Useless or redundant units?

[Epaminondas]

Hi, first time poster--so please be kind! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Anyways, I have been playing the demo for a while now, and I am wondering why there are so many seemingly useless and redundant units. By "useless," I mean those units are so awful that you would hardly use them unless they are free; by "redundant," I mean those units that are not awful but whose roles are better served by other units.

Here are some examples of such units, and I am wondering if people agree with me or whether I am not using them properly. Further, I would welcome if people can suggest other units that may fall into this category--as I have only thus far played those nations that are unlocked for the Demo.

Let me begin with the two nations that I play most: Arcos and Kaliasa.

Arcos:

*Icaryds: What is the purpose of this unit? Given that Arcos lacks reliable missile troops, I can see why a flyer could help in the missile troops/mage suppression department in the early game. But we have two problems. First, Arcos does have a wonderful--if over-priced--flyer in the Wind Rider. Second, even considering that the Wind Rider is over-priced and cannot always be massed, the Icaryds are inadequate for the job. They have poor attack skills so they won't be able to kill much, and they have low protection (for Arcos), so they can't tie down enemy missile troops/mages either. Against a decent-sized army, they last basically one or two rounds, do very little damage, and then are obliterated. I suppose you can say they work as cannon fooder, but they are too expensive at 18g for that role as well. So what's up with these guys?

*Chariot/Chariot Archer: It isn't that these guys are horrible; they are subpar but serviceable. It's just that I don't see these guys doing anything that the Wind Riders cannot do and do it better. The basic problem is this: If you have a very powerful flying cavalry, why do you need a lesser cavalry? I do concede, however, that in later turns where cash is overflowing and you've maxed out your Wind Rider production, you could use these guys. But when you reach that point, wouldn't an HP 10 cavalry that is not a flier be obsolete anyways?

Kaliasa

*Markata Archer: These guys are absolutely the worst units I've tried to use. As with most super-cheap troops, they die fast. These guys are cannon fodder par excellence. The problem is, missile troops are not supposed to be cannon fodder. Or at least they should be able to fire at least one volley. But they often cannot even do that, because their small bow (the epitome of sucky weaponage) won't let them get off a volley, even when you stick them at the front of the tactical battle map.

I also feel the same about the Markatas. 5 HP melee-are you kidding me? I appreciate the need for cannon fodder, but 5 HPs with no protection is too little even for cannon fodder.

*Guhyaka/Yavana: I feel the sacred melees of Kaliasa utterly useless. The problem is their near-nakedness, their protection 1 armor or non-armor. Should 35g-40g sacred infantries be this vulnerable? Other than the fact that they are blessable, their basic melee stats are only marginally better than the considerably cheaper Bandar Swordsmen, other than the plus 5 HP and plus 1/4 Def (which is balanced out somewhat by the plus 9 protection the Bandar Swordsman enjoy).

Now possible solutions?

I don't see how the Icaryds can be improved without buffing them to the point where they become indistinguishable from the Wind Riders, minus the pegasi. Perhaps less is better in this case, and the unit should never have been conceived.

The Chariots need to be slightly buffed. How about adding about 3 HPs to account for the horses? As a related matter, I think all cavalry should receive such HP boost--which is consistent with the trend in other games where cavalry usually has more HPs than infantry.

As for the Markatas and Markata Archers, again, they are just too pathetic. Why not remove them altogether? The Atavis are comparable to the cannon fodder units of other nations.

Finally, the Yavana melees can easily be balanced by giving them *some* armor. I know it's hot on Kaliasa but even Indians (whom the nation is based, it seems) armor! Why not give them at least a leather equivalent?

I'd like to hear other people's thoughts, and please be gentle to a newb





http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Quietly]

well, for arcosphale:
I do buy icaryds, because I use a mass pegasus strategy

pegasus knights are size 4, so only 1 fits in a square... however, a size 2 icaryd can fit in along side them, so after I have a surplus of money, or a screenfull of pegasus knights, I add icaryds, slightly more than 1:1 ratio of icaryd to pegasus, increases their damage output significantly, and dramatically reduces the amount they are outnumbered by, since you have 2 targets per combat square instead of one.

chariots trample, and presumably have a place when facing a mass of little infantry... sure the pegasus knights fight better one on one, but the chariots will clear people out a lot faster trampling all over them. I do think the chariot archers kinda are rather pointless =p

[st.patrik]

I don't have answers for many of your points, but I think you're wrong about the Yavanas of Kailasa. With the right blessing these guys mop up in melee. The trick is just getting them into melee, which can be accomplished a few different ways, such as by having a screen of markatas in small groups out in front, and/or armoured Bandar warriors (which deal with arrows much better).

Try a water 9 blessing and screens of weaker troops to draw fire, and you'll be impressed with what the Yavanas can accomplish.

[quantum_mechani]

There are actually a lot of very redundant or useless units in dominions, however most of the ones you mention are not.

Icarids are indeed rather difficult to find a niche for, even with modding. Chariots are not really redundant with wind riders, but they are little overpriced.

Markatas are servicable for taking lance hits/decoying, and the archers are usable with flaming arrows.

The Kailasa sacreds are actually very good, so long as you protect them from archers with some air on your bless, or just lots of decoying.

[Talleyrand]

I will go through and try to find it but I remember one faction in the Early Age having two units that were exactly alike, down to their looks, costs, stats, and equipment pieces. It must have been a mistake to include them both.

[quantum_mechani]

Talleyrand said:
I will go through and try to find it but I remember one faction in the Early Age having two units that were exactly alike, down to their looks, costs, stats, and equipment pieces. It must have been a mistake to include them both.

Probabaly Helhiem's two Helhirdlings, the noncapital only one is indeed a mistake.

[Talleyrand]

Aye, I just checked. You're right.

[Nerfix]

Kailasas sacreds get Awe which is better than armor, and they have high Def from what I remember. And they can get blessed for even higher def or Air shield.

[Twan]

Chariots trample and cost 3 times less gold than wind riders, so I don't see them as useless. Chariots will be used with "attack rear" to kill indep infantry since the first turns, 125g wind riders will be made later in the game and used with "attack archers" it's not exactly the same thing. Icarids may complete a wind rider group (as you need more than 4 units to avoid too frequent morale checks it's good to have some cheaper flying units to add when you start to use the very expensive wind riders). Chariot archers are the only archers of Arcocephale, but too expensive I agree.

Markatas are size 1 when the good melee troops (bandars) are size 3. As each attack gives -2 to defense even if they miss, using markatas in addition to bandars isn't a bad idea. And if you can BE or luck them markatas may become really annoying as your ennemies will waste 2 or 3 attacks to kill totally expandable units.
The only thing not to make with markatas IMO is to use them as arrow catchers. A single arrow will kill one in most cases, they make the ennemies waste far more damage if they reach melee.

Markatas archers... hum... ok nothing to do with them, except to hope they will be targeted by "attack archers" instead of your longbow squad.

PS : the cruel thing for bandar nations is to start with markata archers instead of real ones. They make the starting army not usable before turn 3 (or even 4 if you have a big sloth scale) when most other nations may take a province in turn 2. I'd like to see a pack of atavi or vanaras archers instead.

[Leif_-]

Twan said:
Chariot archers are the only archers of Arcocephale, but too expensive I agree.



Something they share with pretty much all cavalry with bows. The lack of a "skirmish" command pretty much means that infantry archers are always going to be better value than their cavalry counterparts.

[Unwise]

Most of the points I would have made have been made above, but I'll add a few minor ones:

Flying units are not necessarily only used in combat. They patrol much more efficiently than their earth-bound counterparts, they siege more efficiently, and they can be used in raiding parties to strike behind the enemy lines, taking out the comparatively easy provincial defense instead of the main-line armies.

Sacred troops are priced according to their potential effectiveness, not their unblessed stats. As someone above noted, an air blessing on the Guhyaka/Yavana can get them through the rain of arrows to combat where their reasonable defense skill (often much better than protection, especially if you are outnumbered), Awe (!), and high strength can make them effective. There is also the Yavana archer, the only long bow recruitable in the early era as far as I know, with an incredible precision of 12 -- give them a fire-9 bless and you have an astounding artillery capability. Finally, the Guhyaka is recruitable anywhere, not just in the capital, which makes fielding massive, blessed armies possible... and this should also be factored into their cost.

[Nerfix]

*ahem* Fire bless doesn't affect missiles....

...but Quickness does allow them to shoot about twice in a round, and the +affliction chance of death bless affects missiles also.

Flying units, those with superhuman stats excluded, need microing to be effective.

[Endoperez]

Fire 9 doesn't affect missiles. Water 9 and Quickness does, though, and as even Yavana Archers have Awe and decent defense, they have some survivability in melee, and their high strength offsets their low-damage attacks.

Death 9 is also interesting in that the 350% affliction chance also works for missiles.

Kailasa can also summon better sacred units later. Gandharvas are armored. The unarmored ones are still a nice addition to those forces.

[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.

[Evil Dave]

Leif_- said:
The lack of a "skirmish" command pretty much means that infantry archers are always going to be better value than their cavalry counterparts.



Yup. Also, Dominions assigns the other traditional light cavalry roles -- scouting and raiding -- to other units, but leaves the traditional high cost of horses.

[B0rsuk]

Let's just make a mod to remove all light cavalry, perhaps excluding ones with light lances. Would anyone cry ?
Some of them are even available only via magic sites ! Horse brother - wow !

[Endoperez]

B0rsuk said:
Let's just make a mod to remove all light cavalry, perhaps excluding ones with light lances. Would anyone cry ?



Impossible without deleting poptypes. Or replacing LC units with other units. Which would be hard, because the same LC types are found from different poptypes. About the only thing you could do would be to #copystats and #copyspr an archer or something to their place. In which case, there wouldn't be anyone crying. However, I'd rather buy Light Cavalry than have no archers.

Two suggestions, which probably wouldn't work:
Give all LC Stealth 0. Evil Dave mentioned that Light Cavalry aren't raiders. They could be.

Give LC better capabilities in moving across the strategic map. Mapmove 4 and/or all terrain survivals, or something similar.

[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.

[Nerfix]

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

[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.

[Quietly]

honestly, given their stationary nature, they should have a precision bonus if anything, as they have a better view/evation relative to their targets than regular ground archers

concievably they exist for fire and flee, but they are just too expensive... the chariot archers are more rediculous than the standard ones =/

[Sir_Dr_D]

When a chariot archer is killed, then it becomes anormal chariot and tries to trample the opponents, doesn't it? At least that is what the description makes it sound like. If that is the case they could be used defensively. Give them a command to just fire, then should infanrtry approach and kill an archer,t he chariot will then trample the attackers. It could be worth experimenting with.

But to make it worth the cost the chariot should have two archers in it.

[Teraswaerto]

I think chariot archers on "hold and attack" will first stay put firing a bit and then charge the enemy for some trample action. If so, they are not useless at all.

[Saxon]

The cheap monkey archers,the Markata, mass very nicely. Line them up against lightly protected troops and the volume of fire adds up. This can be useful for a quick start if you have milita in the provices next to your capital. Sure, anything can kill milita, but can they do it as cheaply?

Against heavily protected troops, the spell Destruction is very avalible for this nation and very effective. Rust Mist is not as quick, but lasts longer, so spamming the two in unison turn Helheim into light infantry, no matter what the blessing. The short bows also reduce your friendly fire, if you are using Bandar infantry with their protection.

And, as Nerfix said, Flaming Arrows is a lovely spell for this nation, though you probably have to get it via your Pretender. Wind Guide is also nice, but Flaming Arrows is better in my opinon.

Placement of this units is important, as they can run ahead if you are not careful. They are not powerful and need to be used as part of a larger strategy, but they are not totally useless.

[curtadams]

Light/medium cavalry *with lances* does indeed have its uses, at least in SP. Hold and attack works well if you micromanage them so that they charge into the enemy rather than the other way around. You can do this against the computer but not reliably against another player. The souped-up Barbarian Kings medium and heavy cavalry (they have very high stats for their price) can compose a pretty nice army. However, the bows are almost irrelevant. Basically they just let you nick the opposing army a bit while you wait for the infantry to separate from the archers so you can charge them affordably. I've never tried the chariot archers but I assume they'd be similar. Without lances, though, cavalry archers are useless. You pay twice the price for a unit that's easier to hit with arrows.

[Nerfix]

I really like the LA Tien barb cavalry. It's like a composite bowman, a Knight and an imperial swordsman rolled into one.

[Sandman]

One thing about light cav which has always irked me is the (occasional) lack of a hoof attack. Yes, they're not always warhorses, but light cav needs every break it can get.

[Epaminondas]

Thanks for both points, Quietly. I had not factored in the Icaryds' smaller size and thus their role as a complement to the Wind Riders. Nonetheless, properly blessed, my Wind Riders hardly ever die in SP v. AI in the Demo. As for the Chariots, you are also right; they can get rid of infantry faster than the Wind Riders with trample. But then I tend to use an SC Pretender with the trample boots, so I guess that's why I didn't see infantry as a major issue.

[Epaminondas]

Nerfix,

I don't think saying that the Kailasa sacred are blessable is really of help, because so can the sacred of other nations. Units should be evaluated first on the basis of their raw stats.

Several folks have mentioned "awe," and how, pardon the pun, "awesome" it really is. Could someone be kind enough to explain the arithmetic of it? I only have the Demo, so I don't know how "awe" or "fear" work. It would be helpful if numbers are thrown out. For instance, if a particular has a plus 10 awe (or plus 10 fear), what does it exactly do to troops fighting against it?

[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 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

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.

[Zen]

Epaminondas said:
Several folks have mentioned "awe," and how, pardon the pun, "awesome" it really is. Could someone be kind enough to explain the arithmetic of it? I only have the Demo, so I don't know how "awe" or "fear" work. It would be helpful if numbers are thrown out. For instance, if a particular has a plus 10 awe (or plus 10 fear), what does it exactly do to troops fighting against it?



As far as Awe is concerned. Awe makes a unit do a morale check in order to even attack the unit with Awe. I'm not sure if the Awe modifier just adds to your side of the OE roll, but I'm pretty sure it does.

This means that most units under 17-18 Morale have a very difficult time attacking units with base Awe. This makes awe very powerful against mundane units (standard units with 8-14 morale, before blessing) but nearly useless against high morale units (Undead, Mindless, Constructs)

Fear works by making a unit force a morale check with a modifier equivilant to the fear formula in the AOE the fear covers. I don't know if lesser fear is in Dom3, I haven't noticed it yet, but lesser fear is invdividual units, while /Cause Fear/ gives a AOE equal to the modifier, with a -1 to the morale check for every 5 levels of the fear.

[Unwise]

Epaminondas said:I don't think saying that the Kailasa sacred are blessable is really of help, because so can the sacred of other nations. Units should be evaluated first on the basis of their raw stats.



I must respectfully disagree. If you have two units that are absolutely identical other than one being sacred, you simply cannot price the sacred one the same as the mundane one. If for no other reason then the mundane one would never be purchased... even with no bless strategy, a generic bless causes sacred troops to have better morale.

You have to look at the sacred attribute as a "raw" stat to be priced as well, and it is not one that can be assigned a set value because so very many factors come into play. Sacred archers will benefit from a water bless more than a sacred cavalry unit, which will benefit from a fire bless more than a an armored unit, which would benefit from an Earth bless more than....

The proper choice of a bless strategy and the greater availability of sacred units in one nation over others is one of the major themes of Dominions, and probably more so in Dom3 then in Dom2.

[Zen]

Unwise said:
You have to look at the sacred attribute as a "raw" stat to be priced as well, and it is not one that can be assigned a set value because so very many factors come into play. Sacred archers will benefit from a water bless more than a sacred cavalry unit, which will benefit from a fire bless more than a an armored unit, which would benefit from an Earth bless more than....



I would just have to say that Water bless is good on most cavalry, it is by far the best universal bless because not only does it give +4 Def/Quickness but your pretender recieves +1 Def for each point of Watermagic it recieves.

But you are right you do have to choose the right bless for the right units.

[Corwin]

Zen said:

Unwise said:
You have to look at the sacred attribute as a "raw" stat to be priced as well, and it is not one that can be assigned a set value because so very many factors come into play. Sacred archers will benefit from a water bless more than a sacred cavalry unit, which will benefit from a fire bless more than a an armored unit, which would benefit from an Earth bless more than....




I would just have to say that Water bless is good on most cavalry, it is by far the best universal bless because not only does it give +4 Def/Quickness but your pretender recieves +1 Def for each point of Watermagic it recieves.




Not really.

Considering that most plaayers who take level 9 bless and double lvl 9 bless will choose dormant or imprisoned pretender, and considering that role of single SC in the mid-late game is much less in Dom3 than it was in Dom2, and finally considering that defence attribute in Dom3 in general got a very large nerf from Illwinter (esp. so for SCs), +1 def per water level for your pretender is certainly not a major factor when evaluating water bless.

[Turin]

Heh those yakashas are one of my favourite blessable units. I tried air10 w9 n4 dom9 lady of rivers and it mops up indies and most AI troops. The usual 9 guys + priest you get per turn can beat any indie 5 province with very few losses.

in addition to combat the low protection you have e3 mages, which can easily cast legions of steel once you get const 3, but I haven´t tried that strat yet.

[Zen]

Corwin said:
Not really.

Considering that most plaayers who take level 9 bless and double lvl 9 bless will choose dormant or imprisoned pretender, and considering that role of single SC in the mid-late game is much less in Dom3 than it was in Dom2, and finally considering that defence attribute in Dom3 in general got a very large nerf from Illwinter (esp. so for SCs), +1 def per water level for your pretender is certainly not a major factor when evaluating water bless.



Oh really? Well actually it's a huge factor if you want to go single bless. While double bless is a rusher's dream, you can't play that with every nation since they don't have usable sacreds.

Also the W9 Blue Dragon or Father of Winters is nearly as effective as the Cyclops after 2 Research (depending on your nation initial gem income) and can be crucial for some nations to hammer through HCav provinces quickly turn >5.

Maybe this is not something that you consider, but I consider initial expansion and Awakened Pretenders for early expansion for non sacred-heavy nations at least as important as double blessings with heavy sacred nations.

[Corwin]

Zen said:

Corwin said:
Not really.

Considering that most plaayers who take level 9 bless and double lvl 9 bless will choose dormant or imprisoned pretender, and considering that role of single SC in the mid-late game is much less in Dom3 than it was in Dom2, and finally considering that defence attribute in Dom3 in general got a very large nerf from Illwinter (esp. so for SCs), +1 def per water level for your pretender is certainly not a major factor when evaluating water bless.



Oh really? Well actually it's a huge factor if you want to go single bless. While double bless is a rusher's dream, you can't play that with every nation since they don't have usable sacreds.

Also the W9 Blue Dragon or Father of Winters is nearly as effective as the Cyclops after 2 Research (depending on your nation initial gem income) and can be crucial for some nations to hammer through HCav provinces quickly turn >5.

Maybe this is not something that you consider, but I consider initial expansion and Awakened Pretenders for early expansion for non sacred-heavy nations at least as important as double blessings with heavy sacred nations.



Initial expansion with pretender is still a valuable (and old) tactic, just like it was in Dom2.


However since now each attacker reduces defence attribute by 2, as an opposite to -1 as it used to be in Dom2, even 4 attackers will reduce your effective defence almost back to its original level. And you are usually attacked by much more than 4-5 units when you are fighing indpes with your pretender. Unless you prefer to play on indep strength 1. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

+def is a nice little bonus when you take W9, however it certainly not as important factor as the effect of w9 bless on your sacred troops. And if you don't have good sacred troops, it doesn't make much sense to take W9 bless just for your pretender for inital expansion. You would be much better taking few magic paths for the same money, and buffing your pretender with low-level buffs, than with +9 def from water.


In other words - for your Dom3 pretender beneficial effect of W9 bless is smaller than beneficial effect of W4 bless was in Dom2, in vast majority of situations.

[Corwin]

Turin said:
Heh those yakashas are one of my favourite blessable units. I tried air10 w9 n4 dom9 lady of rivers and it mops up indies and most AI troops. The usual 9 guys + priest you get per turn can beat any indie 5 province with very few losses.

in addition to combat the low protection you have e3 mages, which can easily cast legions of steel once you get const 3, but I haven´t tried that strat yet.



Yeap, Air bless is very good for yakashas, since it take care of one of their critical weaknesses. Prot 1 is still going to hurt vs humans, if your opponent has high morale troops who won't mind smacking units with "awe". But at least the archers and most indep provinces won't be much of a problem.

[Zen]

Corwin said:
Initial expansion with pretender is still a valuable (and old) tactic, just like it was in Dom2.


However since now each attacker reduces defence attribute by 2, as an opposite to -1 as it used to be in Dom2, even 4 attackers will reduce your effective defence almost back to its original level. And you are usually attacked by much more than 4-5 units when you are fighing indpes with your pretender. Unless you prefer to play on indep strength 1. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



Or you don't have your pretender attacked by more than 3 or 4 units at a time and your pretender has fear and you can make your opponents rout effectively.

It's rare in Dom3 that I expand with just a pretender, since it's more useful to use a half-strength army and a pretender to hammer those HCav and Xbow provinces.


+def is a nice little bonus when you take W9, however it certainly not as important factor as the effect of w9 bless on your sacred troops. And if you don't have good sacred troops, it doesn't make much sense to take W9 bless just for your pretender for inital expansion. You would be much better taking few magic paths for the same money, and buffing your pretender with low-level buffs, than with +9 def from water.



I don't know about that, with the introduction of sacred summons and some few support sacred units (not hardcore sacreds) I don't think it's neccessary to not consider a bless for them. Especially since good summons especially in the early/mid game are few and far between unless you happen to like Vine Ogres.



In other words - for your Dom3 pretender beneficial effect of W9 bless is smaller than beneficial effect of W4 bless was in Dom2, in vast majority of situations.



I do not agree in a MP setting and don't agree with your assessment as far as bless situations. However, I do agree that in Dom2 water was more effective, if only for the fact that quickness affected spellcasting. I doubt anyone can say that water, as a whole path, has not gotten weaker overall from Dom2 to Dom3. If you look at their summon line, battlefield line, and evocation/thamu line, they are nearly all have a lesser impact than water did in Dom2.

[KissBlade]

Zen said:

Corwin said:
Not really.

Considering that most plaayers who take level 9 bless and double lvl 9 bless will choose dormant or imprisoned pretender, and considering that role of single SC in the mid-late game is much less in Dom3 than it was in Dom2, and finally considering that defence attribute in Dom3 in general got a very large nerf from Illwinter (esp. so for SCs), +1 def per water level for your pretender is certainly not a major factor when evaluating water bless.



Oh really? Well actually it's a huge factor if you want to go single bless. While double bless is a rusher's dream, you can't play that with every nation since they don't have usable sacreds.

Also the W9 Blue Dragon or Father of Winters is nearly as effective as the Cyclops after 2 Research (depending on your nation initial gem income) and can be crucial for some nations to hammer through HCav provinces quickly turn >5.

Maybe this is not something that you consider, but I consider initial expansion and Awakened Pretenders for early expansion for non sacred-heavy nations at least as important as double blessings with heavy sacred nations.



I'll have to agree with this point entirely. If I'm not going a bless strat, an Awakened Pretender is almost always my decision just forthe quick jump boost in expansion ability. A dragon is still very adept at fending off indie 6 and the dom 9/10 cyclops/medusa build are both very effective. I do like to goof off a bit occasionally with VQ or GK chassis still though for the old time SC sake.

[Gandalf Parker]

Epaminondas said:

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.




I afraid of people who feel that balance should move closer to each nation getting equal pieces which wear different colored uniforms like in some games. And actually, I havent seen worthless units yet. Only worthless units to me. Most of the units people dont like are cheaper and less armored so they feel that they are worthless compared to the "better" units. To me thats a play style choice.

My personal preference (Pangaea) tends to get "improvement" suggestions which remove all of my favorite pieces, and replace them with more Ulmish pieces. Less stealth, more armor, and in my opinion.. less Pangaean.


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.


I dont think I commented on any particular persons choices. I talked generally based on many conversations Ive seen. If you feel I was talking about you in particular then I apologize for that.

And Im not trying to imply that any one is too stupid to figure out a style different than their own. If I did then I would have to include myself since obviously I could never master the use of certain nations and their units on the level of some of the players whose strategy stresses large armored armies built with formulas so efficient as to make an accountant dizzy. But I am leary of declaring such strategies as the ultimate winner of everything. Nor do I consider them the ultimate decider of what is good or not good to have in the game.

[Graeme Dice]

Gandalf Parker said:
Most of the units people dont like are cheaper and less armored so they feel that they are worthless compared to the "better" units. To me thats a play style choice.



To be frank Gandalf, people feel that the unarmored versions of units that have the same gold cost as armoured versions are useless because they _are_ useless compared to the other choices. Battles between equal gold costs of hysapists and cardaces will end in an overwhelming victory for the hysapists. Equal resource cost battles are closer, but gold, and not resources, is almost always the limiting factor on troop production beyond the first dozen turns. If you have the ability to choose between slingers and shortbows, the contest comes out overwhelmingly in favour of the short bows. There are some nations where the basic troops have natural protection values that make light infantry more effective, such as Atlantis or C'Tis, but on the whole, light infantry are to be entirely avoided. The same can be said of unarmoured horse archers, who cost more gold than regular archers, yet do not provide any kind of battlefield or strategic advantage over foot archers.


My personal preference (Pangaea) tends to get "improvement" suggestions which remove all of my favorite pieces, and replace them with more Ulmish pieces. Less stealth, more armor, and in my opinion.. less Pangaean.



As it currently stands, most of Pangaea's units serve little useful function. Pangaea's best stealthy raiding units are also their most effective fighters in a pitched battle. You could remove both generic Satyr units, both minotaurs, and centaurs archers without having any serious effect on the nation.

Satyr sneaks at least have a strategic use, hoplites have the armour to not be slaughtered by arrows, and revelers go berserk so they can be an effective meat shield. The two generic satyrs have almost no armour, and a morale score of 8 that virtually guarantees that they will run at the first sign of trouble. The minotaurs would be decent if trampling units would also attack smaller units with their weapons, and if they had attack and defense skills at least as good as a normal human. Currently, they are size 3, and meaning that they they don't cause sufficient damage to size 2 troops to be worthwhile. Centaur longbows cost almost three times as much gold as Man's longbows, giving them only a third of the offensive punch. Then there's centaur warriors, which completely overshadow any other Pangaean unit other than the Cataphracts and white centaurs. If given the choice between purchasing one centaur warrior, or four satyrs with javelins and spears, the correct choice is almost always going to be the single centaur warrior.

[Corwin]

Zen said:

I do not agree in a MP setting and don't agree with your assessment as far as bless situations. However, I do agree that in Dom2 water was more effective, if only for the fact that quickness affected spellcasting. I doubt anyone can say that water, as a whole path, has not gotten weaker overall from Dom2 to Dom3. If you look at their summon line, battlefield line, and evocation/thamu line, they are nearly all have a lesser impact than water did in Dom2.



I think you misunderstood the part of my post as far as water bless concerned. My initial post was objection to your statement that having +9 def on a single unit (your pretender) is such a big deal in Dom3 when evaluating the merit of W9 bless.

You said (quote): "it is by far the best universal bless because not only does it give +4 Def/Quickness but your pretender recieves +1 Def for each point of Watermagic it recieves. "

I've pointed to several reasons why it is not the case anymore in Dom3, due to several changes in game mechanics.

I do agree that water school in general, as well as W9 effect on sacred troops are weaker in Dom3.

[B0rsuk]

In theory, swarms of lightly armored units should be able to overwhelm heavily armored enemies. In practice, it's often better to just use heavy armor instead. It's not just initial gold cost. If my understanding of rules is correct, you pay much higher gold upkeep costs for light infantry, because it's based only on initial price which is the same as heavy's and sometimes holiness. In addition, you need more supplies, and growth scale was never considered very strong. Population growth is next to zero, and Order gets you bigger income bonus.

A new mod command could be useful: #lowupkeepcost . Or just decrease prices of low infantry, but that would break with the convention of resource cost for equipment and gold for body. So I prefer #lowupkeepcost, to keep things nice and tidy.

[Gandalf Parker]

Graeme Dice said:

Gandalf Parker said:
Most of the units people dont like are cheaper and less armored so they feel that they are worthless compared to the "better" units. To me thats a play style choice.



To be frank Gandalf, people feel that the unarmored versions of units that have the same gold cost as armoured versions are useless because they _are_ useless compared to the other choices.



Thank you Graeme.
You have always been one of my best examples. Lets both hope that neither of us ever have anything to say in the games development. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[calmon]

Just some comments to the Arco Chariot Archers:

They are quite usefull because after taking the 10 damage (full hitpoints) only the archer dies and the chariot still attack with the charioteer and have another 10 hitpoints!

The best thing is after the battle the chariot is full repaired and has a new archer.

The normal chariot has a better protection but die after 10 damage.

I use both units and especially the archer chariots. The good defence, the acceptable protection and the 2 Lifes make them extremly powerfull in early game. They tremple independent forces all in ground and lost nothing most of the time.

[Gandalf Parker]

For light units swarming heavy units inst it better to create many units spread across the front rather than one large one? It seems to work better for me.

Also if I dont think there are many archers I find it better to make the heavy units run to me rather than charge them.

[Teraswaerto]

Units with low (or no) resource cost but the same gold cost as a heavier unit can be recruited in high quantities quickly, which can be useful. Also, 20 units with 1 resource cost will beat 2 units with 10 resource cost almost always, no? In any fight where armor makes a difference they are clearly inferior 1vs1 (or even 1vs4), but sometimes armor makes little difference.

Likewise, units with low morale can be forced to go berserk, in which cases morale becomes irrelevant. There are other such examples

These are perhaps niche uses, but that doesn't mean we should disregard them.

[B0rsuk]

Let's assume the 2 units are 10 gold 20 resource each.
And the 20horde is 10 gold 2 resource each.

20horde is 200 gold 40 res.
2 units are 20 gold 40 res.

20horde consumes 10x as much supplies.
20horde costs 30 upkeep per turn.
2 heavies cost 3 gold per turn.
----------

There should be a global enchantment that makes each unit cos -1 upkeep (gold). It would make quite a difference for hordes.

[Teraswaerto]

All that is true, but sometimes it wont make any difference. If a decisive battle is imminent, for example, you'll not care about upkeep or supplies.

[B0rsuk]

If decisive battle is imminent, I guess it's the best idea to use Pythium gladiators.
Ironically, in long run it may be easier to amass heavy armor units, which is kinda strange.
With heavies, you tend to have more gold left. For this gold, you can build extra forts, for example. So you can recruit even more heavies.
How about history ? Were heavily armored soldiers paid more ? Probably not. First of all, as far as I know, early medieval armored soldiers were simply nobles, because no one else could afford a sword, armor, horse....

[Graeme Dice]

Gandalf Parker said:
You have always been one of my best examples. Lets both hope that neither of us ever have anything to say in the games development. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



Why? Do you have a use for any of the Pangaean units I mentioned that makes them a better use of your gold than the other available units? If not, then those units should be improved so that they add useful capabilities to the nation. Minotaurs can't be fixed without either removing their trampling or fixing trample so that normal attacks also take place, but satyrs could be given a use by dropping their cost by a great deal. Stating that the truth of a matter must lie somewhere between two opposing viewpoints is known as the Golden Mean fallacy.

The game would be improved, and would be much easier to learn, if many of the units that have little use compared to the other available units were improved. Perhaps by halfing or quartering the gold cost of those units. Realistically, a unit such as militia that's unarmoured and has a morale of 8 is probably worth somewhere between 2-5 gold when compared to the performance of heavy infantry at the same gold cost. Such a change would have the additional advantage of bringing the relative abundance of heavy infantry to light infantry closer to historical levels. As an example, the Persian army outlined by Herodotus was virtually all unarmoured.

[Manuk]

Useless is not to be a light unit. useless is to be another better unit so it make the first unit redundant.
It´s always better to recruit tribal shortbows intead of generic ones because they cost 8g intead of 10g and cost less resources, and have map movement 2 instead of 1, and they have a bonus dependant on the tribe (deer tribe have better defense).
other tribesmen are ok if you have a sudden war and are in need of some bulk force. low resource and special ability like if you mass the guys with two daggers cover the battle front filling the gaps between your heavy elites and delivering 2 attacks to lessen the defense thanks to multiple attacks effect.
bear tribe javeliners have extra strenght and this means more range of throw and more damage to hand to hand.
on the other hand light cavarly archers are a little crappy.
but normal light cavalry can buy you quick flankers.
I often overlook recruiting barbarians because of they high cost and little survability. so of indt units i find them to be near the worst units.

[Teraswaerto]

Barbarians can deal some mean damage with their strenght and heavy 2-weapons, useful if you need to punch through armor or take down units with lots of hitpoints.

It's true that some units like light cavalry archers, without lances or something like that, really seem rather useless. The higher map move is the only benefit I can think of for them.

[Gandalf Parker]

Graeme Dice said:

Gandalf Parker said:
You have always been one of my best examples. Lets both hope that neither of us ever have anything to say in the games development. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



Why? Do you have a use for any of the Pangaean units I mentioned that makes them a better use of your gold than the other available units? If not, then those units should be improved so that they add useful capabilities to the nation. Minotaurs can't be fixed without either removing their trampling or fixing trample so that normal attacks also take place, but satyrs could be given a use by dropping their cost by a great deal. Stating that the truth of a matter must lie somewhere between two opposing viewpoints is known as the Golden Mean fallacy.

The game would be improved, and would be much easier to learn, if many of the units that have little use compared to the other available units were improved. Perhaps by halfing or quartering the gold cost of those units. Realistically, a unit such as militia that's unarmoured and has a morale of 8 is probably worth somewhere between 2-5 gold when compared to the performance of heavy infantry at the same gold cost. Such a change would have the additional advantage of bringing the relative abundance of heavy infantry to light infantry closer to historical levels. As an example, the Persian army outlined by Herodotus was virtually all unarmoured.



Obviously we disagree quite abit. When playing Pangaea I purchase mostly Pan, Centaur Archers, and Harpies. Sometimes I will put some minotaurs in with maenads, and dryads as I need them. I almost never purchase the other centaurs. I wouldnt mind the satyrs being more effective stealth units.

[FrankTrollman]

Remember also that a low resource army can be left unrecruited as a big pile of gold and popped up on short notice later on. The oni who cost 25 gold and 1 resource are often a crap deal. But if you get an event that gives you 3000 gold you can burst out quite an army in a surprising place on short notice. That's valuable, and well worth noting that the unit exists even when you don't normally use it.

There's no way to see how much gold an opponent has in a pile, and gold reserves don't cost upkeep. While a hopplite army takes many turns of effort and costs upkeep along the way, a large army of crap is free and invisible until it exists in full.

-Frank

[Gandalf Parker]

I also notice that the people who feel gold or resources are the prime deciders of a worthy army, tend to play strategies that stress order and production scales. Id rather see changes that allow for more variety in strategies and tactics than to see some strategies forced into other strategies.

[Graeme Dice]

Gandalf Parker said:
Obviously we disagree quite abit. When playing Pangaea I purchase mostly Pan, Centaur Archers, and Harpies.



You'd be better off buying tribal shortbow archers than those centaurs. You'd get about three times the offensive potential and 50% more hitpoints for the same cost. I don't consider harpies a useless unit, as any fliers that can be recruited in massive quantities have a use. Panii are mages, which means that they don't really belong in a discussion of which national troops are useful.


Sometimes I will put some minotaurs in with maenads, and dryads as I need them.



There's nothing wrong with Dryads, they are Pangaea's most cost-effective researcher. The maenads that you get for turmoil 3 on the other hand don't have anywhere near the capability of the centaur warriors you could have bought with the extra gold from an order scale. You can defeat the computer with maenads, but that's mostly because the computer is not capable of building thugs with charcoal shields and 20 protection.

[Gandalf Parker]

Unless I can find local archers that have stealth Im afraid that they dont replace the centaur archers. Also they dont tend to travel as fast which makes even the stealth ones not work as well for my tactics. A stealth army is most effective if it gets to the other nations before the provinces connect up the nations.

[Archonsod]

Funnily enough, with Pangea I normally use massed Minotaurs. They're pretty decent in combat, and nicely surviveable. They're also one of the few Pangea units that can go toe to toe with other national troops and have a fighting chance.

I think the trample has been under rated though. In the first instance, it prevents them being swarmed and mobbed by smaller units. It's always nice to see a bunch of smaller units scattered by a charge of war minotaurs, and often the inability of the smaller units to mob up and reduce the defence of the war minotaurs is incredibly useful.
The other benefit is setting the minotaurs to charge rear. It's probably just me, but I love watching trampling units just stroll straight through the enemy ranks and hit the archers or commanders hiding at the back.
(admittedly, the commanders are usually powerful enough to easily mince the minotaurs, but I just literally walked all over your army dammit!)

[KissBlade]

Gandalf Parker said:
I also notice that the people who feel gold or resources are the prime deciders of a worthy army, tend to play strategies that stress order and production scales. Id rather see changes that allow for more variety in strategies and tactics than to see some strategies forced into other strategies.



I would like to see those changes too. Unfortunately I don't think the current system allows it at the moment. Most troops ends up having a better alternative. One of the best examples of this is Jomon, you can probably get away with pure samurai archers with possibly the occasional cavalry for running down xbows. Yeah the other samurai troops aren't bad actually stat wise but the samurai archers are just so much better with that longbow option.

[Graeme Dice]

Archonsod said:
They're also one of the few Pangea units that can go toe to toe with other national troops and have a fighting chance.



The other unit would be centaur warriors, who have fantastically better stats and allow you to take a sloth scale instead of the production scale that minotaur warriors require.


In the first instance, it prevents them being swarmed and mobbed by smaller units. It's always nice to see a bunch of smaller units scattered by a charge of war minotaurs, and often the inability of the smaller units to mob up and reduce the defence of the war minotaurs is incredibly useful.



I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Trampling units get swarmed even more often than non-trampling units, because they move right into the middle of packs of enemy units and get mobbed on the next turn.

[Evil Dave]

This discussion prompted me to test how useless light units were against heavy ones. They’re not. In fact, at least one light unit is better than at least one heavy one for either equivalent resources or equivalent gold.

I tested one light unit against two heavy ones (separately, of course http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif ):

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
lt spearmen hvy spearmen swordsmen
resources 7 11 18
protection 7 10 13
encumbrance 4 5 6
defense 13 12 13
move 2/11 1/10 1/9
</pre><hr />
MR and precision don’t matter for these tests. All of them had ten hit points, morale, strength, and attack skill, and they all cost ten gold.

I initially tested light vs. heavy spearmen at equal resource cost. This yields ratios of 11 light units for 7 heavy ones. I tried both 22 vs 14 and 44 vs 28. I’d thought that on a resource basis, the light and heavy units would be about equal, so I prepared elaborate tests: grouping each side into one or two units and varying which side gets the first hits. For each variation, I ran 20 battles using Dom3. (I didn’t think Saber Cherry’s most excellent combat simulator would work with the new rules.) Actually, I ran 30 of each, in case random events fiddled with the battlefield -- during testing, a “celebrant of the faith” showed up to help one side.

None of it mattered. At equal resource costs, the light spearmen slaughtered the heavy ones. Of each of 30-run sets, the light units would win 28 or 29. There’s about 50% more of them on the battlefield, so they get about 50% more hits every round. The three points of armor the heavy guys had didn’t help them, and it lowered their defence by a point. And once the heavies broke, the lighter guys would chase them down and kill them. Very few survivors made it off the field.

I then ran equal gold costs (equal numbers) of light vs. heavy spearmen, but only one set of trials: one group on each side, heavies hit first, 28 to a side. That helped the heavy troops a lot: they were winning about 100% more battles: three of the 30, losing the other 27. I think the light guys did so much better because the extra point of defence is simply more useful than the three points of armor.

Time to bring up reinforcements. Equal resource costs of light spearmen vs swordsmen, one group on each side, 36 vs 14. The swordsmen were anilhilated. They lost all their battles. It’s hard fighting worse than 2:1 odds.

At equal gold costs, the situation was reversed. The swordsmen won 28 of 30 battles. Not only do they have the same skill as the light spearmen, they’ve got a lot more armor. OTOH, some light spearmen were able to run away from each battle.

So, I’d have to say the light troops aren’t as hopeless as we’d thought.

Caveats: Yeah, I didn’t test very many kinds of units. And they are “generic” independents; there are more cost-effective choices for both indies (heavy amazons and light tribesmen) and national units. Nor did I look at guys with missiles. Maybe I’ll do that next weekend. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I’m not even gonna *try* to figure out what effect magic has on this...

[Endoperez]

Independents in general are rather weak in armor department. Try that same test against national spear-wielders. Like MA Man's spearmen. Prot 13 isn't heavy. It's between light and heavy.