What is and what should be the most powerful unt?

[zbeck008]

Title says it all...after a bunch of one on one last night with everyone's elite unit types, it looks like the Oath Sworn are the hands down winner...

Now I could be wrong but my opinion is that some Spartan unit SHOULD be the best unit in the game, atleast on par with a Praetorian or other Roman unit but NOPE! Apparently some random Gaul can just cut the knees right out of any other unit!

So what IS and what SHOULD be the best unit in the game?? Totally personal so no wrong answer.

[Lathrim]

They are excellent at fighting, you know. They've always been. There's no shame in losing to an elite Celtic warrior.

[Roach]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "most powerful".. do you mean who wins a head-on battle, or who is the biggest difference maker on a battlefield?

My personal vote would go for the Indian War Elephants (or Elephant Generals), which are not only very powerful but very versatile:
High melee damage, especially against infantry
Scares enemies
Throws javelins for extra damage
Fast, meaning it can run down skirmishers and routing units or flank quickly

There are units that will beat up an elephant in a head to head fight, but the elephant is naturally designed to be used like cavalry - flanking and routing enemies.

All the Egyptian generals I buy get to ride elephants

[Korburss]

There were more celts than spartans, thus logic follows there would be a higher chance of the celts having better troops by chance of genetics and circumstance. As for history they never fought, so who knows.

As for the praetorian vs spartan thing. Praetorians had better quality and more advanced gear.

Long story short, it depends on the situation to determine who or what is best.

[chris10]

As for the praetorian vs spartan thing. Praetorians had better quality and more advanced gear.

#
well..this particular comparison is a no brainer....
once the roman war machine refined its infantry strategy no phalanx type fighting army stood a chance and they took Greece in no time...and anyway
Spartans were already outdated by the time the game starts...they shouldnt even be in as by 272 B.C Sparta only enjoyed a merciful independence from the macedonian invaders and was irrelevant as a power and as a city.

As for phalanx..there is a reason why it dissapeared from infantry tactics until revived for about 200 years in the 15th century...

[Korburss]

Doubled.

[PlPs]

Praetorians must be the best but Arveni's Oatsworns are the best with Egypt's Galatian Royal Guards. then Iceni's elite inf (Noble something). Pike infs are just too weak. especially Pontus and Athens don't have any elite units. Parthian Cataphracts must have epic charge, but no, Arveni's elite cav can beat 2 units of Royal Cataphracts. I'm not sure if patch 3.0 really fixed this. if yes, I may get that.

[Selea]

Naturally elephants and after them (for the period) Cataphracts.

[Selea]

Parthian Cataphracts must have epic charge, but no, Arveni's elite cav can beat 2 units of Royal Cataphracts. I'm not sure if patch 3.0 really fixed this. if yes, I may get that.

No, patch 3 didn't fix it at all. The only thing it did is to enable shock cavalry to disengage from a fight easier but the problems both on stats and design (Cataphracts should not be shock cavalry to begin with, because they cannot be good at it) are still there.

If you are interested I mad a mod that changes many thing about cavalry in the game, and turns Cataphracts into the most powerful cavalry unit (and probably also the most powerful unit after elephants). You find it in the mod forum, it's called (surprise surprise) "Better Cavalry".

[PlPs]

Thank you Selea for the reply.

I'm sure you've made a great job but I'm not using any mods since Empire Total War.

Peace to you anyway.

[AQUILIFIER]

I think that Thracian Nobles beat any other infantry unit one on one. I have not tested cavalry units so far

[Thangaror]

"Some random gaul" LOL Those are soldurii, and already Caesar was aware of their bravery and skill in battle.

[zbeck008]

Soldurii huh? By random I meant that I've never heard of "Oathsworn"...and to clarify, this isn't some Deadliest Warrior showdown I'm asking for...just wanted to know what anyone else has noticed about any particular unit in the game being the most amped up stats. Spartans were the strongest in RTW 1...but it looks like it goes to the Oathsworn this time around...

[Eofor]

There should be no such as a "most powerful unit".

[Lathrim]

I'm fairly certain it's down to Thracian Nobles or the Oathsworn, haven't set them against each other yet.

[BigEl_nobody]

Gameplaywise there shouldn´t be one of course.
Logically it should be Cataphracts, they were the most powerful and feared cavalry in that time. An we all know where warfare lead until Medieval age (Heavy Cavalry Wins everything into Cavalry Archers wins everthing into Gunpowder Wins everything...).

Troughout I have the feeling that the Roman Roster is just straight OP. Even Hastati and Triarii can challenge elite units, which is BS and destroys the Balance of Roma. Maybe they should have made everything below Legionaires Light Infantry, so every Melee Units before Marian Reforms, except Triarii, and later Auxiliary Units too. And in addition to that Legionaires have to be more expensive in Upkeep and have to be heavy limited in their numbers AND have to be weaker. I mean come on even a normal Legionaire troop is godlike on the battlefield and kills trough all Spear- and inferior Swordunits with ease. They were just normal soldiers, what made them strong were their tactics and formations, not being superhuman in 1vs1 fights (So Formations like Testudo have to be buffed, while their "cold" stats have to be nerfed).

[Praetorian349]

Troughout I have the feeling that the Roman Roster is just straight OP. Even Hastati and Triarii can challenge elite units, which is BS and destroys the Balance of Roma. Maybe they should have made everything below Legionaires Light Infantry, so every Melee Units before Marian Reforms, except Triarii, and later Auxiliary Units too. And in addition to that Legionaires have to be more expensive in Upkeep and have to be heavy limited in their numbers AND have to be weaker. I mean come on even a normal Legionaire troop is godlike on the battlefield and kills trough all Spear- and inferior Swordunits with ease. They were just normal soldiers, what made them strong were their tactics and formations, not being superhuman in 1vs1 fights (So Formations like Testudo have to be buffed, while their "cold" stats have to be nerfed).

All Roman units should challenge even the best due to their higher than normal morale and stamina. Morale is the most important factor in a battle, and having the ability to outlast your opponent and tire them out would win battles, even if their stats are lesser, such as Hastati vs Celtic Warriors.

And no, they weren't just normal soldiers. They were a cut above any regular warrior or soldier. Just look at their daily routine and track record and you can see this.

I agree that the Celtic Oathsworn are ridiculously OP for what they were. Sure, they may have been good fighters, but there is only so far you can get from sporadic fighting with other tribes and relatively lax practice when compared with the training regimen of Roman legionaries. They were the best of the Celts, but comparatively they should be fairly mediocre.

And Spartans should be head and shoulders over them, but not amazing due to their decline in power.

[Sar1n]

All Roman units should challenge even the best due to their higher than normal morale and stamina. Morale is the most important factor in a battle, and having the ability to outlast your opponent and tire them out would win battles, even if their stats are lesser, such as Hastati vs Celtic Warriors.

And no, they weren't just normal soldiers. They were a cut above any regular warrior or soldier. Just look at their daily routine and track record and you can see this.

Just where are you getting this from? Pre-marian troops were nothing better than levies with little more than usual training. Most of Velites and Hastati never trained for war before being recruited into army, and they weren't trained that much after recruitment. And Rome was never a warrior culture like, say, Sparta, celts, or scythians. Individually, such troops weren't as good, perhaps on par with levied hoplites of some less warlike city states.

Classical legionaries were better-they had longer training, but again it was tactics that made them really good. Legionary was a grown man who decided to join the army, while Spartan citizens, Celtic nobility and many others were brought up to be soldiers. Celtic elites definitely deserve the status they have in game. They had the training which you undervalue, since they were trained from early age, and they had the equipment to match it. Celts weren't unwashed barbarians (in fact is was them who invented soap), their metallurgical skill was unmatched in the Europe.

Romans shouldn't even have real elite in post-marian army, their military was based on taking the common citizen and give him good equipment and training. Instead of having elite and regular troops, they should have just a bunch of bit above regular soldiers, with better equipment and tactics. But if there has to be some elite, it shouldn't be Praetorian guard. These had better equipment, but were chosen primarily for their political allegiance, and after the Guard was formed, they never fought in battles except for few cases in civil wars, so they lacked battlefield experience. If anything, it should be Evocati, soldiers that served their years in army and obtained discharge, then enlisted again.

[Praetorian349]

Just where are you getting this from? Pre-marian troops were nothing better than levies with little more than usual training. Most of Velites and Hastati never trained for war before being recruited into army, and they weren't trained that much after recruitment. And Rome was never a warrior culture like, say, Sparta, celts, or scythians. Individually, such troops weren't as good, perhaps on par with levied hoplites of some less warlike city states.

Classical legionaries were better-they had longer training, but again it was tactics that made them really good. Legionary was a grown man who decided to join the army, while Spartan citizens, Celtic nobility and many others were brought up to be soldiers. Celtic elites definitely deserve the status they have in game. They had the training which you undervalue, since they were trained from early age, and they had the equipment to match it. Celts weren't unwashed barbarians (in fact is was them who invented soap), their metallurgical skill was unmatched in the Europe.

Romans shouldn't even have real elite in post-marian army, their military was based on taking the common citizen and give him good equipment and training. Instead of having elite and regular troops, they should have just a bunch of bit above regular soldiers, with better equipment and tactics. But if there has to be some elite, it shouldn't be Praetorian guard. These had better equipment, but were chosen primarily for their political allegiance, and after the Guard was formed, they never fought in battles except for few cases in civil wars, so they lacked battlefield experience. If anything, it should be Evocati, soldiers that served their years in army and obtained discharge, then enlisted again.

You're right about the Hastati, they were a bad example.

But I take issue with the rest of your response. The Romans were most definitely a soldiering culture. They began their existence surrounded by tribal foes, all very well developed, warlike and hostile, such as the Etruscans or Samnites. They either fought or died. Fighting was what they did best. So they did it some more. Everyone they fought they bested, so they carried on beyond Italy. I'd say that's more of a soldiering culture than Sparta or the Celts. More battles, more wars, more conquest, more experience.

And a legionary may have began his training later, but he trained far harder, fought a lot more, accumulated copious amounts of battle experience across the world, and had iron-clad morale due to his sense of entitlement as a citizen soldier.

Their metallurgical skill may, arguably, be superior to Roman, but they could never utilise this skill without the materials and facilities required. Hence why the Romans created and used the best armour of the time, Lorica Segmentata.

The Romans should definitely have elites. Not only are Evocati and the First Cohort truly a cut above the rest, brilliant fighters, the Praetorians are the best fighters in the empire, taken from all corners of the provinces, the men being inducted already having served in the legions for years, their skills superior, not to mention their rigorous training they are subjected to after selection. The Praetorians certainly did fight on numerous occasions. Almost every military emperor (which is every emperor in the late era) used them in their campaigns. Marcus Aurelius, Otho, Vespasian, Vitellius and several other Principate era emperors used them to deadly effect in their campaigns. Even Germanicus was given two cohorts of Praetorians for his campaign in Germania.

They were only chosen for their political allegiance later on in the late empire. Previous to that they were not considered a threat by most emperors, and so were recruited for their martial prowess. And the emperors who did consider them a threat merely gave them pay rises, they didn't change the recruitment policy or recruit certain soldiers, except for command positions.

[Praetorian349]

How could Rome not be a soldiering culture? Their entire political system was based on warfare! It's ridiculous that you could think anything contrary to that.