What is the Worst Unit?

[SnuggleBunnies]

Remember, none of the army lists have great records.
...
Yes, let's go back to talking about the weak units!

Happy to return to the original topic, but first to be annoying with statistics one last time:

Andalusian (756-1049AD) 156-16-80
Arab Conquest (638-684AD) 150-16-77
Bosporan (11BC-375AD) 83-8-53
Carthaginian, Hannibal in Italy (216-203BC) 135-8-100
Carthaginian, Hannibal in Africa (202BC) 143-14-113
Jewish Revolt (66-135AD) 114-15-68
Scots-Irish (50BC-476AD) 100-14-64

Also a little selective. Yes, Hannibal’s army is a great one. But, some of those armies include units that were later nerfed as I recall. For example, Jewish Revolt and I think Scots Irish. Even the Andalusian and Arab Conquest contain Vet Muslim Spear? This distorts the percentages.

"Remember, none of the army lists have great records." This list was to demonstrate that that is not the case, and if anything it demonstrates my point! You know what armies didn't get a nerf? The Romans! Why? Because the superior legions were not considered overpowered.

[SimonLancaster]

Happy to return to the original topic, but first to be annoying with statistics one last time:

Andalusian (756-1049AD) 156-16-80
Arab Conquest (638-684AD) 150-16-77
Bosporan (11BC-375AD) 83-8-53
Carthaginian, Hannibal in Italy (216-203BC) 135-8-100
Carthaginian, Hannibal in Africa (202BC) 143-14-113
Jewish Revolt (66-135AD) 114-15-68
Scots-Irish (50BC-476AD) 100-14-64

Also a little selective. Yes, Hannibal’s army is a great one. But, some of those armies include units that were later nerfed as I recall. For example, Jewish Revolt and I think Scots Irish. Even the Andalusian and Arab Conquest contain Vet Muslim Spear? This distorts the percentages.

"Remember, none of the army lists have great records." This list was to demonstrate that that is not the case, and if anything it demonstrates my point! You know what armies didn't get a nerf? The Romans! Why? Because the superior legions were not considered overpowered.

Those two Roman lists come in at the top ten of armies in Classical, especially when you take into account the post nerfing. I know it is nuanced but I have always said that the Romans are overpowered but not enough for a change in points.

Also maybe you misunderstood but I am talking about the Classical period - not LA or EMA. Andalusian and Arab lists have far better records than the best Classical armies.

[Geffalrus]

Romans are good to the extent that they rely on impact foot, which is one of the best unit types in the game. They also have some tools available to mitigate their weak points. Various Roman lists get decent access to swarms of light foot to compete in the ranged game and combine with artillery to punish anyone relying on cavalry and elephants. Various Roman lists also get decent medium foot options to at least compete for rough ground depending on the opponent, though heavy impact foot can charge into rough ground surprisingly easily because unlike lancer and pike, impact foot never gets disabled by terrain.

Rome just won't ever be top tier because they don't use large amounts of the best impact foot......cheap impact foot. At 78 points, legions are paying extra for armor and maneuver, which while not useless, make it harder to mass multiple units with that sweet, sweet 250 impact poa. And Mediocre legions are paying extra for armor and maneuver, when they could just be 42 point protected foot like citizen hoplites.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Also maybe you misunderstood but I am talking about the Classical period - not LA or EMA. Andalusian and Arab lists have far better records than the best Classical armies.

I really don't see what you're trying to say here. Here are the Classical Romans:

Roman (340-281BC) 13-0-11
Roman (280-220BC) 10-2-7
Roman (219-200BC) 51-5-54
Roman (199-106BC) 145-25-131
Roman (105-25BC) 169-19-154

The last two have good, but not overwhelmingly good stats. Quite a few Classical era armies have much better records than this, several so much so that they had to be nerfed, which again, Rome never was; in fact it was slightly boosted by having Mediocre Legionaries drop in price.

I would also argue that you cannot prove that those good results are from the OPness of 78pt legions! The 199 list has a slightly better record than the 105 list, and the 199 list has 4 mandatory Hastati/Principes, not mandatory 78pt Veteran Hastati/Principes. Having fielded that army on a number of occasions, I often didn't bother bringing the Vets at all - 61pts for the standard ones was good enough for me, and the points saved allowed me to field a larger and more flexible force.

If you are saying that Classical Roman armies are good - yes, no argument here. If you are saying that those Roman armies are good because 78pt legions/vet hastati are OP - I simply don't think that's true, and in any case it's an argument that cannot be proven one way or another.

I also really don't understand where you're getting the idea that these lists were some of the best Classical lists. Here is a sample of Classical lists with large play samples that have better stats than those two Roman lists:

Ancient British (60BC-80AD) 85-16-76
Antigonid (320-301BC) 81-17-65
Carthaginian (235-146BC) 44-5-23
Carthaginian, Hannibal in Italy (216-203BC) 135-8-100
Carthaginian, Hannibal in Africa (202BC) 143-14-113
Ptolemaic (320-218BC) 35-6-23
Ptolemaic (166-56BC) 56-2-41
Pyrrhic (280-275BC) 80-10-65
Spanish, Sertorius (80-70BC) 91-7-56

So sure. The Romans are in the top ten - but there's plenty of trash lists that nobody playing seriously is going to bring to the field, like Etruscans or Atropatenes etc. So ten out of what? And are they there because of OP expensive units? Or, are they there because they are a flexible list with hard hitting impact foot of varying qualities and costs?

[SnuggleBunnies]

Anyway, returning to the topic at hand I would actually be tempted to place Assyrian Guard Foot in this category. They are a good unit, but they are not good for the price. For 72 points you get Superior, Armored, Maneuverable Heavy Foot Light Spear/Swordsmen. Cool story, but for 78 you can get that except Impact/Sword or Off Spear, both much much better traits.

Playing as Assyrians I generally don't bother fielding these, unless I am facing an army that can get Armored Hoplites. The Assyrian Guards can take on Average Armored Hoplites on even POAs and with better cohesion. It's an incredibly inefficient matchup, wasting 18 points... but, the Assyrian army is otherwise very cost effective and flexible. Heavy Bow chariots can successfully lock and delay an advancing hoplite line, but they can't actually fight it, and they are more vulnerable to pew pew than the Guard Foot. So, a good unit that is bad for the price, but contained in an army that is so good that you can afford to bring them sometimes anyway.

[Geffalrus]

At 72 points you could instead have non-maneuverable superior armored hoplites who dunk on sword units pretty hard.

Now, if a list were able to buy superior armored light spear foot in big amounts, that would be kind of interesting. Preferably without maneuver. That would be a heavy infantry battle line that would be quite sturdy for cost (unless facing falxmen).

[SimonLancaster]

I don't know even what we are talking about any more but I know we both like figures and data. I am sure we are entertaining someone.

Those armies (Ptolemaic, Antigonid, Pyrrhic and Ancient Brit) come to 57%, 50%, 52% and 48% win rate respectively. Apart from the Ptolemaic army the Romans are right there in the mix as one of the best armies in Classical.

Incidentally, I took out the Romans in LA in the Digital League. I forget exactly which list but it was very strong and no enemy infantry could withstand it, especially the warband armies. I finished 2nd in Div B.

With some good tactical play and sneaky tactics you can defeat the Romans, of course. The win rate for their armies is not fantastic just pretty good in the main.

[Telesino]

Part of the discussion was generated by my thoughts about the forum's idea that every low quality unit are better than the higher ones for the cost;
instead, I think that armies based on medium and high quality units or a balanced mix with less lower than higher, is one of the best path to victory.
Anyway, history have many examples: lower quality troops were victorious over higher ones in ambushes or in battles that are great ambushes (the Hannibal campaign, Teotoburg ecc) or with special equipment (pikes) and/or training (although this may led to reconsider the quality) of infantry in late medieval times.

About the Romans: their historical weakness of cavalry was their gripe. I don't know why Hellenistic kingdoms didn't pushed their tactics in that way, like Iranian peoples.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Part of the discussion was generated by my thoughts about the forum's idea that every low quality unit are better than the higher ones for the cost;
instead, I think that armies based on medium and high quality units or a balanced mix with less lower than higher, is one of the best path to victory.

Yes, balanced armies do best, but many of the best armies and nerfed armies had lots of cheaper units. Scots Irish and Romano British were tournament beasts, Raw Shieldwalls had to be nerfed during the Wolves at the Gate beta. Many of the units that had to be boosted were more expensive - knights, Swiss pikes, longbows in Medieval all had cost reductions and/or other improvements, in Ancients cataphracts and armored horse archers.

Carthage has some of the best tournament stats. A balanced force with access to large amounts of 33pt medium foot, a steal. Likewise Jewish Revolt is one of the best tournament lists in the game. Zealots are very good for their moderately high price, and the ranks are filled out with hordes of slingers and irregular foot. There are good tournament lists that rely on somewhat pricier forces, but those tend to either also have access to cheaper supports (Romans, Hellenistic), or have a core of super cost efficient Veteran Muslim Foot (Arab Conquest, Murabit etc).

So, balanced armies with access to lots of cheap/ efficient units if needed have the best tournament record - assuming we're calling Jewish Revolt, a list with no heavy foot and no cavalry 'balanced'!

[Telesino]

I founded that infantry units superior and protected are among the best, so army lists with that kind of unit are generally strong adversaries.

"...many of the best armies and nerfed armies had lots of cheaper units. Scots Irish and Romano British were tournament beasts, Raw Shieldwalls had to be nerfed during the Wolves at the Gate beta."
I know that the fun of players is important, but this is historically accurate, and is coherent with the goal of FOG to be historically accurate?

[Paul59]

I founded that infantry units superior and protected are among the best, so army lists with that kind of unit are generally strong adversaries.

"...many of the best armies and nerfed armies had lots of cheaper units. Scots Irish and Romano British were tournament beasts, Raw Shieldwalls had to be nerfed during the Wolves at the Gate beta."
I know that the fun of players is important, but this is historically accurate, and is coherent with the goal of FOG to be historically accurate?

I would guess that the issue here is that Snugglebunnies and the others are talking about multiplayer performance, whereas you might only play Single Player against the AI?

The AI is not as good at maneuvering units as a half decent human player, and so cannot exploit the tactical opportunities of a large number of cheap units. Therefore against the AI, high cost high performance units (such as Roman Legions, Pikes, Knights etc) are good value, as they can quickly destroy 40% of the AI army. Similarly, the AI can use these high performance units much more effectively than a larger number of cheap units.

[MVP7]

"...many of the best armies and nerfed armies had lots of cheaper units. Scots Irish and Romano British were tournament beasts, Raw Shieldwalls had to be nerfed during the Wolves at the Gate beta."
I know that the fun of players is important, but this is historically accurate, and is coherent with the goal of FOG to be historically accurate?

Majority of balancing has been done without compromising the historical authenticity of the game in any way. The Sub-Roman foot and Raw Shieldwalls were nerfed by changing them from 480 man units to 720 man units. That reduced the number of maneuvering units on the field without warping the overall composition or performance of the army.

[loki100]

....

I would guess that the issue here is that Snugglebunnies and the others are talking about multiplayer performance, whereas you might only play Single Player against the AI?

The AI is not as good at maneuvering units as a half decent human player, and so cannot exploit the tactical opportunities of a large number of cheap units. Therefore against the AI, high cost high performance units (such as Roman Legions, Pikes, Knights etc) are good value, as they can quickly destroy 40% of the AI army. Similarly, the AI can use these high performance units much more effectively than a larger number of cheap units.

Actually the AI handles the various Carthaginian lists well. Accepting this is all relative to competence etc but with a classic pike/legion army they are really hard to beat (using the Rise of the AI mod). I know its long been seen as a good well rounded list but even the early incarnations with the heavy chariots has a nice core of decent enough heavies and the ability to then multiply this via the cheaper MI.

[Paul59]

....

I would guess that the issue here is that Snugglebunnies and the others are talking about multiplayer performance, whereas you might only play Single Player against the AI?

The AI is not as good at maneuvering units as a half decent human player, and so cannot exploit the tactical opportunities of a large number of cheap units. Therefore against the AI, high cost high performance units (such as Roman Legions, Pikes, Knights etc) are good value, as they can quickly destroy 40% of the AI army. Similarly, the AI can use these high performance units much more effectively than a larger number of cheap units.

Actually the AI handles the various Carthaginian lists well. Accepting this is all relative to competence etc but with a classic pike/legion army they are really hard to beat (using the Rise of the AI mod). I know its long been seen as a good well rounded list but even the early incarnations with the heavy chariots has a nice core of decent enough heavies and the ability to then multiply this via the cheaper MI.

I was talking in general terms, not with any specific army in mind. Although looking back at my battles against the Carthaginian AI armies, they don't seem to have done very well against me.

[sIg3b]

Maybe scythe chariots? Kind of a novelty item. I've used them a few times with Persians. Most of the time they didn't do much more than be a distraction, but did really do wonders a time or two rolling up a flank.

I think Scythed Chariots in the game are simply bad. No reason to buy them and if you get them in auto, it´s just bad luck.

They should either inspire a bit more fear imo, or be a bit cheaper.

[Karvon]

I think it really depends on the list and other options. With the Persians, when I went with an almost all mounted army, the chariots were a cheap reserve which worked wonders on flanks of already engaged units. I'd definitely use them again in such cases.

Karvon