cataphracts vs companions

**jerby** · 02-20-2005, 19:09

playing seleucids and wodnering why I should go for companions when I already have cataphracts? for me, I think they should trade places for a more logical order ( in strength) but then, companions were the elite, so that can't be right.
so, when you can't let companions trained before cat's you have to tune em.
companions should be stronger! they look wicked but still don't cut it.
maybe up the number, maybe 35 or something
maybe improve def.skill. or attack skill?

what do you think that has to be changed, caus like this. seleucids dont need companions.

**Alexander_The_Great** · 02-20-2005, 19:30

i made a 1v1 cataphracts agains companions the one who charged won

**SpencerH** · 02-20-2005, 19:35

I found cats better with the vanilla game. The companions were likely to die in a melee.

**The Stranger** · 02-20-2005, 19:40

no compainons shouldn't be better cataphracts have less attack and charge but better armour so way better fighting macedon and greeks and egypt while companions are useful vs pontus rome ensoforth

**jerby** · 02-20-2005, 20:08

emperor, not following you. do you mean companions are better against sword-armed infantry and cat's better against phalaxes? or soemthing else?

even tough, why would seleucids have comp. when you have cats. companions where the elite. nobelmen. can't they get some plus?