What's the point in elite units?

[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.