Useless or redundant units?

[Unwise]

Fire bless doesn't affect missiles....

Well, you learn something new every week or two.

[Endoperez]

The description of "flaming weapons" spesifically mentions "melee attack". Death Weapons don't work on missiles either, but the increased affliction rate does. Flame Arrows work, of course, but Kailasa will have a hard time getting that... It might be worth it, though. They have lots of archers.

[Gandalf Parker]

The idea of redundant or worthless units keeps popping up but there isnt much agreement on what they are. What you think of as worthless might better be phrased as "worthless for the way I play". Check the differences and see if you cant come up with a strategy or tactic which might rely on that difference. Slightly cheaper, or better morale, or different weapon or armor.

[B0rsuk]

Gandalf: for a start, try finding good sides of Light Cavalry. It's a hybrid of light infantry and awful archers, with mapmove 3. You don't pay 25 gold for an awful archer. You don't pay 25 gold for light infantry. There's no synergy between these two. If we exclude mapmove3 (Lion tribe infantry is just as fast!), well... You can probably Have one unit squad of light infantry and one squad of archers for the price, food, and upkeep cost of LC. And before you say LC is more flexible, you can send squad of LI and Archers in two different directions.
What I'd love to see is tactical purpose for Light Cavalry. Giving them stealth or pillage bonus would be nice, but does nothing to adress their battlefield uselessness. With the unrealistic +2 precision I proposed they could at least try fire&retreat, without risk of being engaged in melee. I don't think few volleys of overpriced( = low in numbers) archers would accomplish much, but it would be a good start.
I understand you have much more experience at this game than me. You should be more capable of finding a real use for Light Cavalry than me. I know many spells, nations or units eventually turned out to be quite useful in their niche, but LC is not one of them. If I'm not mistaken, Light Cavalry has consistently very little actual value since Dominions:PPP (which I didn't play).

I was toying with a mod idea. I wanted to implement early Dragoons (soldiers who'd go somewhere mounted, dismount at destination point, and fight as infantry). But I see very little point in that. As far as I know, foot soldiers have no advantages over mounted units in Dominions3. I could give dragoons Tower Shields and heavy infantry armaments, but I'm afraid the battle engine wouldn't benefit from extra mobility, if simple light cavalry can't.
As for dismounting mechanic, I could use shapeshifting.... if only I could attach arbitrary effects like shapeshifting to weapons, and make them shapeshift into footmen upon attacking something...

[Leif_-]

Gandalf Parker said:
The idea of redundant or worthless units keeps popping up but there isnt much agreement on what they are. What you think of as worthless might better be phrased as "worthless for the way I play".

While that's generally true in Dominions, I don't think it holds for mounted archers. Here we don't have a unit or two with some slightly odd stats, but rather we have a class of units that nobody, to my knowledge, has found any real role for.

[Action]

The Tien Chi medium horse archers with

14 prot
11 morale
12 defense
10 str
10 Attack
3/23 move

Light Lance/Hoof/Composite Bow/Buckler
for 35 gp 21 resources

seem like they might be useful, in small numbers anyway. For example, you can place them in front of your normal archers or commanders to protect them from melee a bit, since they will just stay in place and shoot rather than charging forward.

I haven't tried these particular units but the Bakemono Samurai Archers with longbow and no-dashi are nice for that multi purpose role.

I think medium cavalry could be made pretty useful in small numbers if they eliminated the -2 precision penalty.

True light cavalry will probably always be pointless due to the nature of the battle engine. Giving them surival for every terrain and less supply need (small steppe ponies can just graze unlike warhorses) would be a good start though, along with the +2 precision.

[B0rsuk]

Action: you conveniently left out Precision, which is rather important for archers. I can't check it myself with just demo. I'm still at mercy of Tuxgames.

[Action]

B0rsuk said:
Action: you conveniently left out Precision, which is rather important for archers.

Its 8

Sorry, I mentioned they got "-2 precision" a couple times but I didn't mention the exact number, I should have thrown it in.

This precision penalty does not make too much sense since they don't really shoot on the move anyway in this game. I think if they didn't have this penalty medium horse archer cavalry at least would be viable, although that probably wouldn't be enough to make people buy light horse archers.

[Nerfix]

I like the Tien cavalry since they get comp bows, Falchions and lances. All good weapons.

[Epaminondas]

Gandalf Parker said:
The idea of redundant or worthless units keeps popping up but there isnt much agreement on what they are. What you think of as worthless might better be phrased as "worthless for the way I play". Check the differences and see if you cant come up with a strategy or tactic which might rely on that difference. Slightly cheaper, or better morale, or different weapon or armor.

Dear Gandalf Parker,

We have some serious philosophical differences. Taken to extremes, what you seem to be suggesting is that the game is perfectly balanced, and there are no units that are extremely powerful or extremely weak or redundant per cost. Do you really believe this? It would assume that the game designers have infinite resources and infinite powers of judgment. Even game makers with far greater resources tinkering games with far fewer variables and aspects like Blizzard take years to get the balance right.

Of course, but then you may subscribe to Dr. Pangloss's belief that this is the best of all worlds--against which I cannot say much

By the way, regarding your implication/accusation that I am singling out units that do not fit my playing style, well, I tend to be an extreme experimenter. I am not the type of person that finds the "right" tactic and play it to death. So while I can appreciate a specific analysis of where I have gone, to make a quasi-ad hominem argument along the lines of "You are too stupid to have figured out how to use the unit" isn't really helpful for anyone.