mobility, and defensive strength. And the solution offered by the reformed of Maurice of Orange and Gustav Adolf was a return, under the inspiration of Vegetius, Aelian, and Leo the Isaurian, to linear formations. In place of the massive, deep, unwieldy squares of the Spanish tercio, of the still larger but more irregular blocks of the Swiss column, they relied upon a multiplicity of small units ranged in two or three lines, and so disposed and armed as to permit the full exploitation of all types of weapon...

On the question of bowmen:

The soldiers of the Middle Ages had been, on the whole, and individualist; and he (and his horse) had been highly trained over a prolonged period. The coming, first of firearms, then of the Swiss column, put an end to this state of affairs. The mercenary in the middle of a pike-square needed little training and less skill; if he inclined his pike in correct alignment and leaned heavily on the man in front of him, he had done almost all that could be required of him. So too with the musketeer: a certain dexterity in leading--it could take as many as ninety-eight words of command to fire a musket--a certain steadiness in the ranks, sufficed to execute the counter-march, since no one could reasonably demand of a musket that it should be aimed with accuracy. The training of a bowman, schooled to be a dead shot at distance, would be wasted on so imperfect an instrument as an arquebus or a wheel-lock pistol; and the pike, unlike the lance, was not an individual weapon at all. One reason why firearms drove out the bow and the lance was precisely this, that they economized on training.

-Michael Roberts The Military Revolution: 1560-1660