What's the point in elite units?

[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