You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Strategy and General Discussion
Moderated by Yeebaagooon, TAG

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.27 replies
Age of Mythology Heaven » Forums » Strategy and General Discussion » Which civilization has the best infantry: Atlanteans, or Norse?
Bottom
Topic Subject:Which civilization has the best infantry: Atlanteans, or Norse?
Draco_Wolfgand
Mortal
posted 31 March 2018 08:34 PM EDT (US)         
As for why I am indecise between these two( Much as in the "Who has the worst cavalry" thread I made recently ), the reason is because these are the two only civilizations in the game that can counter all three default unit types( Archers, cavalry, and infantry ) using infantry alone( The Norse have Throwing Axeman against infantry, Huskarls against archers, and Ulfsarks against cavalry: The Atlanteans have Fanatics, Murmillos and Katapeltes against cavalry: Fanatics against infantry and Destroyers against archers. ). If you count Hersirs as "infantry units", as well as the Atlantean abilities to turn their human soldiers into heroes, this gives then the added advantage of also being able to counter myth units with infantry just to top it off.

As for why I think Atlanteans are just a little step above the Norse in the infantry department... To be frank, I think Fanatics are basically the best infantry unit in the game, so, here is the reason But since the Atlanteans are my all-around favoured civilization, this may be bias speaking. I am wondering on what would be your opinions on this, as well as if you think there is another civilization would deem as worthy of earning the cake instead.
AuthorReplies:
Potato_Gunner
Mortal
posted 31 March 2018 11:45 PM EDT (US)     1 / 27       
As you have said, Fanatics are the best infantry, no doubt about that, but to be fair, they can only be created in the mythic age... whereas, (I'm probably biased to Norse) I believe Nose infantry are better, plainly because they can spam barracks and hillforts. They are also pretty versatile as units, involving ranged and melee I mean apart from the ulfsarks who i believe are absolutely rubbish, each unit can hold their own. I mean sure Atlantean's can create hero's wherever they want, but the pop-cost isn't worth the bonus damage against myth.
Legendary Raider
Mortal
(id: avaget)
posted 04 April 2018 02:09 PM EDT (US)     2 / 27       
thor ulfsark is the best infantry (yes they even beat fanatic per pop)
eine_Gurkensalat
Mortal
(id: eine_gurkensalad)
posted 14 April 2018 06:51 PM EDT (US)     3 / 27       
you can't beat fanatics with ulfsarks, they really don't have the properties for it
they are fast but weak, even with thor, compared to fanatics which are heavy armored (40% hack !!)
they don't have any bonus while fanatics does have a cheated *2 bonus
so the only thing they can do is to flee which can be efficient if you have throwing axemans to cover them...

but honestly you will need ballistas against fanatics if they begin to be too numerous.

as for destroyers against archers, it isn't efficient because they are too slow and have only 5 hack without bonus.
they beat archers if there are only archer, but aren't efficient, because while they take time to beat archers, archers have time to make more damages to your army.

it's good against builgings though

I find norse infantry better, because ulfsarks can become the best inf against cav with bragi, and one of the most cost effective inf, while the huskarls are redouted against archers and buildings.
These 2 units allows you more armies than the only fanatics, because once you got them you won't do mirmillos or katapelts...
Draco_Wolfgand
Mortal
posted 14 April 2018 07:31 PM EDT (US)     4 / 27       
I get the point, although I do think you underestimate a bit the sheer bulk of Destroyers. With all armor upgrades, their pierce armor maxes out at almost 80%. And they also have 150 HP, what is... Actually, if I am not mistaken, the highest of any infantry unit on the game. With 150 HP, Pierce Armor rivalling a Nemean Lion, and a not-all-that-low either Hack armor, Destroyers are excellent meat shields. Their only real weaknesses is that their actual attack is crap, but honestly... That is okay. They are not suppose to be the Fanatic. They take a different role then the Fanatic: For the Fanatic, they theirselves are suppose to be the main source of damage: For the Destroyer, they are the guys that your fragile Arcus and Cheiroballistas hide behind.

[This message has been edited by Draco_Wolfgand (edited 04-15-2018 @ 10:28 AM).]

Legendary Raider
Mortal
(id: avaget)
posted 15 April 2018 04:23 AM EDT (US)     5 / 27       
[q="eine_Gurkensalat"]you can. thor ulfsark beats them per pop
eine_Gurkensalat
Mortal
(id: eine_gurkensalad)
posted 15 April 2018 05:32 AM EDT (US)     6 / 27       
i agree with you that it can be used to beat archers with other units.
But never alone, or only if the ennemy has only archers (even here he can flee and prepare some other units...)
against archer based armies, the turma is far more efficient, because he can go after archers and achieve them in a fast way

The destroyer can have the role of a siege tower or a helepolis, but you see that these 2 exemples are far better in this situation: 150 HP (let's say 220 at the end) 130 total cost
=> 220/130=1,7
as for the helepolis
=>650*500= 1.3... but with 95% pierce armor ! and 5 pop slots...
and you can hide unit in it ! and it also deals the damages of 3-4 trident soldiers

and i don't speak about elephants which are even more cost effective to tank.

so I think that it can be usefull only if the ennemy isn't micromanaging his archers, then he will attack the nearest unit which will be actually the destroyers if you manage well.

@LEGENDARY RAIDER

i made tests, and you are right to some extent

Yes they CAN beat fanatics in pop cost equality

but it requires absolutely all the upgrades and a human micro against cpu...

My tests:
standart full fanatics (champion, all armory)
against OP ulfsarks (forseti, bragi, tyr, thor)

12 against 8

if you micro very well you can win
otherwise 4 fanatics remains at the end while you lost everything

BUT considering equal cost it appears that 13 *80 = 8*130

and it's true that without any micro for the soldiers, ulfsarks win this round quite largely.

But it's more complicated to control a big bunch of ulfsarks in battle, which can have trouble to spread out in the battlefield.

But I have to say that I have been impressed by the force of these ulfsarks !

Because if they can compete vs fanatics, it means that they are a better infantry (after all ups)
because they are far better against cav, against archers (more fast, more attack, more pierce armor), siege weapons, buildings, and they can construct ones !

definitively, norse have the best infantry
Draco_Wolfgand
Mortal
posted 15 April 2018 10:35 AM EDT (US)     7 / 27       
There is one more advantage of the Destroyers you neglect to mention: They are smaller and occupy less space then either the War Elephant or the Helepolis. This may-Seem-Completely irrelevant,but actually it kind of isnt. The size of Helepolis and War Elephants makes it easier for then to be surrounded by enemy units, and subject to the attack of several opponents at once, while being unable to get to the buildings they actually seek to kill( This is more of a problem for the Helepolis then the War Elephant though, as the War Elephant actually performs quite well against most meele units ). The Destroyer, however, is harder to surround like that, and it is easier to have more of then attacking a single target like regular infantry.

The fact Destroyers occupt three population slots, however, -Is-A problem and probably most of what prevents most players from using then as a "standart" infantry unit. They are indeed, not population effective against most infantry, or even most cavalry units. And a clever player can always just arrange its formation in a way that it is hard to directly attack the Helepolis without getting past, said, some Hoplites first. But as I said, with support from ranged units, their sheer bulk will still make then a force to be reckoned with. In my opinion, anyway. I always had a small "quality over quantity" philosophy
Legendary Raider
Mortal
(id: avaget)
posted 15 April 2018 01:24 PM EDT (US)     8 / 27       
huskarls with bravery are better vs buildings than destroyers
eine_Gurkensalat
Mortal
(id: eine_gurkensalad)
posted 15 April 2018 02:13 PM EDT (US)     9 / 27       
you pointed out why destroyer remains good against buildings while their stats are clearly poor compared to other siege weapons or elephants/hetairoi
it's just more complicated to hit them while they are attacking the building.

@legendary raider

I will be more balanced:
trident soldier are far better at equal cost to destroy a group of firing buildings, because they have far more hp, armor and attack (25 vs ~20) for just 15 ressources more.

However huskarls are much faster and take 2 pop slot...
so I think that huskarls are more efficient if you have ressources for them, because you will get the point faster but you will lost more ressources.

and eventually they can build settlement after having destroyed them, which is actually very well
Legendary Raider
Mortal
(id: avaget)
posted 15 April 2018 02:25 PM EDT (US)     10 / 27       
yeah but they can be used vs army, so huskarls are worth the cost.
+100% bonus vs archers - absolutely murders archers
5 speed vs 3.6 speed/around 4 speed if uranus - faster moving
eine_Gurkensalat
Mortal
(id: eine_gurkensalad)
posted 15 April 2018 03:25 PM EDT (US)     11 / 27       
it's a better units due to its versatility, I never said I didn't.
TAG
That AoM Guy
(id: aom expert)
posted 22 April 2018 09:59 PM EDT (US)     12 / 27       
It depends how you compare. If you compare infantry to infantry, greek wins. But if you compare civ to civ, norse wins hands down with the abliity to use their infantry to build more, with still enough strength to hold their own.

Check out my YouTube
For live help with me, enter this chatroom. If I'm not on you can leave a message.
Hammerhands
Mortal
posted 24 April 2018 07:59 AM EDT (US)     13 / 27       
Actually... I've lost a bunch of fanatics to throwing axemen, and the axemen of the Egyptians. They counter fanatics very well. On top of that, I kinda dislike the Norse, as they have no real archers. Throwing axemen are nice, but they just don't have the range to do something simple, like hide behind a wall, and shoot across a battle. Or throw over the top of a strip of trees wider than your thumb.
Legendary Raider
Mortal
(id: avaget)
posted 24 April 2018 09:14 AM EDT (US)     14 / 27       
fanatics are slow to train:
1 palace 600 res + favor = 5/6 norse longhouses = 8/10 egyptian barracks (6/10 if you count the favor, which atty needs lategame for heroes)
12 seconds per 3 pop fanatic vs 14 seconds per 10-12 pop ta vs 9 seconds per 16-20 pop egyptian axemen.
you'll need a lot of palaces to reinforce

that is likely the reason you lost them
Hammerhands
Mortal
posted 24 April 2018 12:33 PM EDT (US)     15 / 27       
Wasn't until the end of your post that I realized you were replying to me...

But to clarify, I don't have the internet to play vs anyone who knows how to play, As I recall it was a campaign. And may have been on normal or hard difficulty. 20 vs. 30? It has been a long time, but it was a lesson hard learned.

It sucked too, because my whole strategy relied on my fanatics, and how ultimately powerful they are.
Draco_Wolfgand
Mortal
posted 24 April 2018 12:57 PM EDT (US)     16 / 27       
Fanatics are a good counter to almost anything meele, but even they are not perfect. First of all, they are indeed not cost-effective nor population effective against more specialized anti-infantry units( Although their own multiplier and high Hack armor, as well as generally superior stats, means they can still beat then in 1v1 ), and secound of all, they can also struggle a bit against ranged units. I would slightly compare then to the Centurion in the original AoE, in that it is good against almost any meele unit but kind of mediocre against most ranged units. Ironically, the Fanatic makes a lot more of success in the AoM meta then the Centurion does in the AoE meta, mostly because AoM is not completely dominated by the super fast Heavy Horse Archers, but I digress.

Anyways, normally, I like supporting Fanatics with Turmas to deal with ranged units, but depending on the matchup, you should consider supporting then with Cheiroballistas instead. To be frank, Axeman and Throwing Axeman dont really stand a chance against either of these two units, though. As a general rule, it is never a good idea to put -Too-Much faith on a single unit.
Hammerhands
Mortal
posted 24 April 2018 01:04 PM EDT (US)     17 / 27       
eine_Gurkensalat
Mortal
(id: eine_gurkensalad)
posted 25 April 2018 02:14 AM EDT (US)     18 / 27       
Turma+fanatics isn't able to beat hypaspists, axemen or even throwing axemen (though i'm not as sure).
Chierrobalistae+fanatics isn't actually a good thing vs archers
Don't forget that the chierrobalista is good against archer mainly because of its good pierce armor
But it can't destroy them very quickly so they have time to beat the fanatics
They are just very efficient to kill a lot of infantry including huskarls
Draco_Wolfgand
Mortal
posted 26 April 2018 09:29 PM EDT (US)     19 / 27       
...I think I didnt expressed myself clearly. Let me reformulate: When dealing with ranged units, I usually prefer to support Fanatics with Turmas: However, depending on the circunstances, say, more specifically, if you are dealing with anti-infantry infantry units, you should consider using Cheiroballistas instead.

Turmas can pretty easily deal with Axeman and Hypapsist through sheer abusal of hit-and-run tactics, as those units are slow and have poor pierce armor. I am pretty sure Throwing Axeman lose against Turma, although I havent tested it with these two units "on a void", but I know it tends to fare somewhat poorly against "anti-archer archer" units. ... Ironic, since it is a infantry unit, but eh. The catch with using then as infantry support, though, is that they wont be able to use their hit-and-run tactics as well, what can be a problem if the opponent decides to shift into anti-archer infantry. ... Then, comes the Cheiroballista.

And then, if the opponent shifts into Cataphracts, you are screwed . Well, not really. I am not sure if Fanatics are cost-effective against Cataphracts, but I know Katapeltes sure are...
eine_Gurkensalat
Mortal
(id: eine_gurkensalad)
posted 27 April 2018 07:43 AM EDT (US)     20 / 27       
How do you beat ballistae + op ulfsarks with attys ? I don't see, as well as with chinese
Hammerhands
Mortal
posted 27 April 2018 07:58 AM EDT (US)     21 / 27       
Draco_Wolfgand
Mortal
posted 27 April 2018 09:47 AM EDT (US)     22 / 27       
http://ageofempires.wikia.com/wiki/Cataphract_(Chinese) The Chinese build Cataphracts.

And Cataphracts, with the proper upgrades, are a solid counter to the Ulfsark + Ballista combo, though that depends on what kind of minor gods you and your opponent chose to go with.
eine_Gurkensalat
Mortal
(id: eine_gurkensalad)
posted 27 April 2018 10:15 AM EDT (US)     23 / 27       
Ulfsarks with bragi are cost effective against cataphracts, but with ballistae it is worse since cataphracts are low pierce armored.
And you can also add some fire giants which makes also the difference !
Draco_Wolfgand
Mortal
posted 27 April 2018 10:57 AM EDT (US)     24 / 27       
Even Nu Wa Cataphracts with Stirrup ?

Also, it is worth remembering that the Chinese human units are often somewhat lacking in cost efficiency, but make up for it in population efficiency, and the secound is more important then the first on the Mythic Age, most of the time.
eine_Gurkensalat
Mortal
(id: eine_gurkensalad)
posted 27 April 2018 04:28 PM EDT (US)     25 / 27       
I see, and that's true that 1 cataphract should beat 1 ulfsark even with bragi and thor.
But if you have also ballistae and fire giants i think that cataphracts aren't cost effective and then they don't have so much else, since their heroes can't attack the fire giants with ranged attack and they have just a few of them
Draco_Wolfgand
Mortal
posted 27 April 2018 09:19 PM EDT (US)     26 / 27       
Hmmmm, let me see... Shennong monks are actually a really hard counter for Fire Giants, but if you chose Shennong, this mean you-Didnt-Chose Nu Wa, and also, it means you-Cant-Get Stirrup. ... Yeah, you are right, that combo is a pain for the Chinese to deal with . I think White Tigers might help there, though( Again, assuming you dont mind sacrificing Stirrup ), but you will still be investing a lot of resources.

Oh, well. On another hand, the Cataphract + Mounted Archer combo on the Heroic Age is something the Norse have a equal amount of difficulty countering. Ballistas are pretty much a necessity to be able to really deal with that. So it probably kind of events out in the end
eine_Gurkensalat
Mortal
(id: eine_gurkensalad)
posted 28 April 2018 03:19 AM EDT (US)     27 / 27       
I noticed it previously, that you can have invicible combo with chinese against norse on heroic, and invincible combo with norse against chinese on mythic age
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Mythology Heaven | HeavenGames