Now, the reason why I am indecise between these two civilizations to begin with is because they both lack what could be called a "heavy cavalry unit"( That is, as I elaborated before more then once, a cavalry unit that is also effective against infantry. ) I dont know to what extent is this relevant to others, but it is to me: But hey, if any of you would like to explain why do you think that, say, the Egyptians, Chinese or Norse would deserve the title of "Worst cavalry civilization" instead, I am not stopping you. Technically, I dont even think that Greek or Atlantean civilization is necessary terrible: It is just that they are not as good as the other civs, at least in my eyes.
Now, the Atlanteans have only one "true" cavalry unit( The Turma is technically considered a archer despite being mounted ), which is the Contarius. In terms of raw stats, like all Atlantean units, the Contarius is pretty powerfull: It is essentially a frailer but faster version of the Hippikon, and it becomes particularly powerfull with the Hero upgrade and Theia improvements. However, it shares a weakness with the Hippikon: While it technically can kill some infantry units( Like Ulfsarks without the proper upgrades ) in 1v1, it actually occupies three population slots, the same amount as the Jarl, while not having the same raw power as this unit. This is not to say that the Contarius has-No-Strong points: With Theia, plus the Hero upgrade, it can become the hardest hitting cavalry unit in the game and effectivelly rival its Hippikon counterpart in meele combat: However, it will be costlier and occupy more population slots, so it is still not worth it.
Overral, I think Greek cavalry is still slightly better, as, factoring in the Greeks own god upgrades, the Hippikon not only stays consistently cost effective against the Contarius, but the Greek also have more options for their cavalry, like the Promodoros and the Hippikon, while the Atlantean Contarius is likely to be reduced to a fairly niche setting, as it only counters archers and, as a cherry on the top, the Atlanteans have other anti-archer units like the Destroyer and the Turma. But hey, if any of you have your own opinion on the matter, I am all ears.
Now, the Atlanteans have only one "true" cavalry unit( The Turma is technically considered a archer despite being mounted ), which is the Contarius. In terms of raw stats, like all Atlantean units, the Contarius is pretty powerfull: It is essentially a frailer but faster version of the Hippikon, and it becomes particularly powerfull with the Hero upgrade and Theia improvements. However, it shares a weakness with the Hippikon: While it technically can kill some infantry units( Like Ulfsarks without the proper upgrades ) in 1v1, it actually occupies three population slots, the same amount as the Jarl, while not having the same raw power as this unit. This is not to say that the Contarius has-No-Strong points: With Theia, plus the Hero upgrade, it can become the hardest hitting cavalry unit in the game and effectivelly rival its Hippikon counterpart in meele combat: However, it will be costlier and occupy more population slots, so it is still not worth it.
Overral, I think Greek cavalry is still slightly better, as, factoring in the Greeks own god upgrades, the Hippikon not only stays consistently cost effective against the Contarius, but the Greek also have more options for their cavalry, like the Promodoros and the Hippikon, while the Atlantean Contarius is likely to be reduced to a fairly niche setting, as it only counters archers and, as a cherry on the top, the Atlanteans have other anti-archer units like the Destroyer and the Turma. But hey, if any of you have your own opinion on the matter, I am all ears.
[This message has been edited by Draco_Wolfgand (edited 03-31-2018 @ 08:34 PM).]