Nation Unique Units - Once More with Statistics

[TmpUsr]

Okay, so the sticky has pretty images, and vague pros/cons, but if you actually want to analyze which nation to pick, you should have the numbers... Which the game does not actually show you.

So I decided to compile them here, for ease of use (for the record, I'm pretty sure classical age infantry units were sort of broken by an unfinished scaling update):

Germans:
Troops:

Unit Age	Unit Name	Bonus DPS	Bonus Health
Iron	Vandal	20%	0%
Classical	Heavy Vandal	81.3%	0%
Medieval	Landsknecht	9.5%	0%
Gunpowder	Heavy Landsknecht	9%	0%
Enlightenment	Junker	9.2%	0%

Japanese:
Troops:

Unit Age	Unit Name	Bonus DPS	Bonus Health
Iron	Bushi	20%	0%
Classical	Samurai	81.3%	0%
Medieval	Heavy Samurai	9.5%	0%
Gunpowder	Nodachi Samurai	9%	0%
Enlightenment	Ashigaru	9.2%	0%

Romans:

Troops:

Unit Age	Unit Name	Bonus DPS	Bonus Health
Iron	Legion	0%	26%
Classical	Heavy Legion	50.7%	25.1%
Medieval	Caesar's Legion	0%	25.1%
Gunpowder	Praetorian Guard	0%	25%
Enlightenment	Preatorian Fusilier	0%	25%

British:


Troops:

Unit Age	Unit Name	Bonus DPS	Bonus Range
Iron	Longbowman	0%	+1 (+25%?)
Classical	Elite Longbowman	0%	+1 (+25%?)
Medieval	King's Longbowman	0%	+1 (+25%?)
Gunpowder	Yeomanry	0%	+1 (+25%?)
Enlightenment	Royal Yeomanry	0%	+1 (+25%?)

Chinese:

Troops:

Unit Age	Unit Name	Bonus DPS	Bonus Range
Iron	Chu Ko Nu	25%	0
Classical	Elite Chu Ko Nu	29%	0
Medieval	Royal Chu Ko Nu	26%	0
Gunpowder	Fire Lance	23%	0
Enlightenment	Fire Dragon	22.5%	0

French:

Troops:

Unit Age	Unit Name	Bonus DPS	Bonus Health
Iron	Chevalier	0%	20%
Classical	Heavy Chevalier	0%	20%
Medieval	Guard Chevalier	0%	21.1%
Gunpowder	Elite Chevalier	0%	50%
Enlightenment	Hussar	0%	20%

Greeks:

Troops:

Unit Age	Unit Name	Bonus DPS	Bonus Health
Iron	Companion	20%	16%
Classical	Royal Companion	20%	15%
Medieval	Heavy Royal Companion	20%	15.8%
Gunpowder	Elite Royal Companion	20%	15.2%
Enlightenment	Stradioti	20%	15.7%

I would put the Roman uniques as among the worst (except in Classical, which seems broken) because their bonuses do not really suit the roles of the units they represent. I also am not much of a fan of the French/Greeks, because elephants seem to outclass even unique cavalry by a wide margin. But other than those three, all of them seem pretty competitive when you take into account what they do.

Can someone confirm for me that the Phalanx still only does 75 dps?

 

[dbukalski]

i dont understand your chart. my french cav have 5500 hp in medieval. gunpowder upgrade gives me 1650 hp which is 30% increase but your chart shows 50% increase. also the cav gets a dps increase every upgrade but yours is showing 0% increase. so i must be reading it wrong

 

[dbukalski]

also since u seem to have access to data can you tell me what taj mahal hp boost % is. and how big taj mahal aoe size is. and how big versailles aoe size is? thank you

 

[Lissanne]

Yes. Phalanx is still 75 dps Nice chart

 

[Lissanne]

Dbukalski... his chart shows the bonus those unique troops receive over the comparable standard troops. Not the increase from the previous level, which is what you are looking at.

 

[Raestloz]

Does this mean that, should I choose Japanese, German, or Roman I should upgrade my unique unit the last in Medieval? I don't know the exact numbers, but Medieval standard troop has to be that much better than standard Classical troop that they're better than 81.3% better

 

[Redgar]

Yes, there was a huge boost to British Pikemen in medieval. They became more than playable in samurai style. I see some developer's logic here. If I'm not wrong, let's take dps boost in enlightment age for Japanese Germans and Chinese archers. It's 9,2 and 22,5 correspondingly. So 1:2,44 should be the perfect balance between archers and regular troops based on these numbers. imbalance otherwise.

 

[TmpUsr]

also since u seem to have access to data can you tell me what taj mahal hp boost % is. and how big taj mahal aoe size is. and how big versailles aoe size is? thank you

I don't have access to any additional data, I was just checking what other people had already posted.

 

[dbukalski]

sorry for derail but ive been trying to gather this information for a week now and running out of time for gunpowder age upgrade..............does anyone know what % hp taj mahal gives to defense buildings? also what size AOE does taj mahal use? 2 barracks like angkor wat? 1.5 barracks like acropolis?.............last question. what size AOE does versailles use?........please post responses at this topic......thank you......... https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexon...-angkor-vs-taj

 

[Lumberjake]

I dont mean to be rude and annoying and I apologize, even though Im going to do it anyways: but what do you guys think about medal count in alliances? waste of time or nah?

 

[dbukalski]

for now not much use but eventually

 

[Raestloz]

IIRC standard archers have 4 range, so Longbowmen should have 5 range and is capable of outmaneuvering towers. Just how useful is this trait late in the game? Do towers get increased range or are Britons destined to laugh at impotent towers?

 

[Raestloz]

Also, what would the numbers be if we take into account Iron Casting?

 

[FinnaDip]

It seems like the Germans would have the greatest offense given the DPS improvements of their uniques combined with the quicker rally ability. While the Japs have the same strength of units as the Germans because their perk is a defensive Town Center and longer treaty they may be the most balanced nation offense/defense wise. Rome has more troops and troops with more health. I would think the more hits you can take the more potential damage that can be done. If my unit can take 3 extra hits and in turn attack 3 additional times that would seem to out weigh a troop not getting in 3 additional attacks for only a 9% damage boost. I also must not be far enough to in the game to understand the idea that roman units are the worst. I assume it's because the health perk isn't beneficial for those units as you have other units available as "meat shields" to absorb damage for them so the extra health is slightly overkill or unnecessary? Maybe the troop capacity trumps this downfall? Britain's archers being able to Attack out of range of defenses seems invaluable though. Is this true? Im not sure which I should choose?!?! Anyone post their experience with these nation's troops?

 

[Lumberjake]

All youre going to get is a bunch of theories on who thinks what is the best. Might as well try them all, having said that, Ill give you my opinion. I chose romans to start, rolling with a 75% legion 25% archer army: I noticed the legions can take the abuse of the catapults a lot better...Ballista towers are still a one shot kill. The extra 10% definitely helps: thatll be at least one tank in the future ages.

Germany is the second nation I chose: While im not as far along with them I have enjoyed them a lot...The 100% rally duration increase makes for a lot of fun (really holds true to the german blitzkrieg tactic). However, I and some other people have gotten the bug where we did not receive the -5% cooldown for the rally, although it feels like it goes by a lot faster. IDK, maybe the timer goes by quicker, Im just guessing, though.

 

[TmpUsr]

IIRC standard archers have 4 range, so Longbowmen should have 5 range and is capable of outmaneuvering towers. Just how useful is this trait late in the game? Do towers get increased range or are Britons destined to laugh at impotent towers?

Towers do not to my get increased range, but there is ripple in that plan, in that archers have horrible dps to buildings relative to their melee counterparts. In the medieval age if 5 British archers wanted to destroy a fully-upgraded tower it would take them 18 seconds, if 5 japanese/german soldiers wanted to destroy a tower it would take 2 seconds... If 10 British medieval archers were to attack a single portion of fully-upgraded medieval wall, it would take them 58 seconds to break though. There's a point where destroying a base with archers becomes pretty impractical. Ballistas/bombards/cannons fulfill that role later on, and do it better. Archers mostly end up being pure anti-infantry, and while longer range lets them begin doing damage earlier in this role, I'm not convinced that it is that worthwhile anyway.

I'm actually now learning towards french/greeks having the best units late game, just because once you have enough unit slots to spam their units they can absorb such a ridiculous amount of punishment while other types of troops (e.g. cannons and infantry) do the damage