Some thoughts on unit stats/tech tree (Greek)

[zhuge]

It is common knowledge that players tech up military-wise to get better, tougher units or unique units which fit some special function that lower tech tree units cannot do.
However when playing the Greeks, there appear to be some rather odd discrepancies.


1)Militia Cavalry (MC) Vs Greek Cavalry (GC)
MCs have Att6, Chrg2, Def6, Mor4, Cost340 and Upkeep110
GCs have Att7, Chrg7, Def8, Mor4, Cost330 and Upkeep110

As you can see the stats are roughly similar but the MCs have 2 big advantages:
1)A javelin ranged attack at Att6, Range50, Ammo6
2)Fast speed

I can't see sacrificing both of these for an extra point or two of attack/defense and a better charge, for basically the same cost and upkeep.
Tried 1 unit of GC once and frankly I can't see any use for them, that is any use that a unit of MC cannot do better. Their stats would indicate that they are better when used in a charge (perhaps a charge to the rear of an enemy unit). However I've found them as fragile as MCs when doing so. Expect to lose a few units once they get bogged down.

If we look at the Roman tech tree, we find that the situation is completely reversed (with Equites available from basic L1 Stables and Cavalry Auxilia available from L2 Stables). This appears to me to be more logical as I cannot understand the reason why players would tech up to a higher level only to find an inferior unit which serves little or no purpose relative to lower tech tree units.


2)Archers (AR) Vs Heavy Peltasts (HP)
ARs have Att(M/R) 3/7, Chrg2, Def2, Mor4, Cost190 and Upkeep170
HPs have Att(M/R) 5/7, Chrg2, Def11, Mor4, Cost350 and Upkeep170

Again we see that both units have roughly the same stats except for defense where HPs have a very significant 9 point advantage.
However considering the fact that we are trading a ranged attack with Range120 and Ammo30 (for AR) for a ranged attack with Range50 and Ammo6 (for HP), we are giving up an incredible amount of long range bite.

Also take into account that HPs cost considerably more (350 Vs 190) and need a higher level Practice Range (L3 for HP Vs L2 for AR) and it becomes clear that the unit has little functionality apart from providing the choice of having a tougher and more expensive Peltast unit.

In battles, you do not really expect your skirmishers to melee at first opportunity. You expect them to whittle down the opposition from a safe range and only melee when ammo is exhausted and the situation is dire. Perhaps in skirmisher Vs skirmisher battles, that extra defense for HPs might see some use but otherwise, it appears to be that archers are the overwhelming favorites in almost all situations, owing to their substantially longer range and higher ammo.


As mentioned in other threads, cavalry cost and upkeep is too low. A Large Town can produce either Hoplites or Militia Cavalry.
Hoplites cost 440 (11/man) with upkeep 170 (4.25/man) whereas
Mil.Cavs cost 340 (12.593/man) with upkeep 110 (4.074/man)

It is unusual that a unit which needs a replenishable supply of javelins and also to tend to their steeds (which are fast at that) would need less upkeep/man than a regular grunt unit.
I therefore propose that Militia Cavalry be switched with Greek Cavalry on the tech tree and their cost/upkeep increased (say perhaps to about 1.5X current values).

There are a number of forum members which believe that archers should be nerfed. The fact that you can get them fairly early and the high damage they can do, makes them overpowered.
I open the discussion to what exactly should be nerfed/adjusted (Ammo, Range, RangedAtt, Cost, Upkeep, etc), providing historical basis if possible (since archers were said not to be particularly dominant during this time period) and their position on the tech tree.