Re: Useless or redundant units?
 

Just some comments to the Arco Chariot Archers:

They are quite usefull because after taking the 10 damage (full hitpoints) only the archer dies and the chariot still attack with the charioteer and have another 10 hitpoints!

The best thing is after the battle the chariot is full repaired and has a new archer.

The normal chariot has a better protection but die after 10 damage.

I use both units and especially the archer chariots. The good defence, the acceptable protection and the 2 Lifes make them extremly powerfull in early game. They tremple independent forces all in ground and lost nothing most of the time.

Re: Useless or redundant units?
 

For light units swarming heavy units inst it better to create many units spread across the front rather than one large one? It seems to work better for me.

Also if I dont think there are many archers I find it better to make the heavy units run to me rather than charge them.

Re: Useless or redundant units?
 

Units with low (or no) resource cost but the same gold cost as a heavier unit can be recruited in high quantities quickly, which can be useful. Also, 20 units with 1 resource cost will beat 2 units with 10 resource cost almost always, no? In any fight where armor makes a difference they are clearly inferior 1vs1 (or even 1vs4), but sometimes armor makes little difference.

Likewise, units with low morale can be forced to go berserk, in which cases morale becomes irrelevant. There are other such examples

These are perhaps niche uses, but that doesn't mean we should disregard them.

Re: Useless or redundant units?
 

Let's assume the 2 units are 10 gold 20 resource each.
And the 20horde is 10 gold 2 resource each.

20horde is 200 gold 40 res.
2 units are 20 gold 40 res.

20horde consumes 10x as much supplies.
20horde costs 30 upkeep per turn.
2 heavies cost 3 gold per turn.
----------

There should be a global enchantment that makes each unit cos -1 upkeep (gold). It would make quite a difference for hordes.

Re: Useless or redundant units?
 

All that is true, but sometimes it wont make any difference. If a decisive battle is imminent, for example, you'll not care about upkeep or supplies.

Re: Useless or redundant units?
 

If decisive battle is imminent, I guess it's the best idea to use Pythium gladiators.
Ironically, in long run it may be easier to amass heavy armor units, which is kinda strange.
With heavies, you tend to have more gold left. For this gold, you can build extra forts, for example. So you can recruit even more heavies.
How about history ? Were heavily armored soldiers paid more ? Probably not. First of all, as far as I know, early medieval armored soldiers were simply nobles, because no one else could afford a sword, armor, horse....

Re: Useless or redundant units?
 

Why? Do you have a use for any of the Pangaean units I mentioned that makes them a better use of your gold than the other available units? If not, then those units should be improved so that they add useful capabilities to the nation. Minotaurs can't be fixed without either removing their trampling or fixing trample so that normal attacks also take place, but satyrs could be given a use by dropping their cost by a great deal. Stating that the truth of a matter must lie somewhere between two opposing viewpoints is known as the Golden Mean fallacy.

The game would be improved, and would be much easier to learn, if many of the units that have little use compared to the other available units were improved. Perhaps by halfing or quartering the gold cost of those units. Realistically, a unit such as militia that's unarmoured and has a morale of 8 is probably worth somewhere between 2-5 gold when compared to the performance of heavy infantry at the same gold cost. Such a change would have the additional advantage of bringing the relative abundance of heavy infantry to light infantry closer to historical levels. As an example, the Persian army outlined by Herodotus was virtually all unarmoured.

Re: Useless or redundant units?
 

Useless is not to be a light unit. useless is to be another better unit so it make the first unit redundant.
It´s always better to recruit tribal shortbows intead of generic ones because they cost 8g intead of 10g and cost less resources, and have map movement 2 instead of 1, and they have a bonus dependant on the tribe (deer tribe have better defense).
other tribesmen are ok if you have a sudden war and are in need of some bulk force. low resource and special ability like if you mass the guys with two daggers cover the battle front filling the gaps between your heavy elites and delivering 2 attacks to lessen the defense thanks to multiple attacks effect.
bear tribe javeliners have extra strenght and this means more range of throw and more damage to hand to hand.
on the other hand light cavarly archers are a little crappy.
but normal light cavalry can buy you quick flankers.
I often overlook recruiting barbarians because of they high cost and little survability. so of indt units i find them to be near the worst units.

Re: Useless or redundant units?
 

Barbarians can deal some mean damage with their strenght and heavy 2-weapons, useful if you need to punch through armor or take down units with lots of hitpoints.

It's true that some units like light cavalry archers, without lances or something like that, really seem rather useless. The higher map move is the only benefit I can think of for them.

Re: Useless or redundant units?
 

Obviously we disagree quite abit. When playing Pangaea I purchase mostly Pan, Centaur Archers, and Harpies. Sometimes I will put some minotaurs in with maenads, and dryads as I need them. I almost never purchase the other centaurs. I wouldnt mind the satyrs being more effective stealth units.