What is the Worst Unit?

Field of Glory II is a turn-based tactical game set during the Rise of Rome from 280 BC to 25 BC.
Rosedelio
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 395
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2020 4:54 am

Re: What is the Worst Unit?

Post by Rosedelio »

Cherebuschka wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 12:15 pm Surprisingly no mention of the genoese oarsmen ?
medium foot of average quality and lightly protected isn't rare but they are only 67% swordsmen. They struggle against crossbow and longbowmen in melee. Redeeming factor their 25 points cost and in a period where heavy infantry is the norm, they can lock some rough ground.
The Oarsmen are pretty decent when it comes to holding difficult terrain. They're a good compromise between cost and combat capabilities. It is a situational use for them though.
Touhou mod for FOGII: Medieval: https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=111582
My FOGII and FOGII Medieval focused channel: https://www.youtube.com/@Rosedelio
MVP7
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: What is the Worst Unit?

Post by MVP7 »

Rosedelio wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:54 pm
Cherebuschka wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 12:15 pm Surprisingly no mention of the genoese oarsmen ?
medium foot of average quality and lightly protected isn't rare but they are only 67% swordsmen. They struggle against crossbow and longbowmen in melee. Redeeming factor their 25 points cost and in a period where heavy infantry is the norm, they can lock some rough ground.
The Oarsmen are pretty decent when it comes to holding difficult terrain. They're a good compromise between cost and combat capabilities. It is a situational use for them though.
They are too cheap to be bad. There's intrinsic value to each maneuvering (especially non-light) unit that isn't really taken into account with the unit costing. Oarsmen are extremely cheap, maneuverable, medium foot (i.e. they will defeat heavy units twice their cost in the rough or worse terrain), they are average quality at the typical price range of raw units, and their normal size means they aren't a disproportionate rout-percentage pinatas like many other pocket change units. It really isn't an issue that they struggle with Crossbowmen or Longbowmen either, when you can have about two units of Oarsmen for every one of them.
Telesino
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2023 8:00 am

Re: What is the Worst Unit?

Post by Telesino »

Saka foot of Achemenid lists in TT mod are surely one of the worst unit: basically a sub Sparabara kind of infantry but with a lack of cohesion that makes this unity the worst combination of acrhers and rabble.
Paul59
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3803
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:26 pm

Re: What is the Worst Unit?

Post by Paul59 »

Telesino wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 8:06 am Saka foot of Achemenid lists in TT mod are surely one of the worst unit: basically a sub Sparabara kind of infantry but with a lack of cohesion that makes this unity the worst combination of acrhers and rabble.
I disagree with that. They cost 4 points less than an Average massed bowmen unit(!!!!), and because of their light spears they don't suffer the close range shooting malus. So well worth the slight drop in quality in my opinion.
Field of Glory II Scenario Designer - Age of Belisarius, Rise of Persia, Wolves at the Gate and Swifter than Eagles.

Field of Glory II Medieval Scenario Designer.

FOGII TT Mod Creator

Warhammer 40,000: Sanctus Reach Tournament Scenario Designer.
Telesino
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2023 8:00 am

Re: What is the Worst Unit?

Post by Telesino »

Paul59 wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 10:06 am
Telesino wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 8:06 am Saka foot of Achemenid lists in TT mod are surely one of the worst unit: basically a sub Sparabara kind of infantry but with a lack of cohesion that makes this unity the worst combination of acrhers and rabble.
I disagree with that. They cost 4 points less than an Average massed bowmen unit(!!!!), and because of their light spears they don't suffer the close range shooting malus. So well worth the slight drop in quality in my opinion.
Maybe 1vs1 it's wright;
but in the major part of battles, we see front lines. And if they're under fire of multiple enmy units, in 2-3 turns i've seen them run away or disband, and in melee they need help from the flanks.

I see in this forum that the cost of unit is considered the first among parameters to value a purchase.
So an army of Limitanei, Raw shieldwall, Syrian lancers, light javaliners, early cavalry might be an army of 40000 men against a normal size of 13-16000, in theory is great. But I think it couldn't work very well.
Ray552
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2020 4:51 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

Re: What is the Worst Unit?

Post by Ray552 »

Telesino wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:29 pm
...So an army of Limitanei, Raw shieldwall, Syrian lancers, light javaliners, early cavalry might be an army of 40000 men...
With apologies to Slim Pickens' character (Major "King" Kong) in the movie Dr. Strangelove:

“Shoot, a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.”

[Edit] I guess the only way to form that army would be in the game editor?
Telesino
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2023 8:00 am

Re: What is the Worst Unit?

Post by Telesino »

With apologies to Slim Pickens' character (Major "King" Kong) in the movie Dr. Strangelove:

“Shoot, a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.”

[Edit] I guess the only way to form that army would be in the game editor?
[/quote]

Great quote!

Yes it is.
MVP7
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: What is the Worst Unit?

Post by MVP7 »

Telesino wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:29 pm I see in this forum that the cost of unit is considered the first among parameters to value a purchase.
You don't say?
So an army of Limitanei, Raw shieldwall, Syrian lancers, light javaliners, early cavalry might be an army of 40000 men against a normal size of 13-16000, in theory is great. But I think it couldn't work very well.
That's an oversimplification, although some of the most overpowered army lists in tournaments have been based heavily on large numbers of cheap units which have been subsequently nerfed. Here are some army list statistics from tournaments.

Pre-nerf Kingdom of Soissons and Romano-British lists are some of spammiest examples. Indian, Irish and Jewish revolt lists had issues with affordable units with powerful capabilities that could be fielded in large number. Quality-wise well rounded lists like Carthage tend to perform quite well, while expensive lists with little to no cheap units to bulk up their numbers tend to underperform.

Over the whole history of FoG2 and FoG2 Medieval, I can't think of a single occasion where expensive units would have presented a balance problem by being overpowered. Cheap units like sub-roman foot, raw shieldwalls, Indian cavalry etc on the other hand have required various nerfs on multiple occasions. Usually the problem hasn't been the unit itself being underpriced but rather the sheer number of units that can be purchased at that cost in some list(s).

Flank charges ignore quality both ways so having more maneuvering units than the opponent is very powerful (the number of men itself is pretty meaningless value). In balanced lists the value of cheap units isn't in having just cheap units in the army. It's in having enough cheap units available so you can at least match the opponents front while still being able to have flankers, reserves and some higher quality forces in play.
Telesino
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2023 8:00 am

Re: What is the Worst Unit?

Post by Telesino »

I'm impressed: your position (enough cheap units to have flankers, reserves and elite troops) is structured and interesting, but my experience is different in 2 ways.
I used armies focused on buying only expensive units and the result is 1 loss, 1 draw 3 wins every 5 simulations.
Impressive, the opposite of the forum's general view, but the 2nd approach is even more different:
armies based on a huge investment on units (Sparabara, heavy Assyrian infantry, Pavisiers, Scandinavian foot, nomad archers etc) with an equilibrium between costs, quality and capabilities. The results ar even more impressive, so:
why an equilibrated approach is absolutely rejected for "the more raw+some others"?
A plurality of views and practices, if presented in good faith and coherence are better than 1 or 2.
SimonLancaster
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the Worst Unit?

Post by SimonLancaster »

I think it is slightly exaggerated to say that expensive units have never presented balance problems by being overpowered in Ancients or Medieval. Perhaps not overpowered to a large degree but certainly an advantage in many situations. For me, what comes to mind are Roman Legionnaires in Ancients and Dismounted Knights in the early versions of Medieval for German Imperial.

The Romans often smash through infantry units and disrupt pikes on impact. Their quality leads them to hold under extreme pressure. Dismounted Knights were pretty unstoppable and deadly. Players did adapt to playing the Romans and used their extra numbers and cavalry when they could. In Medieval, more lists got Dismounted Knights and more cavalry appeared on the battlefield, etc.
YouTube channel for Field of Glory 2: Ancients and Medieval.

https://www.youtube.com/@simonlancaster1815
SnuggleBunnies
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:09 am

Re: What is the Worst Unit?

Post by SnuggleBunnies »

SimonLancaster wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 12:18 pm I think it is slightly exaggerated to say that expensive units have never presented balance problems by being overpowered in Ancients or Medieval. Perhaps not overpowered to a large degree but certainly an advantage in many situations. For me, what comes to mind are Roman Legionnaires in Ancients and Dismounted Knights in the early versions of Medieval for German Imperial.

The Romans often smash through infantry units and disrupt pikes on impact. Their quality leads them to hold under extreme pressure. Dismounted Knights were pretty unstoppable and deadly. Players did adapt to playing the Romans and used their extra numbers and cavalry when they could. In Medieval, more lists got Dismounted Knights and more cavalry appeared on the battlefield, etc.
I don't think it is exaggerated? Neither of those units was unbalanced enough to prompt price increases or list revisions, unlike the spam armies MVP7 mentioned. Legionaries are hideously expensive, so your line can be outflanked, and they can be slowed by cheaper lancers. DMAA are very good, but have you tried just spamming them in MP against someone good? It doesn't go well. These are IMO simply very good units that are generally worth their cost, but you don't want too many.
SnuggleBunny's Field of Glory II / Medieval / Pike and Shot / Sengoku Jidai MP Channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjUQy6dEqR53NwoGgjxixLg
SimonLancaster
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the Worst Unit?

Post by SimonLancaster »

The Roman Legionaries are 78 and pikes are 72 so I don’t think for a superior quality impact foot unit they are hideously overpriced. I am not saying there is a huge balance issue but if you look at the statistics the Roman armies usually are close to the top of the pile in the leagues. I wouldn’t change their price, though.

With the Dismounted Knights/MMA you don’t need many to do damage. A lot of players took 2-3 units and that was enough to punch big holes in the enemy line, especially when they were often fighting Def Spear and sometimes Arm Spear.
YouTube channel for Field of Glory 2: Ancients and Medieval.

https://www.youtube.com/@simonlancaster1815
SnuggleBunnies
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:09 am

Re: What is the Worst Unit?

Post by SnuggleBunnies »

SimonLancaster wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 1:42 pm The Roman Legionaries are 78 and pikes are 72 so I don’t think for a superior quality impact foot unit they are hideously overpriced. I am not saying there is a huge balance issue but if you look at the statistics the Roman armies usually are close to the top of the pile in the leagues. I wouldn’t change their price, though.

With the Dismounted Knights/MMA you don’t need many to do damage. A lot of players took 2-3 units and that was enough to punch big holes in the enemy line, especially when they were often fighting Def Spear and sometimes Arm Spear.
Romans were quite middling in the FoG2 Digital League. Anyway what you are saying isn't very different from what I am saying. You don't need many to do damage - correct, they are not underpowered. You also don't want too many. Thus they are neither the worst units, the topic of the thread, nor are they so OP that they required patches to nerf them - unlike light spear/sword spam armies in certain eras, or raw spears in early middle ages, Veteran Muslim Spearmen, etc etc.
SnuggleBunny's Field of Glory II / Medieval / Pike and Shot / Sengoku Jidai MP Channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjUQy6dEqR53NwoGgjxixLg
SimonLancaster
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the Worst Unit?

Post by SimonLancaster »

From what I remember the Roman armies often finished first and second in the Digital League. This was especially true in the lower divisions. In Medieval, armies are more balanced now with the later DLCs.

Yes, the Veteran Spear is a good example of a unit that did need to be repriced.
YouTube channel for Field of Glory 2: Ancients and Medieval.

https://www.youtube.com/@simonlancaster1815
SnuggleBunnies
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:09 am

Re: What is the Worst Unit?

Post by SnuggleBunnies »

SimonLancaster wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 4:13 pm From what I remember the Roman armies often finished first and second in the Digital League. This was especially true in the lower divisions.
Even if this were true, it would simply be an indication that Roman armies were easier for new players to use/harder for new players to fight because they hadn't yet learned the game more thoroughly, not that Legionary units were somehow too strong. However, it is not true. Here are the final 12 season army stats:

Roman (490-341BC) 25-7-22
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
Roman (24 BC-196 AD) 69-15-87
Roman (197-284AD) 69-11-95
Roman (285-312AD) 30-6-54
Roman (313-378AD) 45-11-45
Roman (379-424AD) 48-8-52
Roman (425-492AD) 40-2-42

Note that the two army lists covering 24BC-284AD, the ones with the highest required proportion of expensive superior legions, actually have rather bad records. The best is 105-25BC, which sure, has access to lots of superior legions, but also other, cheaper infantry units. So I rest my case that these units did not and do not present balance problems.
SnuggleBunny's Field of Glory II / Medieval / Pike and Shot / Sengoku Jidai MP Channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjUQy6dEqR53NwoGgjxixLg
SimonLancaster
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the Worst Unit?

Post by SimonLancaster »

Remember, none of the army lists have great records. The top armies were on around 50%-55%, actually. Roman 105 BC and 199 BC are on 49% and 48% (for wins) respectively. They were the most popular lists for a reason.

In a nutshell, I do think Roman Legionaries are overpowered but not enough to warrant a change in cost. Historically, they were tough and that is fine.

Yes, let's go back to talking about the weak units!
YouTube channel for Field of Glory 2: Ancients and Medieval.

https://www.youtube.com/@simonlancaster1815
SnuggleBunnies
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:09 am

Re: What is the Worst Unit?

Post by SnuggleBunnies »

SimonLancaster wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:05 pm 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
SnuggleBunny's Field of Glory II / Medieval / Pike and Shot / Sengoku Jidai MP Channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjUQy6dEqR53NwoGgjxixLg
MVP7
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: What is the Worst Unit?

Post by MVP7 »

SnuggleBunnies wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:28 pm
SimonLancaster wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:05 pm 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
And the lists that resulted in wider nerfs generally had even more lopsided win rates:

Indian (500BC-319AD, pre-nerf, Season 1) 71-1-22
Indo-Greek (175BC-10AD, pre-nerf, Season 1) 44-0-16
Kingdom of Soissons (461-486AD, pre-nerf, Seasons 1-7) 84-10-42
Romano-British (407-599AD, pre-nerf, Seasons 1-7) 103-12-40
tyronec
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2014 11:09 am

Re: What is the Worst Unit?

Post by tyronec »

Even if this were true, it would simply be an indication that Roman armies were easier for new players to use/harder for new players to fight because they hadn't yet learned the game more thoroughly, not that Legionary units were somehow too strong. However, it is not true. Here are the final 12 season army stats:

Roman (490-341BC) 25-7-22
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
Roman (24 BC-196 AD) 69-15-87
Roman (197-284AD) 69-11-95
Roman (285-312AD) 30-6-54
Roman (313-378AD) 45-11-45
Roman (379-424AD) 48-8-52
Roman (425-492AD) 40-2-42

Note that the two army lists covering 24BC-284AD, the ones with the highest required proportion of expensive superior legions, actually have rather bad records. The best is 105-25BC, which sure, has access to lots of superior legions, but also other, cheaper infantry units. So I rest my case that these units did not and do not present balance problems.
There is another explanation for these results.
These are DL results and the BC armies are playing in the Classical Antiquity period against other good infantry armies and the Roman heavy infantry does respectably well.
The early AD armies are playing in Late Antiquity against a lot of cavalry armies (many of them a couple of hundred years later than the Roman army) and at least most opponents will have some good lancers. Heavy impact foot are not the best for this match up hence the mediocre results.
The late Roman armies are better organised for fighting cavalry in this period, they have a wide mix of both infantry and cavalry and so do fine.
My conclusion would be the same, the superior armored impact legions are costed just fine.
SimonLancaster
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the Worst Unit?

Post by SimonLancaster »

SnuggleBunnies wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:28 pm
SimonLancaster wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:05 pm 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.
YouTube channel for Field of Glory 2: Ancients and Medieval.

https://www.youtube.com/@simonlancaster1815
Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II”