Quote:
Graeme Dice said:
50% more hitpoints than a normal human is _not_ nearly double. It's 50% more.
|
And the Lava Warrior is 70%. Close to double. It's semantics anyway, they have more hp by a good margin.
Quote:
The emerald guard has a strength of 12, compared to abysia's 13. The broadsword has a damage of 6, compared to the axe which is 7 but drops the unit's attack down to 9. Battlefield movement is completely irrelevant to infantry units, and the cost difference arises because the emerald guard is a better unit than abysian heavy infantry.
|
Weren't you just naming off a bunch of 1 or 2 point differences? And it's not a better unit simply because they have very similar stats but lack radiating heat/fire immunity while costing more, and it's probably the best human heavy infantry for the era. So even if we could agree that the Emerald Guard was a better unit overall than Abysian Infantry, Abysian Infantry is still better than 99% of similar priced HI.
Quote:
No, most nations do _not_ take huge losses on the default of independents 5 unless you don't use their troops correctly. Pangaea does, but that's because their starting troops are the unbelievably crappy satyrs.
|
The point is if Abysia's starting army can perform well in 7 or 8 they peform even better in 5. You'll take heavy losses (ETA: on indy 7 or 8 that is), if you even win, on turn 2 with most starting nations armies, but not Abysia. Abysia starts with 30 good heavy infantry and an assassin. Shinuyama, Bandar Log, Tien Chi, Mictlan, Machaka, C'tis, and to a lesser extent Arco, Man, and Vanheim all start worse armies as none of them start with heavy infantry but have ranged units, and most have less than 30 units. The rest of them either start with worse units or less of them, for instance Ulm has comparable units but only starts with 16, Marignon will probably do well too.
For simplicity though, Abysia has a really good starting army, agree or no?