Re: I dont understand Serpent Cataphracts
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Last time I checked they would disappear after the battle. Maybe it has changed in Last few Versions?

Re: I dont understand Serpent Cataphracts
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I had a riderless serpent in my army in the low magic serpent cult game I'm playing, so it seems to be the case now.

Re: I dont understand Serpent Cataphracts
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Assuming that this question was not rhetorical (which it probably was), the phrase is transparent: 'bad faith'. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">'Mauvaise foi' is used in French to describe the behavior of someone who firmly supports a belief or point of view in a discussion, while thinking otherwise and not willing to admit it. I've seen an English translation some time ago, but I don't think it was 'bad faith'. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Devil's advocate?

Re: I dont understand Serpent Cataphracts
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not quite. You can play the Devil's advocate and still admit it - then 'avocat du diable' would be used in French, which is a litteral translation without any pejorative meaning. When you say about someone, he is 'de mauvaise foi', it's a rather negative judgement: you mean he acts insincerely, and is trying to misguide others (as well as himself, sometimes). Eg, usenet trolls are often 'de mauvaise foi'.

Or could it be that 'Devils' advocate' is used in both cases in English?

[Edit: it seems Babelfish translates 'de mauvaise foi' as 'insincerely']

[ April 29, 2004, 18:36: Message edited by: Nagot Gick Fel ]

Re: I dont understand Serpent Cataphracts
 

Well to clarify, Devil's advocate would have been more appropriate for what I think of Nagot's stance. I know he likes to argue http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif


Ok, so your crappy cataphracts saved your day because they were size 3 and not 2. Does it proves that they are not subpar? That they find a use in 0.1% of the situation is rather the proof they have a very small window of opportunity.

btw, what are the exact damages of a light lance, the description says 'dependant charge bonus' ???

Re: I dont understand Serpent Cataphracts
 

Well, interesting exchange of arguments...
Myself I've found SC to be just "not good", that means I don't use them often, but neither do I find them "absolute crap" as say, Arco Cav http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .
So I think I'm more on NGF side (sorry Pocus http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ). Indeed Pythium is strong in nearly all game aspects, a less-than-average, costly cav is justified. Usually they just aren't needed, but if you have to get a cav corps they'll do it - expensively...
In addition I believe than in 2.11 SC got the "Light Lance", making them a bit more punchy on 1st round of combat, isn't it ?

Re: I dont understand Serpent Cataphracts
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">They are subpar when compared to other nation's knights - and I've already said or implied this 3 times in this thread, so I'm not trying to prove the contrary - ou alors je serais vraiment de mauvaise foi. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Your point was:

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I proved this to be wrong.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Saving one player's butt doen't match my own definition of 'useless', and I - and others - have given other examples of their (limited, I agree) usefulness.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I wouldn't mind about them getting Swamp Survival. Otherwise, as it's been said several times, Serpent Cataphracts don't need to be improved further, just because Pythium doesn't need another rope to its bow - it has plenty already.

Quote:

That they find a use in 0.1% of the situation is rather the proof they have a very small window of opportunity.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I estimate the probability for Pythium to start close to Pangaea to be more than that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Anyway I'm not going to beat this dead horse - or should I say dead serpent? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif - any longer.

Quote:

btw, what are the exact damages of a light lance, the description says 'dependant charge bonus' ???

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's dependent on the distance your charger moved in the round. I don't know the exact formula, I guess it must be something like +1 damage/square.

Re: I dont understand Serpent Cataphracts
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">IIRC it's +AP/3, or about +5 for Cataphracts.

Re: I dont understand Serpent Cataphracts
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I've used them in a Dom 1 MP game, and they saved my butt, while my other troops couldn't. And I'll do it again in Dom 2 if I find myself trapped in the same situation.

Quote:

So by definition they are useless. Either trash the unit,

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I can't see how trashing them would change anything to the current situation, and you're writing off SP players completely.

Re: I dont understand Serpent Cataphracts
 

I still dont think that SerpCats should be more powerful, but I also still do not understand them. I still feel that they should be less expensive (not: more powerful). Even: Less expensive and less powerful. Not: A new rope, simply give the Pythium player an incentive to purchase his or her own national national troops instead of independent ersatz. Being an inferior unit is perfectly fine, for many reasons outlined here and in other threads; but being inferior and more expensive makes reduces the unit in question to a bizarre "emergency break" you pull only when your train is already starting to derail, not part of any normal plan. Don't: make the SerpCat more like a viable Indy heavy cav; Rather: just make it a viable, interesting unit.