What's the point in elite units?

[QuintusSertorius]

And that's the third reason why elites aren't as useful in EB as they were in reality. In the R:TW engine, experience has a major effect. The stat difference between regulars and elites isn't that big in EB, so regulars with a few bars of experience are as good as elites. And because losses in a regular unit are easier to replace, a veteran regular is actually more useful than an elite unit. IIRC regulars also gain experience faster than elites.

(Personally, I think the R:TW XP mechanism is unbalanced. We should give all units two or three bars of experience straight out of training, and slash base stats accordingly. This will mean that units will gain experience more slowly, and the max. effect of experience is lower. IIRC this idea was considered for EB1 at some point, but the team decided not to go with it.)

I hadn't even considered experience, that's a good very point. It's trivially easy to get units you can recruit at one or even two chevrons at the beginning (using a Type II or Type IV government, combined with a Gymnasium/it's equivalent).

In all those migrated faction games I've played, I almost never had the option of building a Type I (Homeland) government, so as a side-effect I was always getting experienced troops (usually with a Blacksmith in the recruiting centre, too).

I am pretty sure that elites haven't been balanced on cost-effectiveness. I believe it's the reverse: you pay a premium for the extra ability - so it's only worthwhile to use them in critical positions or when you want maximum combat power in a 20-unit stack. In other words: they're only worth the premium in a one-on-one fight. If you're not fielding large (> 12 unit) armies, regulars are a better buy, since you you get twice as many men for only a ~20% reduction in survivability power. That's how it should be. Where it goes wrong is that, for a variety of reasons (poor A.I. tactics, the effect of XP), regulars will perform nearly as well as elites in critical positions, and are far easier and cheaper to replace.

Indeed, the most illustrative unit to demonstrate that they're not costed on the basis of effectiveness is the Hoplitai Haploi. A levy unit which is a lot better than many other levy spearman units (such as Pantodapoi, Pontic/Slavic Light Spearmen and others), yet is also cheaper. I try to avoid using them for anything but garrisons, because it feels like an exploit, but for some factions they're the most cost-effective line troops.

[vartan]

(Personally, I think the R:TW XP mechanism is unbalanced. We should give all units two or three bars of experience straight out of training, and slash base stats accordingly. This will mean that units will gain experience more slowly, and the max. effect of experience is lower. IIRC this idea was considered for EB1 at some point, but the team decided not to go with it.)

Where were you when Creative Assembly was developing Rome: Total War? Where were you, Ludens, where?!! Is this really something that could have been modded into EB1 on the Rome engine? I didn't know that. The entire experience mechanism could have been designed better...what is it in RTW, linear? With a small slope at that.

[The Stranger]

And that's the third reason why elites aren't as useful in EB as they were in reality. In the R:TW engine, experience has a major effect. The stat difference between regulars and elites isn't that big in EB, so regulars with a few bars of experience are as good as elites. And because losses in a regular unit are easier to replace, a veteran regular is actually more useful than an elite unit. IIRC regulars also gain experience faster than elites.

(Personally, I think the R:TW XP mechanism is unbalanced. We should give all units two or three bars of experience straight out of training, and slash base stats accordingly. This will mean that units will gain experience more slowly, and the max. effect of experience is lower. IIRC this idea was considered for EB1 at some point, but the team decided not to go with it.)



I am pretty sure that elites haven't been balanced on cost-effectiveness. I believe it's the reverse: you pay a premium for the extra ability - so it's only worthwhile to use them in critical positions or when you want maximum combat power in a 20-unit stack. In other words: they're only worth the premium in a one-on-one fight. If you're not fielding large (> 12 unit) armies, regulars are a better buy, since you you get twice as many men for only a ~20% reduction in survivability power. That's how it should be. Where it goes wrong is that, for a variety of reasons (poor A.I. tactics, the effect of XP), regulars will perform nearly as well as elites in critical positions, and are far easier and cheaper to replace.

i know they havent, thats why i have been saying some elites. their cost has nothing to do really with how good they are, as roman elites (though they dont really have any real elites) are considerably cheaper than most other factions but alot better for their cost. the dacian komatai are also very expensive and pretty bad (or dont work well anyway). there are a few more examples too.

i didnt say that elites are cost effective, ive always said that regulars are more cost effective, ive pretty much said what you have said, that elites are worth their cost in special cases. and in such cases, theyre worth their weight in gold. the reason why i said he doesnt get cost-effectiveness, is because hes insisting that i test how well elites do vs regulars, while that doesnt necessarily say anything about their cost-effectiveness. its way easier to test them both vs 1 levy and compare how effective they slaughtered the levy for their cost. this guy tested it in regular vs elite, https://docs.google.com/document/edi...axITfr1Q&hl=en

anyway, its also subjective, and since he also plays on medium battle difficulty, i would probably argue you wouldnt ever need anything else than levy units, since depending on the civ, theyre often as cost effective + all the easy access bonusses. the ai is so bad you could conquer half of the world with 5 low tier horse archer, 1 general and 1 infantry merc you recruit on the spot to conquer cities.


also a reason that elites arent much better is because how EB balanced units, a spear wielded by an elite doesnt have much higher attack or charge than one wielded by a regular. nor do they often have alot more defensive skills or a better shield value. they really differ much when it comes to morale and armour value. i think atleast in defensive value there is some room for better balance (some elites have a lower value there than even some levies)

as for gaining experience, ye the system is flawed, it should be a procentual bonus on the base skill of the unit, so when a elite ranks up 1 experience point, his boost is bigger when compared to the boost a levy gets from his experience. or something in that general direction

[The Stranger]

did some more testing, not real tests but just 1 time battles.

Test 1 with me commanding the dosidataskeli
2 dosidataskeli vs 4 thorakitai (upkeep: 3796 cost: 949 vs upkeep: 1910 cost: 478 for a single unit)
243 vs 649: 566 kills and 62 losses

The battle was pretty straight forward, 3 units attacked my dosidataskeli head on, 1 unit went for a rear attack. All I did was keep my units in a line and turn around at the last moment to catch the flanking enemy. This test is a bit skewed because the AI is uncapable of using troops that throw missiles before charge. But I'm pretty sure that the Dosidataskeli would still win this fight even if javelins were properly used.

Test 2 with my in charge of the thorakitai:
2 dosidataskeli vs 4 thorakitai (upkeep: 3796 cost: 949 vs upkeep: 1910 cost: 478 for a single unit)
649 vs 243: 135 kills and 507 losses

At the end my general got killed and the units broke and fled. The battle was already lost however, with 1 dosidataskeli down to 40, and another still left at 80, there was pretty much no way to win it anymore. Around 60 my thorakitai started routing one by one, but they all rallied again to rejoin the fight. I didnt try to go for a full surround and I used my javelins sparsely to simulate the AI. I must add that the dosidataskeli didnt go for the most direct route to attack me and as a result started the fight when already "very tired". This undoubtedly affected the fight in my favor and is probably why the losses are alot higher.

Tried again with 1 dosidataskeli vs 2 thorakitai and the reverse of that. Results were the same, the dosidataskeli win, even when surrounded. They will have around 50 to 90 men left, and the thorakitai will start routing around 40-60 men left in a unit.

Need to test more and actually vs a player, but at face value it seems that some elites, atleast at huge settings, can be more cost-effective than a regular, even when facing regulars, as long as a full surround can be avoided. So elites are worth it when theyre flanks are being protected (by elites or other units) or when fighting in chokepoints or when fighting small battles where manouvering isnt as important.


Test 3 with my in charge of the epilektoi:
3 epilektoi vs 7 hoplitai (cost: 3123 upkeep: 781 vs cost: 1367 upkeep: 342 for a single unit)
367 vs 1135: 981 kills and 226 losses

It was a bit hard to balance these, as in upkeep the ratio was 1:2, but in recruitment cost it was more 1:2,25. I decided to do 3 vs 7, which may have influenced the battle a little bit. However the AI didnt really use their general much, they tried to keep it out of combat in most of the battle, so I think it was ok. They did go for a full surround, which means that numbers offer more advantage. The hoplites started breaking later than the thorakitai despite having 1 morale lower, perhaps because of their disciplined trait. When most of the hoplitai had broken the general started to join the fight, but it was already a bit too late. The elites lost 62% of their men, the regulars 82%. This was pretty close, if all units wouldve been used by the AI and with a full surround, the hoplites may just win the fight, of no surround would be achieved, I'm confident the epilektoi would clinch the victory.

Test 4 with my in charge of the hoplitai:
3 epilektoi vs 7 hoplitai (cost: 3123 upkeep: 781 vs cost: 1367 upkeep: 342 for a single unit)
1135 vs 367: 315 kills and 985 losses

The hoplitai got defeated, but it was very close. I went for the full surround, and unlike the AI i used all my units to do so. At first it seemed like I was going to win, but the more men died, the less likely this became as there werent enough soldiers left to keep the full surround intact. When at about 80% losses for both sides I lost my general, 2 hoplite units had already routed at that point (both only started routing at around 15-25 units left). It didnt cause a chainroute though, so I dont think it affected the battle much. In the end all my units routed (all around 15-25 except for the last one) and the battle was lost.

It seems epilektoi are also worth it, even when surrounded, but theyre alot less cost-effective than the dosidataskeli (which, granted, have insane stats and are easily the best infantry unit in the game)

[athanaric]

the dacian komatai are also very expensive and pretty bad (or dont work well anyway). there are a few more examples too.

I take it you mean Komatai Epilektoi, seeing as the regular Komatai are very cost-effective.

[The Stranger]

I take it you mean Komatai Epilektoi, seeing as the regular Komatai are very cost-effective.

ye meant those


Test 5 with me commanding the Rhomphaiaphoroi
2 Rhomphaiaphoroi vs 4 hoplitai (cost: 2899 upkeep: 725 vs cost: 1367 upkeep: 342 for a single unit)
241 vs 649: 535 kills and 87 losses

2 hoplites cost slightly less than 1 Rhomphaiaphoroi to recruit and also slightly less upkeep. To balance this out i gave all 4 hoplites +1 attack upgrade, this basically made the recruitment cost completely equal in multiplayer. The fight was pretty straight forward, i had both Rhomphaiaphoroi charge 2 hoplites, which got pretty easily massacred and the fight was over pretty quick, the general didnt die but routed as one of the first. I also tried with 1 Rhomphaiaphoroi vs only 2 hoplites, this was alot closer, but still the Rhomphaiaphoroi won with about 40 units left.

Test 6 with me commanding the hoplitai
2 Rhomphaiaphoroi vs 4 hoplitai (cost: 2899 upkeep: 725 vs cost: 1367 upkeep: 342 for a single unit)
649 vs 241 : 153 kills and 492 losses

The ai did a significantly worse jobs in using these units somehow. But they still managed to win. I engaged with 2 hoplites head on and with 2 coming from both flanks. The ones that charged head on got massacred while the flankers stayed relatively intact. At around 20 units left my general unit lost his life and broke. The other center hoplite unit also broke at around 15. The flankers broke around 60 or so, but there were still about 90 Rhomphaiaphoroi left and only about 120 hoplites. so the Rhomphaiaphoroi wouldve won anyway.


just discovered a gem of an elite unit

Test 7 with my in charge of the Cordinau Orca:
3 Cordinau Orca vs 7 hoplitai (cost: 3151 upkeep: 788 vs cost: 1367 upkeep: 342 for a single unit)
364 vs 1135: 914 kills and 124 losses

Balanced them similarly to the epilektoi with at 1/2,5. Which is slightly in favor of the hoplitai. The cordinau orca did a much better job than the epilektoi though. Their stats are simply amazing at 15 attack 30 defense and they were at 30% losses while the hoplitai had suffered 70% losses already. At this point the general died and it caused a rout which later rallied. I dont think it mattered too much, the cordinau had already won. I think the ai did a poor job at engaging though and if they werent so clumsy the cordinau wouldve suffered more losses for sure. But not over 200 i think, perhaps not even over 150. Amazing unit.

another gem

Test 8 with my in charge of the kluddargos:
2 Cordinau Orca vs 6 hoplitai (cost: 3109 upkeep: 777 vs cost: 1367 upkeep: 342 for a single unit)
243 vs 973: 813 kills and 100 losses

1 kluddargos tied down 3 hoplites each and chewed through them. They were at 40% losses when the hoplitai were at 80% and the enemy general died. All were routing not much later. They took on 6 hoplites with ease and may have been able to even take down 7. Which i think says enough about their strength and cost-effectiveness. Ofcourse the hoplites are heavily armoured and the kluddargos have an armour piercing bonus, probably haploi wouldve done better relatively.


well maybe its my game, and there is something wrong with it (would be strange cuz clean install)

but for me alot of elites are beating levys and regulars both actually winning the battles and being more cost-effecienct. elites are winning even when its a single elite vs 2 regulars or so, but do significantly better when its 2 elites vs 4 regulars or so. also they get increasingly better when the unitsizes dwindle, because of diminishing returns.

some elites are not much more cost effective than regulars, but some are alot more, even in the open field. Notable names are: Gaesatae/tindonatae, the Dosidataskeli/TAB/Dubosaverlacica, the cordinau orca (solduros/rycalawre/hypaspistai have similar stats but have a secondary spear, which screws them up), kluddargos, all roman elites (not so much because they have amazing stats, but because they are amazingly cheap for their stats and unitsize), any horse archer elite. i havent really tested cavalry, but horse archers pwn all, and armored horse archers pwn unarmored horse archers.

[QuintusSertorius]

Your first set of tests were valid since it was comparison of the same troop type (spearman v spearman), but swordsman against spearman isn't a fair test. We already know spears get a -4 to attack against swords (and axes) making them less effective.

[The Stranger]

i could do with swordsmen vs swordsmen, i doubt it would change alot. there is no clear elites are not or are worth it answer. some are, some arent. some regulars/levies are overpriced and some are extremely underpriced (most notably the roman and hellenic ones)

tried 2 kluddargos vs 3 galatikoi klerouchoi.

the klerouchoi got completely massacred, alot worse than the hoplites for some reason. The kluddargos just chewed through them. i dont know why because their shield and armour stats are similar to the hoplites.

i clicked away the result before i could write it down, but it was like 25% lost for the kluddargos and over 70% for the klerouchoi. I think 2 kluddargos could take on 5 klerouchoi easily. and klerouchoi have good stats.

i guess this is more about armour piercing being really good than elites though. but the other sword elites often have a spear as secondary weapon which makes them less effective imo because they switch to the spear in close combat, oddly enough.

2 cordinau orca vs 3 klerouchoi was pretty close, if the cordinau attacked they lost, if they defended they won. both pretty close.

[moonburn]

the orcas are unbeatable in a wall they can take on an entire army

in a street nobady can pass by them may them be hetaroi romans or most incredably they pinned down my elephant squad and made the elephants rout ... i mean they went amok 1st and then routed on my epirote campaign ofc they where tired already and had been pelted by a few machinegun towers but still those cordinau scordiscii are trully the toughest of the toughest warriors i´ve ever seen

never saw them against rompharoi but could be fun

[d'Arthez]

There are simply too many variables to consider. It is not like these isolated Tests prove much. For every unit is part of the battle. Maybe the two units of regulars would beat the elite in two-on-one-combat. Sure. However, how does that impact on the battle-lines? If that would leave a massive hole on one of the flanks, the two units might return to a decimated army by the time they are done with beating the elite. Alternatively if an elite unit takes on the center of your line, that may create space on the flanks for the enemy cavalry.

The battle engine also plays its part. An experienced Pahlava / Sakae player can decimate a full stack of elite phalanx units. They'll lose the battle, simply because they might have to retreat since they are all out of arrows, despite wiping out 50% of the enemy army or run out of time. A loss without casualties is hardly a loss in most cases.

Then of course there is the issue of counters. A single unit of Gaesatae is easily countered by two units of anything that offer missile fire. However, the other (possibly 19) units determine how effectively those Gaesatae can be shielded from those counters, and thus greatly enhance or inhibit the potential of the Gaesatae to inflict mayhem. In the occasional campaign with the Gallic factions, I don't use them as front line troops, I use them as support troops because they have the fear effect, and can really make a difference to enemy morale. On average I lose about 3-4 soldiers per battle (per unit of Gaesatae), and I play on huge.

Problem is of course that it is not easy to determine the effectiveness of a stack. Sure, we know that a stack of 20 units of Pantodapoi won't get you far, but it is less clear how much staying power a more balanced stack has, as each unit will have its own specialised role on the battlefield. While the army Quintus uses in Magna Graecia is effective there, it is a fair assumption that it would struggle to last long in horse-archer country, even though unit replenishment is not much of a problem in the Crimea.

Sometimes space is scarce (for example bridge battles and sieges). Then you might be better of having the concentrated power of elites. Other times, space is abundant, or formations are so favourable that you don't even need the elites. If you have a few units of sphendetorai or toxotai on top of a steep hill, they'll decimate the Cretan Archers before they can even get into firing range. However, you cannot count on having advantageous terrain, unless you have established a defensive chokepoint for you to exploit.

It is a bit like chess. It is not about creating big threats that can easily be parried. It is about creating weaknesses in the opposition's position, and creating threats that increasingly stretch the oppositions defences, until (simple) threats cannot be parried anymore. Even the seemingly most secure position may have a weakness, that can be ruthlessly exploited. Elites may help in creating a multitude of threats / defences, that regular units cannot counter or exploit effectively.

[The Stranger]

There are simply too many variables to consider. It is not like these isolated Tests prove much. For every unit is part of the battle. Maybe the two units of regulars would beat the elite in two-on-one-combat. Sure. However, how does that impact on the battle-lines? If that would leave a massive hole on one of the flanks, the two units might return to a decimated army by the time they are done with beating the elite. Alternatively if an elite unit takes on the center of your line, that may create space on the flanks for the enemy cavalry.

Thats true, but I'm trying to show that atleast some elites can hold their own vs regulars or levies in a two-on-one-combat. And that even when they lose, they don't lose as hard as some people think.

Problem is of course that it is not easy to determine the effectiveness of a stack. Sure, we know that a stack of 20 units of Pantodapoi won't get you far, but it is less clear how much staying power a more balanced stack has, as each unit will have its own specialised role on the battlefield. While the army Quintus uses in Magna Graecia is effective there, it is a fair assumption that it would struggle to last long in horse-archer country, even though unit replenishment is not much of a problem in the Crimea.

Sometimes space is scarce (for example bridge battles and sieges). Then you might be better of having the concentrated power of elites. Other times, space is abundant, or formations are so favourable that you don't even need the elites. If you have a few units of sphendetorai or toxotai on top of a steep hill, they'll decimate the Cretan Archers before they can even get into firing range. However, you cannot count on having advantageous terrain, unless you have established a defensive chokepoint for you to exploit.

yup, roles are important, and i think some roles suit elites better, simply for the nature of the unit, they pack more power in a tighter space, and they have more morale so can keep fighting in situations where other units would rout.

It is a bit like chess. It is not about creating big threats that can easily be parried. It is about creating weaknesses in the opposition's position, and creating threats that increasingly stretch the oppositions defences, until (simple) threats cannot be parried anymore. Even the seemingly most secure position may have a weakness, that can be ruthlessly exploited. Elites may help in creating a multitude of threats / defences, that regular units cannot counter or exploit effectively.

there is no decisive answer, context matters as you say, and ofcourse each elite and each regular is different. but atleast for me its clear that while some elites may be less cost-effective and would lose to the ratio-balanced equivalent of regulars, the difference isnt very big. And some are more cost-effective, but again if they win vs the regulars, the difference isn't that big. And still i think that in chokes, elites can pull of stuff you can never do with regulars or levys, no matter how many you have.

[QuintusSertorius]

While the army Quintus uses in Magna Graecia is effective there, it is a fair assumption that it would struggle to last long in horse-archer country, even though unit replenishment is not much of a problem in the Crimea.

I did find an effective counter-horse-archer army, without having to recruit horse archers myself. It was still one easily replenished with mercs/regionals. It comprised 2x Hoplitai, 2x Thureophoroi, 2x Thraikioi Peltastai, 1x Kretan Archers, 1x Bosporan Heavy Archers, 1x Scythian Foot Archers, 2x Family Members and 2x Thraikioi Prodromoi for cavalry.

Heavily armoured enough that the horse archer's bows have little impact, with enough longer-ranged archery to decimate the unarmoured horse archers. Plus FMs and Prodromoi to hunt down any horse archers who come too close/charge when out of ammo.

[The Stranger]

the ai is unable to use any missile units properly so its fine. i usually just recruit mass phalanx and autoresolve. but with that army vs a player, i doubt you will do well. you have too few units that can stand up to a charge of a heavy cavalry archer unit such as the FM of saka rauka or sarmatians.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Against the AI, I find a sensible mix of Klerouchoi & Pantodapoi phalangitai is actually very effective when backed up with some heavy cavalry and plenty of missile units of your own.

Some careful maneouvering allows you to create a "crescent" (with plenty of gaps, mind you) of phalanx moving around. The AI will be largely preoccupied with the mass of pikes and spend its arrows on them, but the Klerouchoi are relatively well armoured enough to survive the worst of it and easily replenished anyway. The pantodapoi are useful as moderately armoured axemen that can stand up to most cavalry and medium infantry, even when flanked.

The heavy cavalry must deal with the enemy general, and as the AS you get what is arguably the best cavalry for that job as part of your FM bodyguard forces (Hetairoi). The masses of missile units are there to whittle down the enemy, and again easily replaced.

You'll suffer losses, but you should be able to replenish them fairly easily and also fairly cheaply. Also, you can essentially replace all of these units with the local mercenaries which means a two-stack army can hold out for quite some time.

Ironically, though, this army would never work without its elite component: the heavy cavalry. It's extremely doubtful that you would get lucky enough to see all enemy generals die quickly as opposed to a protracted melee while they attempt to hack their way through your infantry. And to avoid the worst of that, or at least speed up the melee significantly and reduce casualties on your side you need EB's most versatile elite cavalry: the hetairoi. Fast enough, good stammina (and they'll need it), vicious in a melee, with a good shock impact, and crucially: their effect remains even when their unit is downsized. Even in your small 30 men unit configurations, they continue to be simply the most reliable tool to open up and tear apart those 70 men cataphract units that the AI gets for bodyguards while still being fast and resilient enough to chase down light horse archers.

[The Stranger]

hetairoi are really nice, but the sarmatian FM are the best. too bad that their overal campaign is a bit dull. parthia is a good 2nd, but once you get the hang of it, theyre also pretty easy :P in the end ive always liked AS the best