Re: Nations with weakest troops
 

Micah, I feel that the Master of Names invalidates your entire argument regarding Bogarus' research potential, particularly with any sort of Magic scale.

Edit: Actually, It appears the gold/rp ratio is roughly the same for both. However, the master of names is slightly better. They are both in fact better then half the nations of their age. If gold is your limitation, may I suggest an awake pretender (either a rainbow or SC) and reach for Evocation 3 as early as possible. I'm sure you could expand quite nicely with a batch of kite shield units set to hold while a Starlet cast fireball repeatedly. Then you could also use the starlets to actively search for magic sites. I've practiced a very similar strategy with EA Ermor and it seems to work out quite well. The indies are easier in my opinion as well for late-age.

This assumes a normal research game of course. I imagine this would be harder for the original poster to accomplish.

Re: Nations with weakest troops
 

By the way, there is another interesting question - how much Single Age mod affects this? I'd say that many EA nations would fall into "weak troops" category due to just the fact that they don't have armor such as becomes standart by LA...
Particularly I'm thinking about Yomi who needs much research for it troops to be any good and either research or highish bless for its recruitable thugs...

Re: Nations with weakest troops
 

Well I guess thats one good thing that I'm in the middle of a team with no fighting. But then my stealth units seem rather pathetic from what I see and are of no real use.
Which brings me to another problem. In a situation when your inside a circle with limited expansion. What the frell are someone like a Bogarus suppose to do if enemies break through to them. Or can pure mage armies actually do some damage in battles.

Re: Nations with weakest troops
 

Quite often late game battles are pure mage and/or SC affairs.

Let me give you some ideas:


Research Thau 2: Blood 2. Then your offensive spell of choice.

Some I'm partial to include, paralyze, stellar cascades, paralyze.

Make a communion. Cast communions slaves, communion masters, Blood Master.

Cast Power of the spheres. when your fatigue is high cast relief.
Otherwise spam the offenseive spell of your choice. If you are in the middle of a donut of your allies - you should be in gravy - you have the best upside of any la researcher.

Re: Nations with weakest troops
 

I would argue about Caelum's troops. Of course, when you set them on 'guard commander', iceclads get better. Instead of being completely useless, they become semi-decent, still being prone to rout and rather squishy even in a cold domain.
But even then they are extremly hard to mass and not cost-effective. I'd take independent heavy infantry over iceclads any day.

Re: Nations with weakest troops
 

Hmm. I'm surprised that people think that Bandar Log's troops are _that_ bad. I don't seem to have much problem with them.

Also, someone mentioned that Bogarus's cavalry are good, but very weak against magic, due to their high gold/hp ratio. Well, if the game is specifically 'insanely high research cost'... shouldn't that make you reevaluate the rankings?

As for myself, I find that Caelum's troops, outside of the Mammoth, are good for almost absolutely nothing.

Re: Nations with weakest troops
 

I'd say that the "bad Bandars" idea was buried some time ago. They DO have a disadvantage in siege due to "animal" tag, however. Still, they work good enough - and they often have Elephantes with them.
Super-high research cost will probably help Bogarus somewhat - and they have mages to research faster than opponents. Still, this will postpone the time when their powerful summons will appear...
Actually, I think that extra-slow research will change the normally perceived balance in many cases - including making some low-research spells/summons viable. Maybe it would be interesting to test it...

Re: Nations with weakest troops
 

Bandar Log troops have a terrible gold-to-power rating, they are bigger than humans (thus easily overwhelmed, but not nearly as tough as giants), are extremly vulnerable to arrows because their stupid bucklers dont qualify as shields.
If you have a powerful bless, Bandar Log sacreds become quite good warriors (still vulnerable to arrows and magic). Patala doesnt even have that.

Re: Nations with weakest troops
 

Nah, Bandar troops have several things going for them. Stealthy archers, long bows, elephants, high strength, double attack sticks and stones (which gets pretty nasty with very light magic support like strength of giants), good hitpoints, cheap, high defense, size 1 troops (great for tying up expensive elite enemies), fairly decent sacreds. Not a top notch army, but used right I think you have a hard time classifying them as the "worst" troops.

Re: Nations with weakest troops
 

"Worst" can be somewhat relative. Some nations come with a higher learning curve when it comes to utilizing your troops. Most nations have some specialized unit that can elevate their effectiveness when situations are right.