Nations with weakest troops

[Dedas]

I reacted to labelling them as "worst" as well and can only concur with Baalz. People who build only one type of troop and then scream suck should be locked away with a bunch of markatas. There are several types of infantry with different flaws and strengths, use them together why don't you...
If that isn't enough boost or patch with magic.

[JimMorrison]

Well like was said before, it's hard to classify Caelum as in the bottom of the list, because Mammoths (much better than Elephants) can fuel your entire expansion.

As far as Bandar Log, Bucklers -are- considered a "shield", the 2 Parry may not seem like much vs missiles, but it is still far superior to not having a shield at all.

Ultimately a big problem, looking at the entire range of the "Bandar" nations troops, is the morale on their cheaper units. When you actually go for armored units, they tend to cost more in gold and resources than comparable human units, and overall they have more flaws than strengths.

As far as "good with buffs" goes, well sure. For those nations, generally Barkskin is readily available, but for Bandar Log specifically, you are not soon going to have access to Strength of Giants, without communioning your limited supply of Rishi to do it - and in the Very Hard research scenario the OP wants to play, relying on buffs to make your army more competitive, seems like a silly angle to go on.

I kind of liked the suggestion of playing Caelum or Bandar Log and not using tramplers at all - it seems a bit masochistic, but it sure would handicap you.

[Dedas]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

As far as Bandar Log, Bucklers -are- considered a "shield", the 2 Parry may not seem like much vs missiles, but it is still far superior to not having a shield at all.

Yes, shields parry count double when under missile fire meaning 4.