Unit Overall Rating

[Earthworm]

Elwin, I agree that Units should not be picked solely on this table, as there are Tactics that make almost any unit here much better than raw numbers, which is one of the things that will give this game significant replayability. And as I said, the list does not take into account any unit specials, like Snake's Lunge ability or Dragon's resistance to fire. I was providing it more as a unit comparison, so if you were thinking of ditching one unit for the other, this gives a good break out of the two units, not for selecting the top 5 units from this list and always winning the game.

Ryastar, I also agree that the Dmg/Ldship and Hitpoints/leadership can be misleading which is why I did not rate the units based solely on either of those stats. As you pointed out, the ones with lower Dmg/Ldrs tend to have higher defense or other stats, so defense is included in the rating, as not all units with poor hit points per leadership totally make up for it in defense rating or attack rating.

Maybe I should remove the Overall rating, which would eliminate the arbitrary Weight issue. I guess I was using the overall to get an idea of the better units, then compare what category is lowering its rating below the rest, and determine if it is important to me. That is the main reason I showed the individual category ratings themselves, as I find them more important for comparison, but the Overall gives me a good starting point when deciding between Ancient Bears, and Polar Bears for instance.

[Ryastar]

I like the new table and weights, it's not perfect, but perfection here is impossible since a) it is too much of a headache to include damage type, resistances, critical chance, specials, and abilities, especially since the last two cannot be quantified (other than how many of each a unit has) and b) different people would weight all those things differently (I more or less agree with the current weights). The only things that are still to be done is 1) a confirmation of the data used, a time-consuming task, but I can do it, if desired. I should have enough saves to be able to find every unit fairly quickly. 2) maybe just a column that says whether a unit is ranged or not, because that really is an important data point, or, as suggested, a separate table for the ranged units.

P.S. Yay for Sprites being the best non-level five unit, and only surpassed by archdemons, black dragons, and red dragons.

[Leind]

Originally Posted by Ryastar

I like the new table and weights, it's not perfect, but perfection here is impossible since a) it is too much of a headache to include damage type, resistances, critical chance, specials, and abilities, especially since the last two cannot be quantified (other than how many of each a unit has) and b) different people would weight all those things differently (I more or less agree with the current weights). The only things that are still to be done is 1) a confirmation of the data used, a time-consuming task, but I can do it, if desired. I should have enough saves to be able to find every unit fairly quickly. 2) maybe just a column that says whether a unit is ranged or not, because that really is an important data point, or, as suggested, a separate table for the ranged units.

P.S. Yay for Sprites being the best non-level five unit, and only surpassed by archdemons, black dragons, and red dragons.

Even if the classifying method is not perfect, it show correctly which units are the best/the worst. ie Sprite among the first, archer among the last.

To improve it you should put damage, attack & leadership in a single column : Average damage for 1pt of leadership against an enemy with, say, a defense of 20. This allow to take into account all basic damage parameters (number of units in troop, attack, damage.)
You can even add the critical chance as a multiplier, with for example an arbitrary 130% critical dmg.


The same can be done with defense & HP : how much effective HP for 1pt of Leadership, against an ennemy with an attack of 20.

Thus for Ancient Bear :
9.8 average dmg against an enemy with 20 defense for each bear.
With the 30% critical taken into account, that increase to 10.682 average dmg.

each pt of leardership give you 0.136 dmg and 0.875 pt of HP (supposing an ennemy with 20/20 att/def).

If you already have some excel chart with all units it should be easy to generate that.

As for the snake, I saw that some website mentioned a Lvl1 Snake. I guess its was transformed to a Lvl2 in later versions of the games.

[Earthworm]

Made an edit to the original Table and split out the Archers from non-archers, and rebalanced Weights for the Archers as Initiative and Dmg/Attack are way more important for Archers where defense is not so important.

Weights are now listed in the Table itself in the headings since each section has different weights.

I was unsure if I should have put the Dwarven Alchemist as an archer since its range is only 3 spaces, so it is much more likely to be attacked than the others, but I put it in there anyway for now, let me know what you think.

Also what to you think of the new weights for Archer class? Are they good or should they be tweaked.

I will post my raw Unit stats I based these rating off of a little later today so that anyone can verify the correctness of them.

[Ryastar]

Necromancers, Cyclopses, Archmagi, Inquisitors, druids, priests are all ranged with their basic attack, so you need to modify the table slightly.

[Earthworm]

Originally Posted by Ryastar

Necromancers, Cyclopses, Archmagi, Inquisitors, druids, priests are all ranged with their basic attack, so you need to modify the table slightly.

Yah, I was not sure how to qualify the Magic Caster Archers, I was thinking about a third table for the Necro, ArchMagi, Inqui, Druids, and Priests, as really most people don't take them for their Archer ability so much as their specials. Not sure how I missed the Cyclopses in the list.