Useless or redundant units?

[Graeme Dice]

Gandalf Parker said:
Most of the units people dont like are cheaper and less armored so they feel that they are worthless compared to the "better" units. To me thats a play style choice.

To be frank Gandalf, people feel that the unarmored versions of units that have the same gold cost as armoured versions are useless because they _are_ useless compared to the other choices. Battles between equal gold costs of hysapists and cardaces will end in an overwhelming victory for the hysapists. Equal resource cost battles are closer, but gold, and not resources, is almost always the limiting factor on troop production beyond the first dozen turns. If you have the ability to choose between slingers and shortbows, the contest comes out overwhelmingly in favour of the short bows. There are some nations where the basic troops have natural protection values that make light infantry more effective, such as Atlantis or C'Tis, but on the whole, light infantry are to be entirely avoided. The same can be said of unarmoured horse archers, who cost more gold than regular archers, yet do not provide any kind of battlefield or strategic advantage over foot archers.

My personal preference (Pangaea) tends to get "improvement" suggestions which remove all of my favorite pieces, and replace them with more Ulmish pieces. Less stealth, more armor, and in my opinion.. less Pangaean.

As it currently stands, most of Pangaea's units serve little useful function. Pangaea's best stealthy raiding units are also their most effective fighters in a pitched battle. You could remove both generic Satyr units, both minotaurs, and centaurs archers without having any serious effect on the nation.

Satyr sneaks at least have a strategic use, hoplites have the armour to not be slaughtered by arrows, and revelers go berserk so they can be an effective meat shield. The two generic satyrs have almost no armour, and a morale score of 8 that virtually guarantees that they will run at the first sign of trouble. The minotaurs would be decent if trampling units would also attack smaller units with their weapons, and if they had attack and defense skills at least as good as a normal human. Currently, they are size 3, and meaning that they they don't cause sufficient damage to size 2 troops to be worthwhile. Centaur longbows cost almost three times as much gold as Man's longbows, giving them only a third of the offensive punch. Then there's centaur warriors, which completely overshadow any other Pangaean unit other than the Cataphracts and white centaurs. If given the choice between purchasing one centaur warrior, or four satyrs with javelins and spears, the correct choice is almost always going to be the single centaur warrior.

[Gandalf Parker]

Graeme Dice said:

To be frank Gandalf, people feel that the unarmored versions of units that have the same gold cost as armoured versions are useless because they _are_ useless compared to the other choices.

Thank you Graeme.
You have always been one of my best examples. Lets both hope that neither of us ever have anything to say in the games development.

[calmon]

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.

[Gandalf Parker]

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.

[Teraswaerto]

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.

[B0rsuk]

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.

[Teraswaerto]

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.

[B0rsuk]

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....

[Graeme Dice]

Gandalf Parker said:
You have always been one of my best examples. Lets both hope that neither of us ever have anything to say in the games development.

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.

[Gandalf Parker]

Graeme Dice said:

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.

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.