What's the point in elite units?

[The Stranger]

lol... you didnt read my post?

i just said, that they are worth it, because if you need 1 unit to hold the line, which unit will do best? the elite obviously... so they are worth it.

and im NOT comparing elites to levies, im pitting elites VS levies, to see how cost effective they are. And then we pitted regulars VS levies and the conclusion was that regulars are slightly more cost-effective VS levies than elites. so please, read...

so your main army is best to be made up of regulars, they will give you the best upkeep-battle usefulness ratio, but taking 1-2 elites with you, is definitely worth it, because they can be assigned tasks and do stuff no amount of regulars can pull off. For example on VH-VH, 3 elite FM can take the entirety of greece in a blitz, no amounf of regulars, even if they replenished, could pull that off.

but in any case, if you are so rich that you can make an army of elites... why not. if u want to. ofcourse that would be the best army u could make... no debating tat

[QuintusSertorius]

lol... you didnt read my post?

i just said, that they are worth it, because if you need 1 unit to hold the line, which unit will do best? the elite obviously... so they are worth it.

I read and disagreed. As before, regulars are more than up to the task of holding the line, especially since I never have captain-led stacks and aren't careless with my generals. More to the point, two units of regulars will do a better job of it than one elite. I'd rather have two units of Hoplitai than one of Hypaspistai (or for that matter a unit of decent cavalry - more cavalry is better for flexibility). That's more tactical flexibility. Furthermore, they're recruitable all over the place, and replacable with an identical unit of mercenaries, who are again available all over.

You can see my army above, I never use a full stack, so it's not as if I'm short of space.

and im NOT comparing elites to levies, im pitting elites VS levies, to see how cost effective they are. And then we pitted regulars VS levies and the conclusion was that regulars are slightly more cost-effective VS levies than elites. so please, read...

You didn't put regulars against elites. So this is all meaningless and tells us nothing. The AI doesn't field armies comprised mostly of levies, most players don't use armies comprised mostly of levies.

so your main army is best to be made up of regulars, they will give you the best upkeep-battle usefulness ratio, but taking 1-2 elites with you, is definitely worth it, because they can be assigned tasks and do stuff no amount of regulars can pull off. For example on VH-VH, 3 elite FM can take the entirety of greece in a blitz, no amounf of regulars, even if they replenished, could pull that off.

The only worthwhile elites I've found are Kretan Archers, and that's not because of their armour or secondary weapon, but range of their bows and significantly more ammunition carried compared to Toxotai or Sotaroas (the easily-available archers in the west). They do a task other units do, but better (because range and ammo).

I don't play on VH-VH and I don't blitz, and FMs are a special category since you can't recruit them in the same way. In a longer campaign where you aren't exploiting the slowness of the AI's response, you need to be able to replenish, and that's much easier with regulars (especially those with a mercenary equivalent).

but in any case, if you are so rich that you can make an army of elites... why not. if u want to. ofcourse that would be the best army u could make... no debating tat

It might be a great vanity project, but it's a waste of money. I'd rather have two armies of regulars than one elite one - again greater tactical flexibility since that's two different missions rather than just one. I can invade from two different places with two armies, rather than weathering all the pressure in one place with just one.

[The Stranger]

I read and disagreed. As before, regulars are more than up to the task of holding the line, especially since I never have captain-led stacks and aren't careless with my generals. More to the point, two units of regulars will do a better job of it than one elite. I'd rather have two units of Hoplitai than one of Hypaspistai (or for that matter a unit of decent cavalry - more cavalry is better for flexibility). That's more tactical flexibility. Furthermore, they're recruitable all over the place, and replacable with an identical unit of mercenaries, who are again available all over.

You can see my army above, I never use a full stack, so it's not as if I'm short of space.

except that 2 dont always do a better job than 1. due to better morale, 1 elite can tie down enemy armies for longer in some cases than 2 regulars ever could. due to better endurance they can wear down the enemy longer on the flank in some cases than 2 regulars. etc. this is my experience atleast, and if you disagree, i guess thats where the discussion ends.

You didn't put regulars against elites. So this is all meaningless and tells us nothing. The AI doesn't field armies comprised mostly of levies, most players don't use armies comprised mostly of levies.

sigh, you dont get the concept of cost-effectiveness.

[QuintusSertorius]

except that 2 dont always do a better job than 1. due to better morale, 1 elite can tie down enemy armies for longer in some cases than 2 regulars ever could. due to better endurance they can wear down the enemy longer on the flank in some cases than 2 regulars. etc. this is my experience atleast, and if you disagree, i guess thats where the discussion ends.

I do disagree, because that isn't my experience. Elites are rarely much better at doing the same job, and they certainly aren't better than two regular units at doing it. Two units of Hoplitai will hold a line much more effectively than one of Hypaspistai, not least because one can pin and the other flank. Especially when you have the force multiplier of your own cavalry, doing the unit-breaking from the rear added into the mix.

The better morale is often irrelevant compared to the impact the general is having, and the difference between 11/12 (the usual morale of regulars) and 15 (usual morale of elites) not anywhere near as important as between 8-10 (usual levy morale) and 12.

sigh, you dont get the concept of cost-effectiveness.

No, clearly you don't. Levies are an irrelevance since they are not capable of doing the same job. Whereas elites are only at best 25% better than regulars stats-wise, for double the price.

The only economy elites are providing is in taking up less slots in a 20-unit stack than the equivalent cost in regulars.

[The Stranger]

I do disagree, because that isn't my experience. Elites are rarely much better at doing the same job, and they certainly aren't better than two regular units at doing it. Two units of Hoplitai will hold a line much more effectively than one of Hypaspistai, not least because one can pin and the other flank. Especially when you have the force multiplier of your own cavalry, doing the unit-breaking from the rear added into the mix.

The better morale is often irrelevant compared to the impact the general is having, and the difference between 11/12 (the usual morale of regulars) and 15 (usual morale of elites) not anywhere near as important as between 8-10 (usual levy morale) and 12.

thats not a fair comparison, you should compare 2 elites to 4 regulars, and not 1 elite to 2 regulars. manouvers are another extra thing to consider, and its not fair to take that out of the eqation for 1 unit but noth for the other.

No, clearly you don't. Levies are an irrelevance since they are not capable of doing the same job. Whereas elites are only at best 25% better than regulars stats-wise, for double the price.

The only economy elites are providing is in taking up less slots in a 20-unit stack than the equivalent cost in regulars.

im not comparing elites to levies, im comparing how good elites do vs something and how good regulars do vs that same thing. its the obvious choice for that something to be levy units, because i can't balance the ratio of regulars vs another regular or an elite vs another elite. so i let 1 regular fight 1 levy and see what the casualties are and what the cost is for that unit, and i do the same for the elite, and then i compare the two. then i look at what point the levies will overwhelm and start to defeat the regular/elite and again i compare the results.

the conclusion was that when for example you can put 1 regular vs 1 levy, then cost-wise the regulars will suffer less casualties than the elite. but when you are in a chokepoint where you can't put two regulars but you can use 1 elite, then the elite (some of them atleast) will do better than even 2 regulars (put behind each other) because the elite will break at a much much later point.

its not that hard.

[vartan]

Some four years ago, we had similar questions to that posed in this thread. Tests proved to be much more efficient than theoretical discussion. Hypothesis. Method. Data collection. Analysis. Conclusion. Good times.

[The Stranger]

i did the tests way back. cant do any again even if i wanted to, disc is broken.