What is the Worst Unit?

[SimonLancaster]

Loose Warband. Monstrous in rough terrain. Do you really want to pay 55 for essentially a medium foot unit? Even two units would be 110 pts. I understand they might be okay on rough ground but spear would represent better value and tie you down while the enemy won elsewhere.

I am a bit suspicious. Yes, impact foot but when their main advantage is rough ground I don’t see a lot of upside, overall.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Loose Warband. Monstrous in rough terrain. Do you really want to pay 55 for essentially a medium foot unit? Even two units would be 110 pts. I understand they might be okay on rough ground but spear would represent better value and tie you down while the enemy won elsewhere.

I am a bit suspicious. Yes, impact foot but when their main advantage is rough ground I don’t see a lot of upside, overall.

I don't think they're amazing, but at 55 I would certainly not put them in a worst unit category. They are capable of shattering Thureos and the like almost instantly on impact. Even if the enemy remains steady, their combat strength modifier is helpful, the ability to shrug off missile fire is useful, and pursuit if utilized well is very deadly. I'm not fond of armies that rely on these for the main line, but having a couple is not a bad thing. So DOQ, a few is good, a lot is not so good, which to me exempts it from the 'worst' category.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Warbands

Agreed

Pikes

Agreed again, but yeah at least they're a bit better off than they were

Comitatensis - I do wonder if dart infantry without maneuver and armor would be better?

39pts. But it would hardly be suitable for trained Roman troops to be Unmaneuverable.

Cretan Archers - I actually kinda like them because superior boosts literally everything they can do......but the cost is rough, and as light foot, they are hard countered by a lot of things.

Occasionally worth it yes, the Superior shooting is vicious and the better cohesion tests mean you tend to have to autobreak them to get them to piss off.

Fancy Light Horse - Byzantine Flankers are expensive, but it is funny how little ranged fire does to them. They'd be a lot better in an army that ahem wasn't paying for dart infantry or hybrid lancers.......

At 48 these were one of the worst units, at 44 still not great but situationally useful. Sometimes you just don't have a choice and need to bring light horse anyway, and they are pretty good at what they do... I'd still just rather put the points elsewhere if I'm not fighting cav heavy armies that require me to bring my own light horse. I think the Fierce types are often well worth it, as they don't pay for armor.

[SimonLancaster]

I don’t have my gaming laptop with me so I can’t test Loose Warband v Thureos. But, in my tests previously with impact foot it worked out at about 1 in 4 chance to disrupt an enemy unit on impact. In pure poker terms that doesn’t represent great odds especially when this is their main strength. Yes, casualties could sometimes be 40-50 which would be significant.

Even then, we are talking specifically about Loose Warband fighting on a patch of rough ground. Things would change off it..

[SnuggleBunnies]

I don’t have my gaming laptop with me so I can’t test Loose Warband v Thureos. But, in my tests previously with impact foot it worked out at about 1 in 4 chance to disrupt an enemy unit on impact. In pure poker terms that doesn’t represent great odds especially when this is their main strength. Yes, casualties could sometimes be 40-50 which would be significant.

Even then, we are talking specifically about Loose Warband fighting on a patch of rough ground. Things would change off it..

Rough vs Open makes no difference for the fight vs Thureos at least. And in Marsh and Forest the Warband would be advantaged, as the Thureos would lose their sword canceling ability.

Just ran two 10v10 tests, one in which the warband attacked first, one in which the thureos attacked first.

In warband attack, the warbands won 9-1.
In thureos attacked, the warbands won 7-3.

Notably in both cases, the warbands that won won much faster than the thureos that won. An important consideration for maintaining momentum, putting pressure elsewhere, etc etc in a real match!

[MVP7]

I still think that Medium Foot is generally underestimated or at least constantly viewed in the context where they are at their weakest.

A medium foot unit fighting heavy foot in open terrain is at a statistical disadvantage where the medium foot army will average towards breaking before the heavy foot, there is no POA difference. A heavy foot fighting medium foot in the rough (or worse) terrain will get absolutely slaughtered without mercy even if they are far more expensive.

Sure, the medium foot is at a disadvantage if it's forced to fight in the open but the only reason why you'll ever offer that opportunity to your opponent is because the heavy/cavalry army refuses to commit a suicide while your medium army will only be at a moderate disadvantage fighting in their territory.

I consider loose Warbands and Auxilia Palatina some of the finest units in the game because they are unbeatable in bad terrain and can still do just fine in the open.

[MVP7]

Notably in both cases, the warbands that won won much faster than the thureos that won. An important consideration for maintaining momentum, putting pressure elsewhere, etc etc in a real match!

This is an extremely important and often overlooked factor in any unit comparison.

A great example of this is comparing Veteran Hastati/Principes to Veteran African Spearmen. They cost the same and if you put them into 1v1 fights the wins/losses are almost 50/50. However, if you actually look at how it happens, the Romans that win will usually do so very quickly and get out of the combat with few losses and are ready to rejoin the fighting. The Carhaginians that win usually do so slowly are severely depleted from the melee. The same applies to Pike Phalanxes when you match them with Romans.

[SnuggleBunnies]

This is an extremely important and often overlooked factor in any unit comparison.

Absolutely, and so many times people ask 'will x unit defeat y unit?' And while adding onto that 'how long' is vital, it's not even necessarily the right question to ask.

It's more along the lines of, how does this unit allow me to maximize the areas that I have a points/pressure advantage that my opponent cannot answer? This can work even with units that you lose. For example - if your 24pt speedbump trash unit gets murdered by elephants, *but* you positioned them in such a way that the elephants spend 2 turns pursuing them, and then need an additional 3 turns to turn around and then get back to the fight... who really won that exchange? The side that got 4 rout % out of it? Or the side that gained a 36pt advantage to use elsewhere, potentially on a more critical part of the field? Lose that speedbump too early of course and you accomplish nothing. Lose it at the climax of the battle, and those 36 additional points may mean being able to extend and outflank in just the right place, or have a massed bow getting that volley you need to inflict a disruption, or have a really high quality unit matched against some trash in the center etc. etc.

[Geffalrus]

Excellent points MVP7 and Snuggles!

An extra item of consideration for loose warbands is that in their intended place of fighting, they're not dealing with the +1 cohesion bonus that close order warbands have to face. A loose warband attacking a thureo is more likely to disrupt cohesion on impact than a close order warband attacking a hoplite. Cohesion bonuses are great, but they only come into play if you lose the combat. This is what makes the impact foot synergy so good, and what makes lancers weirdly defensive; impact foot combine the penalty with a POA value that few units can match cost for cost, while lancers get their best POA value when - they - are charged by - other - units. Yeah, lancers crush massed archers and other weak units, but impact foot and spears mitigate the lancer POA advantage so long as they aren't the one attacking. Anyway, that was a bit of a tangent......I guess my main point is that Impact Foot is just such good value that it's hard for any unit that has it to be all that bad. For Iehovah's sake (J is I in the Latin - Sean Connery) just look at how much trouble Jewish Zealots used to cause.

All this talk of Thureos, and we forgot to talk about.......

Thorakitai - Thureos with armor should be good, but armor costs money and does nothing to solve their problems with impact. Yes, they will kill impact foot quicker in melee, but all it takes is one bad impact and all that armor is wasted. And even worse, above average Thracian Rhomphaia units are running around now. At least Thorakitai do a bit better when enemy skirms pew pew them.

As far as fancy light horse is concerned, what are people's thoughts on the Lithuanian/Wallachian variety? Personally I find them pretty good as they can reliably bully most other light horse out there, but that comes at a cost......

[SimonLancaster]

Yes, but the argument of holding up things with cheapish units doesn't really go well with Warbands that cost 55 pts.

Plus if you want to talk about pikes or legionaries that cost more then it is going to be difficult to get them to fight on rough ground unless the map is very favourable for you.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Yes, but the argument of holding up things with cheapish units doesn't really go well with Warbands that cost 55 pts.

Plus if you want to talk about pikes or legionaries that cost more then it is going to be difficult to get them to fight on rough ground unless the map is very favourable for you.

No, but what does hold up is that the warbands generally beat thureos and do so rapidly, and when the thureos win the match up it's a slow grind.

Agreed that pikes and legions are unlikely to just charge MF in rough - but if you can position so that they have to move away very slowly, or be unable to attack a whole side of the line etc etc., even with no fighting done you are profiting in terms of points invested.

[MVP7]

Comitatensis - I do wonder if dart infantry without maneuver and armor would be better?

39pts. But it would hardly be suitable for trained Roman troops to be Unmaneuverable.

Darts could be an interesting weapon for Limitanei or Pseudocomitatenses though. As far as I know, there isn't any historical reason for them not to have darts.

[kronenblatt]

One disadvantage with Warbands (whether Close or Loose Order) as I see it, is their inclination to pursue after having routed an enemy, often exposing themselves to flank attacks when leaving the (hopefully straight) battle line.

Is that priced/discounted into their cost, and if yes by how much?

[markleslie]

One disadvantage with Warbands (whether Close or Loose Order) as I see it, is their inclination to pursue after having routed an enemy, often exposing themselves to flank attacks when leaving the (hopefully straight) battle line.

Surely not a disadvantage but a "feature", pursuits are the comic relief of FOG II. No doubt we've all had a laugh at the various hijinxs pursuers get up to or the pickles they find themselves in.

https://youtu.be/MK6TXMsvgQg

[kronenblatt]

One disadvantage with Warbands (whether Close or Loose Order) as I see it, is their inclination to pursue after having routed an enemy, often exposing themselves to flank attacks when leaving the (hopefully straight) battle line.

Surely not a disadvantage but a "feature", pursuits are the comic relief of FOG II. No doubt we've all had a laugh at the various hijinxs pursuers get up to or the pickles they find themselves in.

https://youtu.be/MK6TXMsvgQg

Ha ha! Depends on whether you’re at the giving or receiving end, I guess. Laughing, crying, or cursing…

[MVP7]

In my experience the pursuits are rarely that bad with FoG2 changes that prevent some of the worst pursuing idiocy. I also constantly set up situations where break and pursuit will hopefully lead to flanking attacks or at very least to the pursuer charging in to a new fight without wasting a turn.

Of course the pursuits are less useful when they just happen straight through a frontline but I'd still rather take most of my non-raw units with pursuit than without.

[Lennard]

I think the worst units in FoG 2, which - as far as I'm aware - hasn't been brought up in this thread are "Poorly-armed Slaves". Imo they're good at nothing.

[loki100]

cheap, great for flank attacks or to act as a screen?

[oscarius]

As far as fancy light horse is concerned, what are people's thoughts on the Lithuanian/Wallachian variety? Personally I find them pretty good as they can reliably bully most other light horse out there, but that comes at a cost......

I like them. Nomad/Turcoman Light Horse (average/bowmen/swordsmen/unprotected 32 points) + 2 points for additional 100% light spear capability. A lot worse ways to spend two points in this game (indeed you often spend more than this for units that aren't necessarily a strict upgrade over your cheaper guys). Will smoke just about any other light unit in open terrain melee. Only the Balkan Lancers or Turcopole Skirmishers (who are the same but 38 points in exchange for Protected) will give them trouble.

If the map's right for them it's pretty rare that I regret investing in a decent amount of light horse. There's always something useful for them to do (shooting, running down light foot, charging massed bowmen*, running down artillery crews, parking them to prevent fall-backs when setting up flanking, running down any enemy rallied routers, screening knights from ranged fire) at every stage of the battle.

*what they are pretty dangerous at head-on and very dangerous if flanking

[Cherebuschka]

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.