I just want to throw out my opinions on the current state of the game's military units, hoping to open discussion on them.



I shall start with the one universal unit: Militia. These guys are utterly useless. I do not expect them to hold a city by themselves, but they should provide the defender with some kind of advantage. If you have a city defended by six regular units and two Militia attacked by an army of six regular units, you should have an advantage of numbers that your opponent can only make up with superior technology or superior tactics. As it stands, the Militia add absolutely nothing. If they had higher Initiative and Movement, they could be cannon fodder (throw them at the enemy units to draw out the attack/counter-attack, then send in your main forces to get a free hit in). If they had higher life/defense, they could protect a column of ranged units. If they had higher attack/damage, they could be a glass canon you use to cripple a key unit. In their current state, they are not even a speed bump. You fight the regular forces, then spend your last turn one-shotting the Militia without any risk of further injury to your troops!



Now, most factions have a military force that seems to be designed around one of two classic strategies: a hammer and anvil, or a gun-line. Two factions are a little more flexible in their strategies, as they are based around Mercenaries more so than their own units.



Hammer and Anvil

Broken Lords: Stalwarts provide the anvil in this army. Their attack and damage are nothing special, but they are relatively fast Infantry unit able to take and hold a position. They are perhaps a little fragile, but this is balanced out by Dust Bishops. Their healing makes the Stalwart anvil exceptionally solid, while providing a useful debuff. Dust Bishops are unlikely to provide any damage, but that would be perhaps too powerful. I feel that Ryders let this faction down, as they are not a terribly good hammer. In my experience, they tend to do comparable damage to the Stalwarts while being more expensive and far less sturdy. For minor factions, the addition of a Ranged unit seems the optimal choice, with the longer range of Orcs being preferable. This adds an essential element to the faction, as many battle fields have narrow choke points that neuter a hammer and anvil strategy.



Drakken: I have to admit straight up that I have little battle experience with this faction, as I have played them highly peacefully. Drakkenlings are probably the game's best anvil without the addition of a support unit, and are likely comparable to other factions even with one. Once a line of Drakkenlings has taken hold of the enemy line, Wyverns can take the flanks to finish off or cripple enemy units. Ancients... I do not really get. They are a Support unit, but do not appear to provide any buffs, and a ranged attacker with a powerful melee ability (Sweep Strike Back). Perhaps they would have been clearer if I played more aggressively? For minor factions, I am not certain the Drakken really need anything. Caecator support would make the Drakkenling line pretty disgusting



Necrophages: This faction is a true military machine! Foragers are not the most powerful and do not provide the best defense, but are incredible in practice. Disease makes them extremely powerful attackers, as they essentially deal 'free' damage every time an enemy unit is ready to act. The Proliferator is what really makes them work, however. Thanks to the Proliferater, they are also expendable. You can throw six Foragers into the middle of the enemy, and even if they all die at the end of the battle, you will have six new ones to replace them! Proliferator debuffs are almost gravy in addition to this. Necrodrones are a solid hammer too, being able to readily fly into position and deliver a powerful hit on the enemy flanks. I honestly believe minor factions would be wasted on this army, as they take up space you could be using for more free Foragers!





Gunline

Ardent Mages: The Mages provide an unconventional gun-line. The power of AoE Stun in Incantation of Enervation combined with the AoE damage of an Ateshi Zealot line is something I assume all are familiar with. It is the rest of the faction's units I am less certain about. Telsem Warlocks are extremely powerful, but horridly glassy. I could see them making a good finisher if they were faster or could take more than two hits, but as they stand they are probably the worst Infantry in the game. They hold an amazing punch, but a dead unit cannot help you. Eneqa Wings are another odd unit I have not yet found a use for. A high-powered flier would be invaluable in a hammer and anvil situation, but they serve little purpose in a Zealot gun-line. With the lack of a solid wall in the army, the faction could strongly benefit from the inclusion of Harmonite or Rumbler support (if either are available). This would provide something sturdy to protect the Zealots and provide an anvil for the Enequa Wing, though either would completely invalidate the Warlocks by being just as devastating whilst more survivable.



Wild Walkers: This faction is the most traditional gun-line in the game, having the only range four units available. Dekari Rangers are extremely fragile, but put a lot of hurt downwind. Placed in a forest, their attack and defense are both significantly bolstered, though they still cannot take many hits. Tenei Walkers provide the wall that facilitates this gun-line. Able to withstand a disgusting amount of damage, and still dish out as much as most other Infantry units, they can hold a choke-point against even a powerful offensive rush. The Agache Shaman is a solid facilitator in this line, bolstering the Walkers against the most powerful forces, debuffing said powerful forces, or perhaps a last-ditch effort to keep a unit of Rangers alive against something that slips through. Tactically, this faction could benefit from a Cavalry unit (Centaur, Ice Warg or Minotaur) to protect their gunline's flanks, but in practice most battles would see another unit or two of Rangers being more beneficial.



Vaulters: This faction is pretty mono-dimensional. Marines are solid, all-round troops able to put out good damage at a good range. While not the sturdiest units in the game, they are better able to handle a flank attack than the Wild Walkers can. Positioned in a forest, they make a fantastic backbone in any battle. Titans are a little disappointing. They could make a solid wall for the gun-line to hide behind, but are just too slow to make any real difference in most battles. If you can get them into a choke point, you are laughing, but that needs to happen on deployment or not at all. A Harmonite or Rumbler (if available) would serve this faction better. Similarly, Dawn Guard are terrible. They are fast, but deal terrible damage and are surprisingly fragile. They do not seem to serve any real purpose and can be easily ignored.



Mercenary-based

Cultists: The Conversion trait of this faction provides them with an unorthodox approach to combat. They have a large number of free Mercenary units being constantly produced. This means their battle plans will be heavily influenced by what minor factions are available at the time. That said, their own units complement this strategy well. No matter what you have, Preachers provide invaluable support bolstering the weaker aspects of the unit and enhancing its strengths. Fanatics are a little odd, however. In theory, they are the one melee unit you can upgrade, so I would imagine them being the gem hidden among expendable converts, but the are pretty weak and less useful than anything else you can get. Nameless Guard, however, are more useful. Their high-damage, ranged three attack, combined with being upgradable (unlike your converts), sees them able to fill an important niche (given the overwhelming majority of possible converts are melee fighters).



Roving Clans: The Mercenary Comforts trait gives this faction an interesting approach building an army. Higher-health/higher-movement on Harmonites or Rumblers makes already excellent units even better. The extra health and movement also makes Centaurs and Minotaurs interesting options for hunting Ranged and Calvalry units, respectively. Add in a Caecator to keep your front line healthy and you have a solid base army. It is the faction's own units that seem to let it down, however. Despite being upgradeable, they do not shine among the Mercenaries. Dervishes seem like they should be a hammer unit, but they are fairly fragile and deal poor damage. Similarly, a Yirmak should provide a solid spear-point to split an enemy line, but despite its melee prowess it is extremely fragile and readily outclassed by the Mercenaries. Only Kassai really benefit the faction, providing invaluable ranged damage on an unusually sturdy Ranged unit that has exceptional movement and flexibility. They are probably the least powerful Ranged unit in the game, but their range and high movement allows them to support your more-potent Mercenary line (and most battlefields favour ranged over melee anyway).

Nice analysis!



I don't think BLs lend themselves particularly well to hammer+anvil style tactics, because, as you say, there's no real hammer in the army. Ryders (slow cav) aren't any faster than Stalwarts (fast inf), so they can't get anywhere that Stalwarts can't.



Instead, I think they tend towards what I'd describe as phalanx play: make a line and control it. AoE heals are extremely powerful, and when you consider that BL healing can bankrupt you economically... The battle becomes about minimizing attrition. The answer to that, of course, is flyers. While there are fights where some stronger ranged combatants would be handy, and while minor faction healers are essential if you want to engage in any serious tier 1 combat, I rarely bother with anything but upgraded-to-the-max Stalwarts and Bishops, which have sufficient offense and staying power to handle any type of fight.



Just playing against the Enequa Wing, I've got to say, I hate those buggers. They seem like flying tanks to me. They can actually take quite a bit of punishment before going down, and then, you've still got the damn egg to deal with. They're offense isn't anything to discount either. I'm not sure they really need to be able to fly, but it is a useful capacity to have. Teslem Warlocks are technically cavalry, and if people use them like cavalry, they work-- but the absence of an obvious tank, and the early availability of Warlocks means that they have to play some roles that they're not particularly suited for. (EDIT: Oops, Teslem are no longer cavalry! This keeps happening to me, and I'm not sure if Amplitude is patching these things or if I am going mad...)



Ancients have that morale boosting capacity that can make them a great center of a bunch of Drakkenlings. Drakkenlings themselves are really well suited to phalanx play (as with BLs, you don't really need any hammer, just the anvil will do). The Ancients, then, can contribute to phalanx play, or they can be guerilla gods. Ranged + flying, on properly chosen terrain, isn't just the scissors to infantry's paper, it is the reciprocating saw to infantry's paper. Wyverns act as most cavalry do, but flight is a nasty ability for these cavalry-style units to have.



I've never seen a point to Agache Shamans. Rangers are one of the few units in the game that can actually cause attrition to a superior force (assuming your opponent doesn't realize which particular unit you intend to focus on and send them to the back), and a couple of Walkers can be a real force multiplier in the presence of choke points, but I think most players would prefer another Ranger to a Shaman.



Vaulter marines are great, but I would think Harmonites are too slow to work well with Marines. Low range requires rapid deployment and a lot of tanks.



For the Cultists and Roving Clans, I think the best defense is a poised offense. It's hard to use crappy units well. You either have to focus all their healers or get wiped time and again, with no perceivable benefit. Either faction needs to rely on multiple, smaller-than-normal armies, and needs to make sure that fighting them is going to hurt. Not in terms of damage to your armies, but in terms of counter attacks that they will make against your cities. Obviously, this doesn't work so hot against the AI.

How do you use a proper "hammer and anvil" tactics in this game? Given that you cannot directly control units, you need to send in the anvils first and then hold the presumptively more fragile hammer units for a turn. Given that you have only 6 rounds, is this really an efficient use of the damage potential of the hammer units? It appears to me that you are better off going all hammer force in this context.



I am a new player, so a lot of this is theory-crafting; and I'd really like to hear an elaboration of how folks actually use a hammer and avil approach.

It does help to have some blockers to secure chokes and prevent your ranged from being overwhelmed but I will say as the game progresses and equipment gets better, it's easier to simply use more ranged units. This is unfortunately much the same as many turnbased strategy where there is a mix of ranged/melee due to ease of focus fire with range. Melee's beefier nature simply don't hold out in this infantry> cavalry > ranged > infantry cycle that most games attempt to do.

I actually agree a lot with the op, except for the mercenary based part. I don´t think there´s any effective battle tactics with mercenaries.



And I wouldn´t call the first "hammer and anvil", since the battlefield is so tiny and chess-like. In EL it works more like a "hold-push-strike" tactics, very phallanx-like as natev calls it, although I think the buffalo formations from the zulus would be a more accurate description of how it ends up happening. The way morale works, it makes little to no sense to actually divide fronts, there´s no benefit in attacking from an angle.

What would be the anvil is just the main body of melee defense, the chest of the buffalo in the Zulu´s Impi, which you position based on your initiative - it will either push and hold or just hold a position.

What would be the hammer is more like a quick sword strike or spear thrust, an attack at the flanks which both damages and safeguards your backlines. The horn of the buffalo.

The loins are your support and/or ranged which everyone ends up having.



The fact there´s only this two groups of tactics available is a huge problem in my opinion, and it happens because the battlefield is too small (which leads to the problem of battles being stiff like chess), units move too much and Ranged units deal too much damage over a ridiculous distance. This group of things makes: a) the majority of competitive battles simply circle around a proportion of ranged/anti-ranged units; and b) as a consequence, equipment and stats dictates outcomes despite tactics, notably in the order health>initiative>meta-damage.



Manual battle become incredibly uninspiring and boring, which for me is game breaking for factions that absolutely require it, like Ardent Mages and Forgotten.

There's no classic hammer and anvil, because there aren't any flanking bonuses, and cavalry have higher initiative than infantry. In fact, there don't tend to be any units both resilient and with high enough initiative to control a line.



But there's the potential for something similar, which is to hold a line with high initiative, resilient forces, and to focus on a particular flanking unit with your remaining fragile, low initiative units. Probably the most realistic instance of this is with an anvil made out of enequa wing, because they are both the most resilient unit in the AM line-up and can be specced for high initiative thanks to the guaranteed AM exotic weapons quest reward-- and not only that, but it's pretty smart to have a couple of fast, high initiative flyers in an army to control reserves anyways. The hammer to that anvil could be warlocks, zealots, or MF units.



I think the better era to compare EL combat would maybe be the era of the pike square. The pike square ended up with few of the flanking issues that earlier formations did. Flanking was about getting around the pike square, there wasn't any real advantage in sandwiching it and not much even in enveloping it.

BPrado & natev,



Thanks - that was very illuminating. So - as I suspected - anvils should counter-intutively be fast and have high-initiative?



As an aside, how moddable is this game? I am very dissatisfied with the unit balance as it currently stands, and I may mod the game to nerf ranged damage and boost infantry initiative and see where I end up. It's going to be a *female caninine* to mod heroes though - so I may leave that alone.

It's interesting to me how often I see the Dawn Officers called fragile.

When I started modding, I made a file with all the unit base stats, and calculated mean, median, and mode across the different unit classes.

The Dawn Officer is slightly low on Attack and Damage in its base stats, but actually has good Defense and Health for a cavalry unit. Together with a shield and a full suit of armor including boots (especially if it receives the Holy Resource Booster) they can actually become pretty tough.

The Yrmak is in a similar situation, with average HP and Defense, and outstanding Attack and Damage. However, it is hampered by restricted weapon choices and slow speed compared to the rest of the Roving Clans.

Fanatics, too: Slightly below expected values in Defense for Cavalry, but a lot more HP than most Cav, but with only claws available to them, their job often boils down to "run around reconverting villages, stay out of combat."



Anyway, I agree that traditional "Hammer and Anvil" tactics aren't quite possible, since the battlefield is small and you can not rout the enemy. However, I believe some re-balancing of stats and abilities might be enough to make tactical battles more interesting, or at least give a wider range of army composition options.

I don't think that the Anvil necessarily needs to be very fast or high intiative, though. In theory, a low iniative infantry unit with claws, like a Harmonite, Tenei Walker, or Urces, can deal a lot of damage to the enemy after they close in. Unfortunately, they need to be specifically built to sustain and recover from damage, and are ideally paired with strong healers. And that, in turn, means that there are almost no viable Hammers to go with that anvil: Dust Bishops perhaps, for the area healing, or Proliferators to create an expendable Anvil, and of course Ancient for the big boost to Defense of your Anvil. Any melee units are right out, because the enemy would redirect their attacks.



Also, I feel the high average initiative of cavalry and fliers means most of my cavalry designs are the same. Unless I have access to another unit with even higher initiative to soak the counterattack, I almost always build my cavalry for toughness and the lower initiative units for damage. A low initiative, fragile, but high damage cavalry/flier unit would, in my opinion, make an interesting unit for reinforcement armies.

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:
It's interesting to me how often I see the Dawn Officers called fragile.

When I started modding, I made a file with all the unit base stats, and calculated mean, median, and mode across the different unit classes.

The Dawn Officer is slightly low on Attack and Damage in its base stats, but actually has good Defense and Health for a cavalry unit. Together with a shield and a full suit of armor including boots (especially if it receives the Holy Resource Booster) they can actually become pretty tough.

I agree with you that the Dawn Officers are not fragile. Instead, the give the impression of being fragile, because they tend to die a lot for two reasons: 1) people send them off deep into enemy formations prematurely and leave them there, where they are relatively isolated; and 2) since their offensive potential is limited, they end up not killing much, and ultimately get ground down - unless you kite them expertly.

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:
It's interesting to me how often I see the Dawn Officers called fragile.



Anyway, I agree that traditional "Hammer and Anvil" tactics aren't quite possible, since the battlefield is small and you can not rout the enemy. However, I believe some re-balancing of stats and abilities might be enough to make tactical battles more interesting, or at least give a wider range of army composition options.



I don't think that the Anvil necessarily needs to be very fast or high intiative, though. In theory, a low iniative infantry unit with claws, like a Harmonite, Tenei Walker, or Urces, can deal a lot of damage to the enemy after they close in.

Yes, but this set-up works only if you have a gun-line formation or something similar - unless the other side has no ranged and must always go through the anvils first.

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:






Also, I feel the high average initiative of cavalry and fliers means most of my cavalry designs are the same. Unless I have access to another unit with even higher initiative to soak the counterattack, I almost always build my cavalry for toughness and the lower initiative units for damage. A low initiative, fragile, but high damage cavalry/flier unit would, in my opinion, make an interesting unit for reinforcement armies.

For myself, I am wondering if it's even worth training cavalry at all if you play a faction with ranged units. Frankly, having only played Vaulters and Wild Walkers, I have not needed to do so at all.

Xenophon wrote:
I agree with you that the Dawn Officers are not fragile. Instead, the give the impression of being fragile, because they tend to die a lot for two reasons: 1) people send them off deep into enemy formations prematurely and leave them there, where they are relatively isolated; and 2) since their offensive potential is limited, they end up not killing much, and ultimately get ground down - unless you kite them expertly.



For myself, I am wondering if it's even worth training cavalry at all if you play a faction with ranged units. Frankly, having only played Vaulters and Wild Walkers, I have not needed to do so at all.

EL does succeed to make Cavalry the best meta (that they classically are) against ranged units, and they´re powerful "horns" in the absence of a stronger flyer (like in the cases of ww and vaulter). Dawn Officers, Minotaurs and Centaurs all have high initiative, movement and can wield axes. The only other axe-wielding unit that can be compared to them is the Daemon, which receives additional damage from Bows.



At comparetively superior levels of power, as in when you´re stronger than whoever you´re fighting against, Daemons always outperform cavalry mostly because of chain lightining; but in balanced scenarios, I´m positive that the cavalry´s initial reach take much better control of the battlefield (not to mention they tend to outinitiative daemons themselves under the same accesories and levels).

Xenophon wrote:
For myself, I am wondering if it's even worth training cavalry at all if you play a faction with ranged units. Frankly, having only played Vaulters and Wild Walkers, I have not needed to do so at all.

I'm actually quite fond of combining tough Dawn Officers with glass-cannon Marines. Smacking the enemy in the face so they lose their turn and then mowing them down with arrows is reasonably effective, and against some opponents more reliable (mostly against enemies with flying, since those could bypass the lumbering Titans).

Unfortunately, that tactic usually requires bringing superior numbers. And we all know superior numbers are one reason Drakken generals are so good, with the additional reinforcement flags.





Also, thinking about it, I have started to wonder if Amplitude set the ranged damage at such high levels because the battlefield is so small that almost any unit you can shoot at can hit you in the face the turn after, unless terrain is in your favor.

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:
Also, thinking about it, I have started to wonder if Amplitude set the ranged damage at such high levels because the battlefield is so small that almost any unit you can shoot at can hit you in the face the turn after, unless terrain is in your favor.

Yes, when I criticize the size of the battlefield, I have at least a good number of these implications in mind.



I believe that, considering the battlefield size as a constant, there´s little room for improvement in the distribution of stats. Reducing too much either life or damage from ranged units would automatically make flying a goddamn nightmare, since they don´t care about terrain to go rush your reinforcements. And then nerfing flying would make Cavalry absolute king (which I suspect Amp has avoided so dearly) like in most other strategy games in which there isn´t flying units.



I just really wish EL 2 had a battlefield twice the current size and open for everyone to watch the unfolding battle very clearly and with patience, in order to make it the best possible experience for everyone involved in the 2min pause of the game.

BPrado wrote:
EL does succeed to make Cavalry the best meta (that they classically are) against ranged units, and they´re powerful "horns" in the absence of a stronger flyer (like in the cases of ww and vaulter). Dawn Officers, Minotaurs and Centaurs all have high initiative, movement and can wield axes. The only other axe-wielding unit that can be compared to them is the Daemon, which receives additional damage from Bows.



At comparetively superior levels of power, as in when you´re stronger than whoever you´re fighting against, Daemons always outperform cavalry mostly because of chain lightining; but in balanced scenarios, I´m positive that the cavalry´s initial reach take much better control of the battlefield (not to mention they tend to outinitiative daemons themselves under the same accesories and levels).

Just curious: Why are not battle hammers more widely available? I could be wrong, but it seems like they are the best two-hand melee weapons due to the stun.



As for battlefield control, wouldn't it be better to simply equip infantry with speed and initiative gear? That's what I've been doing.

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:






Also, thinking about it, I have started to wonder if Amplitude set the ranged damage at such high levels because the battlefield is so small that almost any unit you can shoot at can hit you in the face the turn after, unless terrain is in your favor.

Well, the better way to rectify this issue would've been making tactical movement slower all-around - or make battlefield slightly larger. At any rate, I am deeply dissatisfied with the tactical combat in this game - albeit it's excellent in other aspects.

Xenophon wrote:
Just curious: Why are not battle hammers more widely available? I could be wrong, but it seems like they are the best two-hand melee weapons due to the stun.



As for battlefield control, wouldn't it be better to simply equip infantry with speed and initiative gear? That's what I've been doing.

Well, weapon of choice is a hard thing. I never managed to make my d&d chars proeficient in a certain weapon because I could never make up my mind.

I do think hammers are incredibly strong, at high levels you´re virtually stunning a target every other turn - that´s probably why there aren´t that many.

I don´t know if they´re the best, though, since 100% anti-X damage can be so much more decisive than 40% chance to stun.



Regarding roles in the battlefield - unit stats count much more than the class they belong. I think Yirmak for example are great to control the battlefield, fast infantry like you say, used along with dervishes that can come and go alternating.



The thing is that controlling the battlefield involves either rushing very far reinforcement positions and surviving or clogging a certain passage that your opponents deployment will certainly be trying to cover, while still deploying your main melee/ranged body in a way they can hold formation after the horns are gone. Most infantry, even fast moving, cannot do both, especially if there are more than 2 reinforcement positions.