Lusotana Campaign

[seleucid empire]

i get the feeling nightmare doesnt really finish his campaigns. he seems to be able to retrain his levies everywhere and thats why he likes them. in my end game campaigns i really need those elites because im fighting far from my homeland and my armies get depleted more slowly with elites

[seleucid empire]

sorry for doublepost but this is especially true for hellenistic campaigns, in nightmares previous threads he discusses mostly getai, casse or KH. Getai and Casse are barbarion factions and have regional mics and some factional ones all over europe, making access to levies easier. KH has cities spread all over the map so same thing. but if he played an hellenistic faction into the lat game, he will see the usefulness of elites

[Basileus_ton_Basileon]

i get the feeling nightmare doesnt really finish his campaigns. he seems to be able to retrain his levies everywhere and thats why he likes them. in my end game campaigns i really need those elites because im fighting far from my homeland and my armies get depleted more slowly with elites

I concur, lower quality troops tend to take grislier casualties. I for a rule tend to take a healthy balance of elite, medium and low quality troops (2:5:3) for my campaigning armies abroad. The levies serve as nice cannon fodder to soak up the casualties (which can be easily replaced by mercs and locals). In hellenistic armies that means they do a lot of skirmishing; in celtic armies they tend to stand in the middle of the line (bolstered by the elites in morale) and take up the grind. Medium quality troops (ie Thuerophoroi or Bataroas) tend to make excellent flank guards and/or flankers.

[The Stranger]

I think hes talking from MP perspective but im not sure.


anyway ran some unoffcial tests (due to problems with javelins and secundairy weapons) with iberian and celtic elites but they are considerably worse, or perhaps the barbarian levies are considerably better (atleast bigger).

The solduros lost vs 4 lugoae both using only swords (primary) and only spears (secundary). but they did beat 5 hoplitai haploi (using only their primary), tho they did a worse job than the epilektoi and the elite africans.

however the dosidataskeli is one of the most effective ive seen so far. easily 2x as cost effective vs hoplitai haploi and pantodapoi. and that is in the open field, on a chokepoint i am sure they can stop 4x. i am aware they are taken out but the Thorakitai Agemata of Arche Seleukeia is only slightly inferior.

here is the result of 1 dosidataskeli (with general and i did use my javelins this time) vs 10 hoplitai haploi (about 2x more expensive in upkeep and recruitment). i was completely surrounded = 1412 kills vs 85 losses




and this is a city defense of 3 dosidataskeli (364 men) vs 60 hoplitai haploi (9723 men). That is about 4x their cost in upkeep and recruitment.

Result: Close Defeat (because I got pushed off the city square, I wouldve lost but couldve killed more) = 6945 kills and 328 losses.

Now unless anyone can defend a village from 3 sides with 12 hoplitai haploi (same cost as 3 dosidataskeli) I am going to declare the Dosidataskeli SUPERCOSTEFFECTIVE to the point of INSANITY.

[Nightmare]

@The Stranger, I must say you got very interesting results with your tests. You even got some cost-effectiveness out of spartans. I tested them as well, and if anything I found them to be one of the most overpriced, cost-inefficient units in the game.

If you really want a laugh, take a unit of elite dacian skirmishers and throw them at a single unit of triari. Seeing the price of the elite dacian skirmishers for the very first time caused me to literally spray coffee on my monitor, but at any rate a single unit of triari, not even adjusted for cost (triari are significantly cheaper) beats an elite dacian skirmisher unit. Or, I should say, with my testing this happened. With your testing I wouldn't be surprised if you came back and said it was a slaughterfest the other way around.

I'm not sure why you are getting different results. Your methodology seem appropriate enough. I wonder if unit sizes has anything to do with it (my testing was always on 'normal' sizes)? For the most part, I was never challenged by others on the cost-ineffectiveness of elite units. Everyone seemed to agree on that, more or less. The debate always seemed to be about other things. For instance, folks said it had to be set up that way to keep the player from spamming elites and playing ahistorically.

At any rate, if you can get different results and better cost-effectiveness out of elites than I can, then good for you, and more power to you. Maybe you just have a magic touch.

@Kull, of course 1 levy will always lose to 1 elite. You have to test "cost for cost," i.e. throw the same amount of cost at the elites, which means you might have to throw 2, 3, 4, or more units of levies at one elite unit.

Whether that proves it's "worth it" to tech up is debateable since good tactical play will almost always offset unit quality differences (as the EB quote says, Army of sheep led by a lion beats an army of lions led by a sheep

Of course good tactical play with a crappier unit can offset the advantage of a superior unit. The question is whether you can improve your good tactical play even more by using cost-effective vs. cost-ineffective units (i.e. good tactical play with cost-effective units should trump good tactical play with cost-ineffective units).

Of course while testing this stuff you don't want to use good tactical play to offset anything as that will skew the result. You pretty much just want to throw the units at each other and see what happens. The way The Stranger has been testing it seems fine, as he just does a generic surround and then "hands off" for one test, and then does an additional chokepoint test.

Anyway, thanks for testing, Stranger. And remember, whatever doesn't kill you makes you... stranger, heh.

[The Stranger]

well like i said, the price for roman units seems really weird, thats why we got on this entire track in the first place, they are out of balance with all the other units in eb, that are just so much cheaper. perhaps its because the romans do not have any true elite units such as the greek/easterns have their royal guards, the steppe civs have their elite cavalry and the barbarians get some really nasty heavy infantry. the romans get antesigni which is nice but doesnt compare. Then there is the praetorians but they lack the elite morale and attack power. Their core infantry is very good but they do not have much else to rely upon. Even triarii are mediocre at best. And its funny that Roman units kinda get worse from camillan to polybian and arguably also from polybian to Marian XD

Spartans lose vs the Haploi, I dont know why, they are only 1 armour lower than Epilektoi and Epilektoi do pretty good. But ye on a chokepoint elite are just always going to be cost efficient.

As for Komatai Skirmishers vs Triarii you shouldnt forget that the komatai are intended as a screening medium infantry while triarii is a heavy infantry. but nonetheless looking at stats (both unit stats and prices), komatai should win although it will be a close match. Did you use the javelins?

Im not going to say that every "elite" is cost effective, and historically definitly not all were. But I think there are a good few which are, and most of them are the Greek/Diadocchi/Carthaginian elite units (allthough it is hard to test the eastern ones because its cavalry and relies on archery alot and its also hard to test the barbarians because they rely on javelins alot...) Also Lugoae for some reason are really resilliant to beat, they are supercheap and pretty good... testing against them might get different results. Sofar only the Dosidataskeli has beat 4 lugoae...

And perhaps huge settings does get different results, Ill try it one time later.

hehe...

Komatai vs Polybian Triarii = 151 kills Komatai vs 98 Kills Triarii

But the Triarii are definitly more cost efficient because it should actually be 1 Komatai vs 2 Triarii in terms of cost and upkeep.


But lets do some math, on huge settings

1 komatai is worth 2968/120 = 24,5
1 Triarii is worth 1524/160 = 9,5

160 Triarii killed 2401 mnai worth of Komatai
120 Komatai killed 1434 mnai worth of Triarii

My judgment: Komatai either need a decrease in price or an increase in unit number and they also need the fast moving trait. (hmm they are supposed to have it, their skeleton says fast_skirmisher etc but for some reason they dont get it in game, neither do those archers :S...)


Anyway this only shows that Roman Units are ridicilous and very cost effient... The camillan triarii is only 2 attack and defense worse than the Epilektoi but half the cost 0_0


Ye its as I feared, vs the medium infantry the Elites get into trouble, the medium infantry (hoplitai, scutarii, triarii, principes etc) are more cost efficient than the elites, but at the same time, I doubt the medium infantry is capable of holding the line and a chokepoint vs a big mass of cheap units the same way the elites do.

2 Polybian triarii = Same recruitment cost as 4 haploi and 1 Epilektoi/Elite African

2 Triarii vs 4 Haploi = 538 Medium kills vs 245 Levy kills (1 of Triarii got surrounded, destroyed and routed, the other one won the battle alone when about 70% of the haploi were dead)
2 Triarii vs 4 Haploi = 459 Medium kills vs 103 Levy Kills (Now both got attacked from two sides but no complete surrounds. Significant better result)

2 Triarii vs 5 Haploi = Triarii broke.



1 thing I have noticed is that usually the kill percentage is roughly similar. 27% of army dead vs 24 % of army dead and it keeps rising at the same rate. It was the same with the Dosidataskeli, utill like 70% and then the Dosidataskeli couldn't keep up anymore.


And yes, normal settings will get different results than Huge. I think this is because the breaking point for units is still around 10 units for elites. And you just reach that point so much faster on normal unit scale...

[d'Arthez]

What will also matter is that on huge, a unit covers more space.

Consequently, if you have more people available, they will not always find a way to actively engage with foes. Playing on smaller scale probably favours the cheaper units and ranged units to a ridiculous extent.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Lugoae, their Germanic brethren, and the Iberian and Thracian Levies aren't all that bad. The Thracian and Iberian ones even get a few javelins so testing against these units won't net quite the same results. The crappiest units in game are Pantodapoi, there is really no question about that so they might be who you want to run your tests against. Levy Hoplites actually get a decent amount of armor, so units that rely more on longswords than ap will fare worse against them then against Pantadapoi.

And yeah, elites might massacre levy troops that are poorly armed, but medium infantry like Bataroas, Hastati, Thureophoroi, etc will clearly be more cost efficient. If you go with light infantry with ap axes such as Eastern Axemen, they will destroy elites in terms of cost efficiency. However each unit has its own specific role in EB, something which makes the game nearly infinitely replayable and still sucks me in even to this day.

[The Stranger]

What will also matter is that on huge, a unit covers more space.

Consequently, if you have more people available, they will not always find a way to actively engage with foes. Playing on smaller scale probably favours the cheaper units and ranged units to a ridiculous extent.

ye and those officers and generals will have alot more effect, this gets even worse on small settings...

[Kull]

You even got some cost-effectiveness out of spartans. I tested them as well, and if anything I found them to be one of the most overpriced, cost-inefficient units in the game.

If you really want a laugh, take a unit of elite dacian skirmishers and throw them at a single unit of triari. Seeing the price of the elite dacian skirmishers for the very first time caused me to literally spray coffee on my monitor, but at any rate a single unit of triari, not even adjusted for cost (triari are significantly cheaper) beats an elite dacian skirmisher unit.

You are completely missing the point. At no time did the EB team ever try to establish a linear mathematical relationship between unit cost and unit quality. And we certainly never promised such a thing. If you feel "crappy" units are the way to go, have at it. Most players realize that some mix of the two is the best approach, and that mix is often dependent upon the individual's playing style, the army mix of your opponents, and what you can afford.

I like to include elephant units in my army mix, even though they are hideously expensive and a horrible unit choice when considered purely from a clinical cost-benefit standpoint. But they are unique and enjoyable to watch, and in the final analysis, that's what counts. Elites ARE "worth it", even if only because they usually look cool and add fun and variety to your game. But they are also useful tactically as line anchors or as a reserve to throw in at a critical point in the battle.

[Arjos]

Someone is really frowning on the Komatai Epilektoi? XD
Huge shield, longswords and even too many javelins: they are a superb unit!

One can like to do these tests, but all they show is the result of a frontal charge & melee and some units don't serve that purpose...
If your only tactic is to go forward, then you are missing the whole world that EB is...

[The Stranger]

we were just debating cost-effectiveness here and it came from my first question about why roman units are so freakin cheap.

ofcourse there are different ways to use a unit other than frontal assault. and if you have the money ud be stupid to use haploi instead of epilektoi.

but at a point where you are strapped for cash its a valid question to ask if you can better have 2 normal hoplites for the price of 1 epilektoi or the other way around. and then ofcourse its depending on how you play. if you want to use hammer and anvil with 2 infantry, go for the hoplitai. if you want to pin the enemy in a city street, take the epilektoi.