Elites: Awesome But Impractical?

**Argeus the Paladin** · March 11, 2010, 06:26 PM

I just got the feeling from my newest games that it is better in EB to never, ever touch the elite units.

1) They are expensive and generally less cost-effective. And naturally not worth it. For instance, an Argyraspid cost almost 70% more and cost twice as much upkeep as their lesser Pezhetairoi brother. For this you net one attack and one defense extra.

2) Limitation in training and retraining. They can only be trained in mainland Makedonia (Please correct me if I was wrong), and bringing an army of Argies to, say, Sweboz means no retraining for that army until its number whittles down to zero, unless you utilize a convoluted scheme of troop rotation.

3) Pretty much every lesser unit can do what they can do. This may overlap with point no. 1, but I don't think 3 stacks of Hoplitai Haploi/Sphendonetai can do any less than one stack of Hypapistai/Argyraspidai/Thessalonikoi Hippeis/Kretai Toxotai can at vastly lower cost.

Discuss: Are elite units really Awesoem But Impractical?

**Faramir D'Andunie** · March 11, 2010, 06:37 PM

There is more to a unit that attack/defence stats. Try to see differences in morale,stamina as well.
The example isn't that good though. Pezhaiteroi have a limited recruitement area themselves and Argyraspidai can also be recruited in the coastal cities of Anatolia (if recruitment viewer is right).

In a way you could say that elite units are awesome but not meant to be spammed in armies till you have a really wealthy state, and you eventually end up having more money than you can use later on games.

**Unintended BM** · March 11, 2010, 07:52 PM

It's worth it to stick a unit or two of elites into an army full of regular troops. You shouldn't have a fully stack of elites though, too expensive, and makes the game too easy.

**athanaric** · March 11, 2010, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by Argeus the Paladin

Discuss: Are elite units really Awesoem But Impractical?

Somebody else spending too much time with tvtropes.org? ^^

Elite units in EB are really beautiful. Apart from that, though they are expensive on purpose, they also come in handy when the situation becomes desperate, providing a bulwark behind which weaker units can rally.
For Casse, elite units are an integral part of the military machine as they provide a morale bonus.

Some elite infantry units are really useful in storming cities (Elite Thracians or Pedites Extraordinarii, or example). City assaults via siege equipment tend to become a bloody mess, and storming key points with elite infantry units is actually cost-efficient, as normal guys tend to rout in some situations or fall to excessive missile fire.
Playing Pahlava - a faction which has no factional elite infantry - I've made very good use of the regional Indian Guild Warriors, who are a great help against phalanx troops. These guys are certainly not too expensive for what they do - which is utterly obliterate any armoured enemy. Say goodbye to your Klerouchon Agema...

You can beat a campaign without elites - Saba is the best example - but they are real fun and well worth the expense.

**Argeus the Paladin** · March 12, 2010, 01:52 AM

^^ You have to agree that TV Tropes is made of win and will ruin your life at the same time right?

BTW, another different but integral question is: Is three stacks of regular always better than one of elite?

**torongill** · March 12, 2010, 03:06 AM

Well, since you can only control one stack at a time, I'd say better one elite than one regular, with the two others under AI control(which comes under the term Bad Thing). Elite infantry are expensive, because they are tough and have a can do attitude. Be it defend a crucial point in the line, deliver the smashing punch or be the first into the breach, the elites are the best for the task. I remember back in vanilla I had to defend a breach with silvershields, while the rest of my army was busy defending the gate. Those silvershields managed to stop half a stack from entering and killed more than 700 enemies by themselves; that actually saved the day.

BTW, it would be more historical if the elite units frightened enemy and had command name properties. But I suppose we have to wait until EBII provides the recruitment pool and the limited recruiting of elite units.

**magraev** · March 12, 2010, 03:29 AM

I'm pretty sure some of the elite infantry and cavalry are a bit overpriced.

999 in upkeep for silvershields is a bit too much (not to mention 1019 (iirc) for Thessalian heavy cav). You could get two good units or 3 levies for that cost. When you get to the point where money is no object I like to keep a single silvershield in my armies, but until then I save my money.

And i agree that some elites should have command and others frighten_infantry or frighten_cavalry. You could always mod that in.

**Entropy Judge** · March 12, 2010, 10:31 AM

I'd have to disagree with the opening statement. For some factions (the Casse in particular, as noted) elite units are very nearly necessary - more than simple attack and defense advantages, elites usually possess higher stamina and morale, letting you build armies around them. For example, any unit that possesses morale-boosting effects for friendly units lets you use other effective units that otherwise would have too low a morale to use in larger numbers.

Also, you have to consider the placement of values: The Argyasprids have 1 more defense than Pezhetairoi (er ... Reformed Pezhetairoi) - but the A's have 11 Armour, 5 Shield, and 9 Skill while the RPez's have 12 Armor, 5 Shield, and 7 Skill. A's are at less of a disadvantage against AP units (except *ranged* AP units) and at more of a disadvantage against Ranged units in general, because they have a higher Defense Skill than the RPezes.

Keeping up with the Casse theme, and delving a bit into the AoR issue: Clona Tekonac are very effective axemen available only in Northern Iberia. I'd like to compare them to the Eiras - an Ireland-only elite swordsman unit. Stats:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

So, let's start with particulars, shall we? The Clona Tekonac are specialist units: they revolve around killing heavily armored units. I'd considered using the Kluddargos instead of the Eiras because the K's are also anti-Armour, and have the advantage of being Eagle units, but preferred to use the Eiras, which are Elite swordsmen - nothing more. Long, detailed discussion follows:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Regarding Primary Weapons, the CTs are much better against armored units - they have a higher attack and AP to boot. The Eiras have a lower attack, but they also have a much better range - the range of Velites is 55, for example, while Principes have a range of 35. Against heavily armored troops, CTs are going to do better, but against most Gallic or Germanic units the Eiras would be my first choice. The 1 point of difference shouldn't matter much against the lower armor values, but the extended range would help in guaranteeing at least one volley gets off cleanly.

For secondary weapons, the CTs are again winners against high-Armour troops ... but are significantly worse against everything else. They have an Attack 4 points lower, 2 points less in the Charge, and a 6% lower chance to kill with any given hit. Given that these units would probably be coming online in a similar time-frame for a human Casse player, the CTs would only be an issue if a heavily-armoured force was in the area. Given that P Principes have an Armor of 12, 4 Shield, and 8 Skill, the CTs have an effective total Defense to work with of 18, with a 9 attack. The Es have a 24 to work with ... but 13 attack. Slightly better odds, especially with the higher Lethality the Es have.

Defense-wise: They have identical Shields, but the Es have better Skill and Armor. They are, therefore, more likely to generate a miss. Against a CT (9), they have an effective defense of 20 - against the Missile of a CT (7), 4 or 8 depending on whether they can interpose the Shield. CTs defending against a CT have an effective melee defense of 17 and an effective missile defense of 3 or 7. No, I didn't take into account melee combat minus the shield. But the Es have a higher defense than CTs regardless.

Regarding both the Attack and Defense values, the fact that the Es have 75% the size of CTs doesn't seem like it matters much unless going up against super-heavy units like Cataphracts or TABs.

The Es have higher Morale, and both are Impetuous - the CTs do have the Trained status. I'll be frank and admit I have little idea what that does; I think it affects unit cohesion. The Es have a slightly higher Mass - in a pushing war (as against spearmen or armoured troops) they are a bit more effective.

CTs are sturdier and hide better. This makes them invaluable when springing traps and in lengthier combat.

Finally: Price Tags.
CTs are 1818 upfront and 455 a turn.
Es are 3003 upfront and 751 a turn.
Works out (roughly) to 45 each for the CTs with 11 per turn.
Es get paid about a hundred each (more than double the CTs) 25 per turn.

So while Es are about twice as expensive compared to CTs, CTs won't really earn their keep unless you routinely fight heavily armored units. Against P Principes (12/4/8) - a unit they're likely to encounter - CTs are slightly less effective, and the Cohorts of Marian Rome actually have less armor (though more men). When compared to likely unit groups of Gallic or Germanic forces, CTs are going to be less efficient due to the lower armor ratings of those units. So while Es are more than double the cost of CTs, they're more efficient ... too costly to be Boring but Practical, and not so powerful to be Awesome Yet Practical, but just about inline to start becoming a lynch-pin for later Casse armies, once you've begun phasing out the unarmored shortswordsmen and begun fielding armies of Calawre (who are available in most of the territories the Casse would be interested in and decently armed and armored).

EDIT: I got my stats from here:
http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.ne...hp?mp=unitlist
not in-game or the export_descr_units.txt, so if there are any errors, that's why.

**Titus Maximius Thongus** · March 12, 2010, 05:27 PM

elites make excellent reserve infantry. They can be the tipping point in a crucial battle.

**Ludens** · March 13, 2010, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by Argeus the Paladin

BTW, another different but integral question is: Is three stacks of regular always better than one of elite?

I think I see what the problem is. Elite units are not cost-effective. If you want to go for cost-effectiveness, recruit regular units. Elites are for when a) it's crucial that the unit will hold (e.g. covering a threatened flank, plugging a hole in the line) or b) a little more power makes a great difference (leading the flanking attack or assaulting a city). You shouldn't use elites to replace the rank-and-file: instead of having "regular" and "elite" armies, you should give every important army a few elites units to take the most important positions.

The problem is that it's hard to simulate the use of elites in EB since a) unit morale is rather higher than realistic and b) the battle A.I. does not present a formidable threat. This means a good commander can often make regular units do the job of elites, especially when the regulars have a bit of experience on them.