"Worst" Unit

[skuzzy]

about the routing... I've won multiple battles due to the fact that they rout and then the enemy chases after and then they're not longer routing and successfully flank with units that are still in the field. Sort of like hit and run tactics, I find it quite nice especially if you have levy units sitting back there while they rout and just slam enemy units. I don't know, I'm a weird guy -.-

edit: My vote is kataphracts... only because I only usually play western and end up getting smashed by them late game when I'm stretching my empire east. But they are sexy for anybody else :)

[hoom]

Yeah, I haven't exactly used the Galatian Kluddolon much but when I have they seemed to be more effective than I'd expected for a pretty light & cheap unit

[Sdragon]

Kluddolon just die in droves, I prefer the pantodapoi over them since they can beat most light and medium cavalry. Kluddolon take a beating and then run, I struggle to keep them in the fight, their only use is a skirmisher hunter. Toxotai is another bad unit, I bring one per army for variety but they have less attack, less ammo and less men per unit.

[Spoofa]

Kluddolon just die in droves, I prefer the pantodapoi over them since they can beat most light and medium cavalry. Kluddolon take a beating and then run, I struggle to keep them in the fight, their only use is a skirmisher hunter. Toxotai is another bad unit, I bring one per army for variety but they have less attack, less ammo and less men per unit.

maybe your not using the Kluddolon right, they seem to do their job as gaurding my phalanx's flank quite well for my early game. They arent meant to go against hypaspistai if thats what your using them for. =P

[Ludens]

Ridoharjoz. They die quickly and kill very little, even when chasing routers. I used them extensively as the Casse, but that was only because I couldn't get any other cavalry. Sotoaras are also pretty useless when you've got access to Iasatae.

I rather liked Galatian Kluddolon back in the 0.80 build. They weren't much good at prolonged melee, but that isn't the job for light infantry. I used them for flanking and proving melee support to skirmishers.

[antisocialmunky]

The whole 'smash the phalanx' thing from their desc doesn't really work all that well - surprise surprise.

So I say this as my advice for Galatians: They are nice flankers though and can be used as light skirmishers for a little bit. I like them due to their large number. There's something to be said about taking up alot of space and being able to move quickly and be reasonable in battle. Atleast if you're playing the KH since they seem to always be on the short end of the numbers game and need them now instead of waiting for your Outrunner reinforcements to catch up from Hellas. There's alot of them and mercing them in times of need has helped me some(unless they all rout on you and you die horribly obviously. So use them for numbers and intital ferocity to mob units on the flank so you can attack the enemy battle line from the rear.

[MiniMe]

Elephant drivers.
Never seen them doing anything useful. Lazy zoophiles, scratching some big ear is all they can do.
And they cost you about 1200 per turn if you're using armoured elephants.
Not to mention their clothes look terrible, I wonder how they spent their salary. Must be somehow connected with drugs. Perhaps they spent all they've earned on drugs. Drugs ain't good.

[Kepper]

Form my the worst unit is Pantodapoi there cheap but is there any point on recruit Pantodapoi they are meat for cannon.

[Miles Sueborum]

I'll go for Hunaskapiz. They though fighters alright - but they are aviable at the same time as Gastiz, have exactly the same stats, look almost the same, have the same cost to recruit, but a significantly higher upkeep. Why should anyone bother to use them?

[Fleeb]

Chariots. I hate em. But I love the Casse :-(

[Ludens]

Chariots. I hate em. But I love the Casse :-(

You can't use Celtic chariots like normal bodyguards, but they do have their uses. They are an excellent harrasment unit due to a decent turn of speed and a large stash of javelins. They can also be used to break-up enemy units by charging through them. Lastly, they cause a morale penalty to nearby enemies. In my battles, the chariots usually lured away the enemy cavalry, allowing them to be isolated and destroyed in detail. Then they went behind the enemy lines and started pelting them with javelins, leading to chaos and gaps my infantry could exploit. They wouldn't actually engage in melee, however, not until the enemy was wavering. Then they would charge and (hopefully) tip a rout.

However, I would stay away from non-bodyguard chariots: in a melee, they last very briefly.

[I Am Herenow]

Weren't ancient chariots supposed to have no axel, and so a huge turning circle? Or at least they couldn't turn effectively, that's what I saw in this documentary.

[Watchman]

Of course they had an axle. What else would the wheels have been attached to ? Anyway, a chariot's turn radius was AFAIK largely dependent on the location of the axle relative to the rest of the machine and stability considerations.

And judging by the use the Celts put theirs to, those were designed very much for agility.

[I Am Herenow]

Sorry, I didn't mean no axle at all - I meant they didn't have one they could turn. Again, I'm just going on what I saw in a documentary on Boudicca.

[hoom]

Differential is the thing that lets car driving wheels turn at different speeds when cornering.

However, chariot wheels would likely be spinning on a fixed axle rather than both being fixed to a spinning axle so there should be no need for a differential.

[I Am Herenow]

Well, OK, but basically, were these things big steamrollers that could only go forwards and weren't manouvreable, or were they just as manouvreable as cavalry?

[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.

[samiosumo has a cave]

i believe that sandy of john travolta total war 3 is the worst unit because she trys(and fails) to molest the opposing team and then she dies of aids

[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.

[I Am Herenow]

Instagibbed

What the hell?!

[ElectricEel]

I'll go for Hunaskapiz. They though fighters alright - but they are aviable at the same time as Gastiz, have exactly the same stats, look almost the same, have the same cost to recruit, but a significantly higher upkeep. Why should anyone bother to use them?

Actually, according to Arkatreides' unit cards, they are very slightly weaker (1 less charge with sword, 0.05 less mass).

What the hell?!

I think someone got their account deleted. Probably a spambot or something.

[Dayve]

Apart from all the obvious ones that have been mentioned in the thread already, i think the early Roman Hastati are horrible at everything. Firstly, you are surrounded by well established enemies. Northern rebels have Gaestae which simply eat them for breakfast, Epirotes have phalangites and Carthage has awesome cavalry and after about 20 turns or so will start pumping out Iberian assault infantry in Lilybeo (at least in my current game they do anyway) and these will chew hastati up.

Aside from that, meager javelin skirmishers will cause HEAVY casualties even if hit from the front, despite their large shields, and if they get charged by heavy cavalry, even from the front, you can say goodbye to that unit... Slingers rip them up hard too.

If it weren't for me being superior to the AI, they would steamroll my first line of Hastati everytime. As it is now, i can usually win a battle with about 30% hastati casualties, but if you leave them fighting for more than 3 minutes without routing the enemy then i usually take around 50-70% casualties.

And lastly, due to it being impossible to gain even 1 command star unless you fight against odds of like 5-1 against you, they route quite often too because my generals usually have 0 command experience, and if my bank balance goes over 1 dinari when i end turn my generals all become connesseurs which give them -2 command also. Not to mention the fact they all have the gloomy trait too which i just can't seem to stop them from getting.

Yeah, add all this up and hastati are crap. I wouldn't be using them if i didn't enjoy playing accurate to history.

[Spoofa]

Apart from all the obvious ones that have been mentioned in the thread already, i think the early Roman Hastati are horrible at everything. Firstly, you are surrounded by well established enemies. Northern rebels have Gaestae which simply eat them for breakfast, Epirotes have phalangites and Carthage has awesome cavalry and after about 20 turns or so will start pumping out Iberian assault infantry in Lilybeo (at least in my current game they do anyway) and these will chew hastati up.

Aside from that, meager javelin skirmishers will cause HEAVY casualties even if hit from the front, despite their large shields, and if they get charged by heavy cavalry, even from the front, you can say goodbye to that unit... Slingers rip them up hard too.

If it weren't for me being superior to the AI, they would steamroll my first line of Hastati everytime. As it is now, i can usually win a battle with about 30% hastati casualties, but if you leave them fighting for more than 3 minutes without routing the enemy then i usually take around 50-70% casualties.

And lastly, due to it being impossible to gain even 1 command star unless you fight against odds of like 5-1 against you, they route quite often too because my generals usually have 0 command experience, and if my bank balance goes over 1 dinari when i end turn my generals all become connesseurs which give them -2 command also. Not to mention the fact they all have the gloomy trait too which i just can't seem to stop them from getting.

Yeah, add all this up and hastati are crap. I wouldn't be using them if i didn't enjoy playing accurate to history.

interesting conclusion, to counter the cavalry tell them to go to defensive formation and they will destroy cavalry after the initial charge, taking only a few casualties, my hastati do an extremely good job for me and im proud of each and every one of them

surely you can find another infantry that is worse then the amazing hastati? ah well though we all are entitled to our own opinions

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Nobody mentioned Doryphoroi Pontikoi so far. They don't break too easy, but always take heavy casualties. They just cannot fight properly.