|
|
Post by lunarclaws on Mar 31, 2022 5:22:56 GMT
They are 'medium' not t1😅
|
|
|
|
Post by truhses on Mar 31, 2022 5:55:35 GMT
In terms of mobility archers generals win in the campaign. Especially in missions with suicide generals. Numerous forests, mountains and rivers make a turtle out of Richard.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Mar 31, 2022 6:03:16 GMT
I would like to present a couple of "real world" arguments  I think that best units are those who have the highest level when a player tries to solve this or that particular problem. Most likely our opponents will be lvl 13 or higher in upcoming campaigns and challenges. It doesn't really matter how powerful lvl 15 Templars could be, because very few players can deploy even lvl 12 Templars in any observable future. I really like this new Raid concept. Of course, it is just a joke at the moment, but it forces a player to make a decision which way to go. In chess there is a concept a "space left behind". That means we can't get an advantage without losing something else in return. To upgrade Templars means at the same time to leave other units behind, and vice versa. Of course, we can wait for a couple of years and upgrade all t6 units but it is not the main purpose of the game. So, we have to choose. And since all of us will make a different choice - our endgame teams will be different. That is a real contrast to previous ET games when (with minor exceptions) endgame teams were really similar to each other. |
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Mar 31, 2022 8:29:34 GMT
randompersonI don't think that Templars are very good because even though they ara probably the best to deal damage per attack they can't work well in the legions with multiple attacks per turn. Multiple attacks per turn is anyway much more profitable (damage wise) than 1 attack per turn. Taking that into account how could they be the best? 
|
|
|
|
Post by zabadanov86 on Mar 31, 2022 8:55:20 GMT
Mameluks with their very high dodge rate are incredible. In most times they dodge the entire range attack of enemy. Put your top archer general with Mameluks and lvl 3 rhino and you are set to go for the endgame missions.
|
|
|
|
Post by charlesmartell on Mar 31, 2022 9:49:50 GMT
Ehhhh, interesting discussion about units, but can we return to original question of this thread? Which IAP general is better and why? Could someone give detailed analysis of pros and cons of all IAP generals, include their value for money, their hero legend possibility and their weapons availablity?
|
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Mar 31, 2022 11:05:50 GMT
Ehhhh, interesting discussion about units, but can we return to original question of this thread? Which IAP general is better and why? Could someone give detailed analysis of pros and cons of all IAP generals, include their value for money, their hero legend possibility and their weapons availablity? What exactly is not clear about weapon and hero legends availability? You can check it in the game. The weapons are either under pay wall or free and You can check it as any other player what is available and what is not in the description of the appropriate screen. Go to the general's screen and check what is his weapon. There is an icon with description showing where exactly You can get this weapon from. |
|
|
|
Post by randomperson on Mar 31, 2022 15:46:37 GMT
randomperson I don't think that Templars are very good because even though they ara probably the best to deal damage per attack they can't work well in the legions with multiple attacks per turn. Multiple attacks per turn is anyway much more profitable (damage wise) than 1 attack per turn. Taking that into account how could they be the best?  Ignoring damage buffs/nerfs to certain types from the troop skills, a templar with guaranteed charge can do damage to 3 units at a time. Meanwhile, a mamluk can do damage to 1 unit at a time. So, with 2 attacks, templars can do damage equal to 6 attacks on a single unit. A mamluk can sometimes do 3 attacks for damage equal to 3 attacks on a single unit. Also, templars have significantly higher attack (155 vs 116 at base) so it's even more than 2x damage. |
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Mar 31, 2022 16:27:27 GMT
randomperson I don't think that Templars are very good because even though they ara probably the best to deal damage per attack they can't work well in the legions with multiple attacks per turn. Multiple attacks per turn is anyway much more profitable (damage wise) than 1 attack per turn. Taking that into account how could they be the best? Ignoring damage buffs/nerfs to certain types from the troop skills, a templar with guaranteed charge can do damage to 3 units at a time. Meanwhile, a mamluk can do damage to 1 unit at a time. So, with 2 attacks, templars can do damage equal to 6 attacks on a single unit. A mamluk can sometimes do 3 attacks for damage equal to 3 attacks on a single unit. Also, templars have significantly higher attack (155 vs 116 at base) so it's even more than 2x damage. I said nothing about Mamluks But they are much better than Templars imo. I don't think we should compare units in vacuum. Mamluks can have a synergy with Woad/Mongolian and this way they can deal much more damage than what Templars could bring. Such synergy is also modified by the attack buffs of the general himself as these units are of the same type - ranged. Templars has nothing near such synergy. They are more or less stuck with couple of attacks maximum or even one if You need to move to attack. There are few possibilities to improve its mobility significantly without losing its main mechanic advantage (charge). It is just way less effective unit on the field in real fight. |
|
|
|
Post by randomperson on Mar 31, 2022 17:29:19 GMT
Ignoring damage buffs/nerfs to certain types from the troop skills, a templar with guaranteed charge can do damage to 3 units at a time. Meanwhile, a mamluk can do damage to 1 unit at a time. So, with 2 attacks, templars can do damage equal to 6 attacks on a single unit. A mamluk can sometimes do 3 attacks for damage equal to 3 attacks on a single unit. Also, templars have significantly higher attack (155 vs 116 at base) so it's even more than 2x damage. I said nothing about Mamluks But they are much better than Templars imo. I don't think we should compare units in vacuum. Mamluks can have a synergy with Woad/Mongolian and this way they can deal much more damage than what Templars could bring. Such synergy is also modified by the attack buffs of the general himself as these units are of the same type - ranged. Templars has nothing near such synergy. They are more or less stuck with couple of attacks maximum or even one if You need to move to attack. There are few possibilities to improve its mobility significantly without losing its main mechanic advantage (charge). It is just way less effective unit on the field in real fight. Mamluks are far from much better than Templars. I think they're comparable and each has it's strengths and weaknesses but there is no way that mamluks are much better than templars. Mamluks are better than templars on defence and against units like counter infantry, but Templars still do way more damage on the player's turn. Double templars will do much more damage then woad+2 mamluks as I showed above. Mamluks have more utility, but if we're just going to compare damage alone then Templars are the clear winner. |
|
|
|
Post by zabadanov86 on Mar 31, 2022 18:02:43 GMT
My opinion is that mameluks are far more versitile, high dodge rate, bonus damage against counter and melee cavlary, and if you give them lvl 3 rhino, they have extra attack, and damage against melee infantry. . While templars have problem if they run in to counter infantry and archer combination of units.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Mar 31, 2022 18:33:49 GMT
I said nothing about Mamluks But they are much better than Templars imo. I don't think we should compare units in vacuum. Mamluks can have a synergy with Woad/Mongolian and this way they can deal much more damage than what Templars could bring. Such synergy is also modified by the attack buffs of the general himself as these units are of the same type - ranged. Templars has nothing near such synergy. They are more or less stuck with couple of attacks maximum or even one if You need to move to attack. There are few possibilities to improve its mobility significantly without losing its main mechanic advantage (charge). It is just way less effective unit on the field in real fight. Mamluks are far from much better than Templars. I think they're comparable and each has it's strengths and weaknesses but there is no way that mamluks are much better than templars. Mamluks are better than templars on defence and against units like counter infantry, but Templars still do way more damage on the player's turn. Double templars will do much more damage then woad+2 mamluks as I showed above. Mamluks have more utility, but if we're just going to compare damage alone then Templars are the clear winner. And again. Damage per attack. Templars win in most cases. But could also receive crippling damage in retaliation depending on the unit type they attack. Damage per turn. Templars will always lose whatever legion composition You try. Templars will always lose to the best possible legion compositions Mamluks could have. They will even lose to the composition Woad+Ravenna, not to mention Mongolian+Mamluks. The mobility cost of attack is simply incomparable. |
|
|
|
Post by randomperson on Mar 31, 2022 19:32:28 GMT
Mamluks are far from much better than Templars. I think they're comparable and each has it's strengths and weaknesses but there is no way that mamluks are much better than templars. Mamluks are better than templars on defence and against units like counter infantry, but Templars still do way more damage on the player's turn. Double templars will do much more damage then woad+2 mamluks as I showed above. Mamluks have more utility, but if we're just going to compare damage alone then Templars are the clear winner. And again. Damage per attack. Templars win in most cases. But could also receive crippling damage in retaliation depending on the unit type they attack. Damage per turn. Templars will always lose whatever legion composition You try. Templars will always lose to the best possible legion compositions Mamluks could have. They will even lose to the composition Woad+Ravenna, not to mention Mongolian+Mamluks. The mobility cost of attack is simply incomparable. 1. Templars will win as long as they're not attacking counter infantry. And even when attacking counter infantry you can still do massive damage and use a counter infantry in front as a meat shield. 2. Mamluks will only win on total damage if the enemy attacks it multiple times. And idk about you, but I generally don't want my archers to be my shield. In this case, mamluks are going to die faster then even templars. Neither unit is a great meat shield. |
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Mar 31, 2022 20:15:27 GMT
randomperson , Instead million of words. I've taken favorable for Templars situation. Not even discuss survivability. Only damage per turn during player's phase. Attack against legion protected against archers and move into plain before the attack, so Templars could have at least 2 attacks. And compared against Atilla's Archer legion. Even in this situation Atilla will have additional attack and will easily outperform Richard with full Templar squad.     
|
|
|
|
Post by randomperson on Mar 31, 2022 20:46:43 GMT
randomperson , Instead million of words. I've taken favorable for Templars situation. Not even discuss survivability. Only damage per turn during player's phase. Attack against legion protected against archers and move into plain before the attack, so Templars could have at least 2 attacks. And compared against Atilla's Archer legion. Even in this situation Atilla will have additional attack and will easily outperform Richard with full Templar squad. I agree that only looking at offence is favourable for Templars, but situation shown is not very balanced. I cannot see how much damage Attila did to the non-city units so I'm just going to look at the city units for now. We're comparing lvl 11 and 13 with lvl 5 templars. Also, the templars did not get to charge which is huge. Ofc the templars get some other advantages like there being 3 of them and the enemy units being lower tier, but the templars not charging is 3x damage. All you would need to do is poke the enemy city once with a weak unit and then you can suddenly do 3 times damage to the units inside. |
|
