"Worst" Unit

[Fleeb]

Celtic chariots were light fast things. They weren't lumbering carts.

Some good examples: http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...+chariot&gbv=2

Celts wouldn't usually have fought directly from the chariot, it was more of a battle taxi than a tank. They'd ride up, jump off the chariot to fight, and jump back on and run if things got too hot.

[Watchman]

Any chariot is all things considered relatively clumsy. But some were more cumbersome than others, depending on the design. For example the light Late Bronze Age Egyptian war-chariot (and comparable designs) was designed as a platform for an archer, and duly needed to be able to execute relatively tight turns to maintain distance from the enemy. This was achieved by having the axle at the very rear of the cab.

The contemporary heavy Hittite three-man design was conversely designed much more as a shock weapon, and needed to support greater weight but had less need for agility; hence the axle was placed right under the cab, which otherwise worked well enough but left the machine with a rather wide turning radius and a rather high risk of overturning in tight high-speed turns.

The somewhat later Assyrian four-horse four-man design was even bigger and heavier, and by what I know of it little more than an archery platform combined with a linear-attack terror weapon - not all that much different from a tank conceptually, really.

Similarly the later Persian and Diadochi scythed chariots were deigned for frontal assault rather than maneuvering. But the Celts, who made war in regions rife with rather "close" and rugged terrain, had an entirely different approach (which had possibly also became the norm among the Mycenean Greeks just before they collapsed before the Doric onslaught), using the vehicle as an agile platform for an elite warrior to hurl javelins from and to carry him around the battlefield - a "battle taxi" or "jeep" if you will, albeit one whose size and noise also allowed it to be used as an effective shock weapon to break a wavering enemy formation.

[Sygrod]

There was only one mention of heavy stone projectors. I have to change my vote to that category - forget the silly Pantodapoi.

1. The stone projectors are virtually useless against enemy forces.
2. They are easily replaced by other siege equipment.
3. Once you smash through an entrance of a large walled city, the gate keepers will still pour stuff on you as you try to get inside. Better to use ladders.
4. They are brutally expensive.
5. For the price, elephants are better. They can at least get out of the way when enemies charge them, or at least give a good account of themselves.

[Jesus_saves]

There was only one mention of heavy stone projectors. I have to change my vote to that category - forget the silly Pantodapoi.

1. The stone projectors are virtually useless against enemy forces.
2. They are easily replaced by other siege equipment.
3. Once you smash through an entrance of a large walled city, the gate keepers will still pour stuff on you as you try to get inside. Better to use ladders.
4. They are brutally expensive.
5. For the price, elephants are better. They can at least get out of the way when enemies charge them, or at least give a good account of themselves.

What kind of enemies would charge an elephant?

[MiniMe]

What kind of enemies would charge an elephant?

Akontistae. And they will win.

[The Errant]

What kind of enemies would charge an elephant?

Galatian Kleruchoi, most generals bodyguards, Peltastai etc.

Mid to high end celtic troops with the "Impetous" attribute are the worst.
"For honor and glory! Let's get trampled!"

[Juvenal]

Like Sygrod, I have had a bad experience with catapults.

I thought I could use them in my KH elite army for administering the final solution to the Romani.

The first problem is that they are hideously expensive - especially in upkeep, so I delayed building them until the rest of the army was ready.

Secondly, they are very slow on the campaign map. I had to ship them from Athens. They took so long to sail to Italia that by the time they arrived the Romani core cities were already captured. So I sent them to my final objectives in Iberia (which took another couple of years of sailing time).

So finally they land near Arsé and manage to knock down the wooden gatehouse. This just left me with Emporion and Massalia to capture.

I made the mistake of sending them overland. Of course I got waylaid by the Lusotannan. Catapults are a liability on the battlefield. My entire army found itself acting as a catapult-guard while the catapults killed half a dozen Lusotannan, then several dozen of my own troops who got in the way (damn fire-at-will).

Because of the catapults, it took me another two turns to reach Emporion, by which time the Aedui had turned up and I got waylaid again.

I think I could have maintained 4 or 5 traditional Hoplite units for the cost of that single catapult. I don't think I will be building them again.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Like Sygrod, I have had a bad experience with catapults.

Catapults get my vote as well. Not because of the unit, but because this is the only vanilla unit left in EB. (I know it is (virtually) impossible to make new siege engines work in RTW, I know. But still...)

Catapults can do serious stuff:

1) In densely populated area's, such as Hellas they allow for some really fast conquest. Think of it: you Seleukids at war with KH, ship two armies to the southern part of the Peloponessos (one for assaults, one to use as multiple garrisons packed together), wait a turn when you've got their (use army 2 to screen army 1), attack Sparte and Korinthos all in the same turn. Next turn: hit Athens & Chalkis.
2) Hunting down: army attacks enemy forces, driving it towards your catapult army which then get to destroy the army completely.