Re: I have a question about Satyrs
 

Feh! Apparently hitting Enter while selecting an icon = POST

[ January 16, 2004, 22:13: Message edited by: aldin ]

Re: I have a question about Satyrs
 

Sartyr = Suck

Sartyr + Maenads + (Mass)Protection = impressive, but ultra-cheap force

I agree about type1, though - it's absolutly useless, even for patrolling, as you'll use Harpies for that.

A.

Re: I have a question about Satyrs
 

Mass protection improves the basic Satyrs, but works much better on troops that start with armor and/or have berserk. Centaur Warriors IIRC berserked with Barksin have 19 protection.

I can't think of any spells that make the unarmored satyrs worthwhile. Perhaps if you cast Wind Guide and Flaming Arrows on their javelins... But that's not easy to do for Pangaea, and besides would be more effective with the crappy independent LI.

Really, if you're playing Pangaea stay away from the unarmored Satyrs. Why use inferior troops when you have access to great troops like Centaur Warriors?

Re: I have a question about Satyrs
 

Because you can raise a lot of them quickly in an emergency, and cannon fodder is useful to have some of, to reduce the attention on your stronger troops, and distract the enemy, etc.

PvK

Re: I have a question about Satyrs
 

They're roughly as resource efficient as Centaur Warriors, so this doesn't seem like an advantage to me.

Re: I have a question about Satyrs
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Against lightning bolts and mind bLasts, they are more resouce efficient... in terms of HP/res and minds/res. But still, indy LI is better, because resources tend not to limit unarmored units.

Re: I have a question about Satyrs
 

Exactly. If you're looking for volume of fodder, you can do better than Satyrs. Then again, they do have pretty good MR for fodder... Hmmm.

Re: I have a question about Satyrs
 

They
</font>

• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">are stealthy.</font>
• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">do 2 points more damage ...</font>
• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">are faster (can't recall from memory how much) and will run down most routing troops, and can "attack rear" more efficiently ...</font>
• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">they have less encumbrance ...
  than their human (indy) counterparts.</font>

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> A.

[ January 18, 2004, 06:32: Message edited by: Arralen ]

Re: I have a question about Satyrs
 

Insignificant Differences:
Stealth:.. Useless for fodder.
Strength:. +1 strength over LI. Wow!
Faster:... +2 AP. Very usefull!
Less Enc:. Only because they're naked!

The key factors that make the Satyrs suck are complete lack of armor and 8 morale. Do you honestly think that +1 Strength and +2 AP makes up for this?!

Of course, you left out Satyr's real advantages: +2 HP, +2 Def, +3 MR, Recuperation. Still, these don't make up for 0 protection and 8 morale either.

Bah! Why am I arguing with you guys? If you want to use Satyrs -- by all means go for it. May as well take Turmoil 3 while you're at it.

Re: I have a question about Satyrs
 

Jasper! I'll take Turmoil 3 and make my Maeneds patrol, while I use Satyrs for fodder! AND I DON'T WANT TO THINK ANY DIFFERENTLY!

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

We all know Satyrs are useless. The morale alone makes them totally useless for fodder, even in big bunches they rout before they are worth their cost.

Some people just try to see the good side http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif