Everything you are talking about doesn’t take into account that you are 1) spending more resources in those tests than the Lithuanians, 2) once the Lithuanian player gets 2 or more castles, it starts getting challenging to sustain the outsized camel production you are talking about, and 3) you don’t get trades where it’s 5 Leitis * 50 gold = 250 gold against 10 camels * 60 gold = 600 gold - if you want add 5 knights or 6 pikemen into that and then talk
You are entirely focusing on production without taking into account 1) matching resources even if you assume you don’t have 2 or more castles or 2) limits of actual resource generation. This is incorrect
Nice on the healing point - I forgot everyone builds 15 monks to heal all their units. Oh wait…
considering Lithuanians have one of the worst late game ecos there is, and had to spend time getting stone for the castles, this isn’t a concern.
you can out produce 2 castles, which would be in imperial age by the way, with 3 stables or more, which you should easily be able to do with just about any civ.
except you know, considering the Lithuanians player had to mine stone, it’s very possible to have more gold then he does. especially since Lithuanians lack the final gold upgrade and have one of the worst economies in the game, long term.
and you’re ignoring the fat 650 stone cost, as if that doesn’t cut into other resource production, or the time to drop that castle, which is also expensive.
you don’t need 15 monks healing. but the fact is that 10 vs 10 the camels won with 4 camels surviving.
does that mean you lost over 500 gold in camels? by my count, 6 camels lost is 360 gold. those other 4 camels can still get in some hits. and there is other ways to heal them, like shoving them into a castle.
or, just have some of your fresh camels take the hits while your weaker ones still deal full damage.
food for thought. Hera has Lithuanians as one of his bottom 5 civs in overall economy, and one of those was recently buffed.
Just tell me one thing. since you’re saying trades equally are you going based on the SotL video? because that’s the only place that shows them trading equally.
if so do you really believe a partially dead unit can’t make any contribution to a fight?
do you really think that units that are still alive should count as resources lost?
do you really think the camels in that video lost over 500 gold worth of resources? because that’s not how i see it at all. i can find any number of ways for those camels to still contribute. those leitis though? they are dead. no contribution to be made.
Actually it’s very common to build a castle even if you don’t build the unique units. There is a reason to build it for defense, research general techs, research unique techs, trebs, etc. Wood competes with upgrades, units, buildings, farms, etc. It’s not like you have infinite wood and 0 stone. You almost always mine stone at least for town centers and general castles
So what if they have the one worst late game ecos? Explain to me why their win rates across all elos except <1000 are highest at the latest stages of the game. If they are so ■■■■ late game, why do they win better than average at that point?
There’s a reason you don’t heal armies - it’s not worth the micro / monk investment. That’s why you don’t see it happen in pro games
true, but it’s STILL 650 stone that must be mined, and most civs put that on the back burner in favor actually getting wood, gold, and food.
no, its not like you have infinite wood and no stone. i agree. however to even try to say that the castle is anywhere nearly as cheap as the stable or barracks is laughable.
because they have a stellar late game, with that great trash they have, but their winrates are still balanced, and they still don’t see the use you see from civs like Mayans, Britons, Aztecs, and Vikings, among others.
except it does happen. does it happen often? no. but it happens. and guess what? those units can still contribute to future fights, even unhealed. or are those resources permanently lost even though the unit is still alive? funny. i see pros using damaged units all the time. guess they disagree with SotL on that point.
Here’s how you should think about it. The camels that are damaged - would you pay 60 gold for those? Because that’s how you are thinking about it. I would not pay 60 gold for those partial units
I don’t have to pay 60 gold for them. because i already did pay for them. and i can get more use out of them, which means they can still contribute to future fights.
the way SotL presents it, you’ve already lost those resources, when that’s not the case.
i could throw those 4 heavy camels into the next fight of 10 heavy camels vs 10 leitis, and watch as 14 vs 10 ends up with even more units alive in the next fight, giving me an even better exchange on the second time around. even if they only take 1-2 hits and only get 1-2 hits in themselves, thats 1-2 hits my healthy camels aren’t taking, and dealing 92-182 damage to those leitis that i can shave off the rest my units having to deal with. and an extra 80-160 damage my new camels aren’t taking. and that just assumes they are the first ones to take damage.
Camels beat Leitis Cost effectively. just because SotL/A Caster/A Pro says something does not make it true.
Hera once said Plumes are trash. do you believe him on that?
this also doesn’t take into consider that
Heavy Camel costs over 400 less food, and almost 400 less gold to upgrade then Elite Leitis, which is another roughly 6 camel advantage you should have to begin with.
but I don’t see you bringing up that difference in cost.
Did I say that? Show me where I said that. I said you use wood for a ton of other things than just building stables for camels. You don’t do that for stone - you primarily use stone for castles and town centers
That’s my point - if their units are so strong. It doesn’t matter if their economy is one of the worst
Not really - show me the pro games where there is mass healing of units going on and then let’s look at the percentage of total games. You’re making stuff up
No you’re not following logic. SOTL is saying that because that unit has been damaged it has lost part of the 60 gold value it had when it was 100% healthy. You would not value a damaged unit the same as an undamaged unit. That is what you are doing when you do it entirely based on how many camels are left. If you don’t get that then there’s little reason to discuss. If you want to run the test properly, you need to take into account that the remaining camels are not the same as undamaged camels. You may disagree that it should be done entirely on hitpoints but some adjustment needs to be made.
LOL dude you just quoted 3 of his videos. It sure seems like you believe him. I haven’t quoted Hera at all. That being said, he put them as S tier in his tier list so I don’t know why this is relevant. It sounds like he was trolling - which apparently succeeded
true, but again, any stone i’m mining, is taking away from the other resources. there is a reason most people don’t try to drop a castle right away. it’s expensive as crap.
except its the point of GETTING THERE that is the issue. other civs get much better booms. furthermore they have 4 units who you could say are strong. their skirms. their halbs. their paladins. and their leitis. the reason they are good in late imp is the first two.
did i say mass healing? no. i said healing. even a little bit can help. furthermore it doesn’t matter. those units can still contribute to the fight. they aren’t dead weight.
this would be true if it still couldn’t do 100% damage, but they do full damage no matter their health. the fact is THOSE UNITS CAN STILL CONTRIBUTE. and i can throw those 4 camels into the next fight and get an even more favorable return.
imagine the next wave. on one end the combined 196 HP left on those 4 camels means 10 hits my other camels AREN’T taking, and probably a good 4-8 hits they are dishing out back depending on how those 10 hits come in.
OR those 4 camels aren’t taking first blood and they are helping to pick off Leitis even faster via Lanchesters law. if each of those camels picked their own leitis, that means those 4 leitis are going down in HALF the time they were in the first fight, which snowballs further as those then 8 leitis join the other fights faster.
i don’t trust everything he says blindly. big difference. i also quote viper, doesn’t mean i trust everything he says blindly either. point is that they aren’t always right.
a great example is his commentary on Camels where he says Berbers have the most cost effective camels.
but what do people choose in Team Games despite that? Indians.
Actually their win rates are good across all ages. It’s not like they they drop to 40% win rate in Castle Age. They also have very good monks but besides the point
If a monk that was built to get relics idly healed a few camels, then your point on healing occurring is essentially irrelevant. Show me the games where a monk heal was contributing to wins
And I said - you may disagree with using hitpoints as the proxy for value but they contribute the 60 gold value. Say the camel has 50% hitpoints remaining so by SOTL math it’s 30 gold of value. The question is not that the math is wrong because it is not taking into account 100% attack still. It is partially doing that - he’s not saying that the camel now sits there like a totem pole of just hitpoints. He is saying that the unit has only 30 gold of value remaining. It clearly doesn’t have 60 gold of value remaining. If you want to create a formula for determining the value of damaged units, I would honestly love to see it but he is at least trying to account for the reduced value
How have I been trusting him blindly? He did the tests - they actually make a lot of sense if you think about it. That being said, not all of his videos are helpful / useful. His hand cannoneer one that doesn’t take into account moving targets is particularly egregious
Lol they choose indians because in team games you have a lot more gold through trade. He said Imperial Camels are the best in equal numbers. In team games gold matters a lot less than in 1v1. He doesn’t talk about team games in his videos generally - they are focused on 1v1.
Good example of me not trusting pros blindly.
post EA buff Viper and Hera both said the unit would be not that great. i said i thought it would be better, and that it could actually be used.
Viper went on to actually test it and his attitude change was interesting. he didn’t think it would see tournament use, but it was a great late game option for Indians and worked well against most units.
yes their winrate is good, but they can’t boom nearly as well as other civs can, which was my point. other civs can get their faster. if Lithuanians are as good as you are projecting why don’t they see much use at the tourney level?
it doesn’t have to contribute to wins, it just leads to better efficiency.
except that’s faulty. lanchesters law. look it up and look at how it can contribute. if those 4 units take the first hits, thats less hits the other units take too. it also means they deal extra damage that kills the leitis faster, which means those units go onto helping their allies faster, creating a snowball effect.
that 30 extra gold could be stretched further then you think.
except they have little real game application, he doesn’t go onto show what those 4 camels could do for the next attack and writes them off as dead. you don’t see what happens in the next fight, with those 4 extra camels around.
If they can’t boom or suffer in Castle Age before they get to Imperial, then that should be reflected in their stats but it’s not. They have one of the best early game eco bonuses which has an effect going into the mid game. They actually do see some tourney play - not as much as some others but they do actually get picked occasionally
I know what Lanchester’s square law is - it’s compounding of an effect. He actually talks about it in a lot of his videos. However, the reason you can’t do what you are suggesting is that you are then including a bunch of extra variables. How do you test whether those camels go on to kill 50 villagers by themselves or on the other hand accidentally run by a castle and get killed without inflicting any damage?
You need to understand that he is showing what their value is by weighting their value based on the hitpoints remaining. Your way of using remaining numbers doesn’t include any weighting. You may disagree with just using hitpoint weighting but he is saying in effect what those camels will do. He is assuming that they will provide value equivalent to their proportional hit points. They might actually die without providing any value or they may provide more than 60 gold of value by raiding or contributing in fights or doing all sorts of other thinks.
The 30 gold of a 50% hitpoint camel might end up being more or less than that but he is assuming the value it will provide will be 30 gold
did i say they can’t boom? no. i said they aren’t as good at it. there is a reason they are designed as a defensive civ first. because they take longer to boom then other civs do.
they see use about as often as a c tier civilization, b tier on arena tourneys.
the point is, his video just writes them off as dead though. you lost 500 gold. no. you lost 360 gold and you have 4 camels still alive that can contribute.
which is FLAWED way of showing their value. if my fresh camels are taking the damage of the next fight, and those damaged camels don’t take damage, they are still CONTRIBUTING 100% of their damage. it isn’t like they are doing 20% damage because they have 20% health left. they can still easily contribute to the fight and lead to an increased return on that fight over the last one.
yeah they could run into a tc and castle and do nothing. or they could help kill other units. but SotL writes 500 gold off as already lost, when that isn’t the case.
no it won’t. lanchesters law proves otherwise.
i’m not arguing that. i recognize you say that. but the fact is you say they are cost effective against camels, when even SotLs own video proves otherwise. 10 vs 10 4 camels left. that isn’t cost effective.
that’s trading 500 gold for 360 gold. is it better then other cavalry unit would get? absolutely, but there is things other cavalry units would be better at too.
also even if you consider equal resources the camel player should start at least 4 camels ahead because Elite Leitis is 750/750 and Heavy Camel is 325/365. 10 Elite Leitis + the Upgrade is 1450 food and 1250 gold. that means camels have 885 gold to work with which is 14.75 camels. they also have 1125 food to work with. which is 20.45 camels. so a camel player, could get out, for equal resources, between 15 and 18 camels to compare to the 10 leitis.
and that’s not even factoring in the difference in a stable (175 wood) and a castle (650 stone).
in light of these numbers are you still going to tell me that the leitis is cost effective vs the Camel?
i’ve already ran the tests. with 16 camels vs 10 leitis, no camels die.
and that’s just generic camels vs leitis. I’d Bet Berbers (cheaper camels + regeneration), Saracens (Zealotry), Malians (Farimba), Chinese (Cheaper Upgrades/Tech), would all get even better returns in the long run even Byzantines should do better (25% cheaper but missing Bloodlines + BF), more numbers would be better in the long run.
So what? They don’t appear to suffer at all from this lack of economy you are talking about. Show me where they are struggling to get to Imperial Age. This appears to be a figment of your imagination - stats say that they are not
Nope he doesn’t write them off - he gives them a gold value. If you don’t understand that the 4 damaged camels are not equal to 4 completely healthy camels then honestly I have no idea what you are talking about man
No you’re wrong here. If they run into a castle, how does Lanchester’s law prove anything. There are a variety of outcomes for a unit in a game - in this case he is assigning 30 gold but it could be more or less. You are saying Lanchester’s law without understanding what exactly it means. It is the compounding effect that numbers play as the result of a victorious battle outcome. If those damaged camels enter a bad fight then they can provide less than the 30 gold. That is what I am saying
And for each individual Leitis created costs 10 gold less than the camels. So at everypoint after that you can produce more Leitis than camels so do 5 camels beat 6 Leitis? Let’s take those 16 camels vs. 10 Leitis let’s keep adding 5 camels and 6 Leitis. When does that equation break for the Leitis? Why should a 50 gold unit perform so well against it’s natural counters? At least the Catas cost 75 gold and they are more vulnerable to arrows with 1 less pierce armor
I said they trade equally in gold production - in Imperial Age food is not a limiting resource and no one really makes Leitis in castle age. Makes way more sense to use knights unless you are going against boyars or Teutonic Knights
the point is, if they can’t boom as hard as other civs, those other civs can be pumping out villagers faster then them, getting ahead economically. so when you say “but equal resources” the answer is “no, not really”.
no he doesn’t. he gives 4 camels a value of less then 100 gold, despite the fact that their contribution could be much higher then that.
he isn’t assigning 30 gold each unit. you are. he’s assigning less then 22 gold per unit. and the fact is that those units don’t have to run into a castle. imagine they go into an engagement and they aren’t the ones doing the damage taking, then they are contributing 100% damage the entire fight and snowballing.
5 camels vs 6 leitis means they break even somewhere around the 60 leitis mark. guess how often that happens in a pro game?
why should a unit perform so well against its counters? we’ve already proven it doesn’t. 10 leitis lost to 10 camels with 4 camels left. if you go for equal resources 16 camels (minimum) engage 10 leitis and they kill 0 camels. even if you go equal gold from there odds are you’ll fight long before the 60 leitis mark and be able to take your advantage from there.
the cataphract also only takes 2 bonus damage per hit from camels, (so 8 total damage, as opposed to the 24 for Leitis), and 16 bonus damage from halbs (for a total of 18, as opposed to the 35 for leitis). whereas the Leitis takes full bonus damage from both. it also attacks much faster (over 10% faster), and is backed up by a civ with better siege, and cheap as crap counter units and fully upgraded arbs.
they don’t trade equally though. we already showed this. 10 vs 10 the camels won with 4 left over.
If i can add… I already don’t like how ineffective camels are vs knights. The leitis situation is even worse.
In strategy games a counter unit (especially such an incredibly SPECIFIC counter unit) should never remotely even have to come close to cost/production rate of the unit it is countering.
Easy example in aoe… Imagine you had to produce just as many onagers to counter arbs. Spend similar res(including gold) on pikes or skirms to counter their targets
AND this problem only gets worse if we consider the sub par camels…
if the leitis is so dang good against its counters, why isn’t Lithuanians one of the best civs in the game right now? by the logic of you and everyone who uses the SotL video, Leitis should counter just about everything in the game cost effectively and Lithuanians would be the best civ in the game.
Not necessarily, they start with +150 food, if they do everything the same as another civ, Castle Age costs -150 food, and they start extra TCs early and have greater villager production. They have pretty much all eco techs except gold shaft mining and their win rates are great across all ages. There’s no evidence you are providing that suggests they are falling off
I was using the 30 gold as an example for the 50% scenario. Regardless they could do more or less than the 22, 30 or whatever gold value by running into a castle or not taking any damage in an engagement which is what I said.
Thanks for agreeing with me lol
I don’t know and neither do you but the point is that it breaks. I don’t consider that a hard counter. You haven’t proven anything sadly - you just don’t understand that a damaged camel doesn’t equal an undamaged camel
Catas also don’t ignore armor, do worse against Paladins and get owned by Leitis as well. See I can name all positives or negatives about a unit too lol
Actually it should be 12v10 given the gold cost and they trade equally in gold cost in 10v10. You again just don’t understand damaged camel does not equal undamaged camel
but see in aoe2 you have two counter units for cavalry
the pikeman who is extremely cost effective, but not good at forcing an engagement or being population effective (you need something like 2 to 1 to win).
and the camel, who is less cost effective, but better population efficiency and at forcing an engagement
