Microing Mameluke against Cataphract is not big problem because Cata is expensive unit. Even killing 1 Cata is big benefit. Cata is neither teutonic knight (extreme melee armor) nor halberdiers (extreme cheapness). Also Mamelukes can tank a lot damage from Cataphract because of high hp. In conclusion, Cata isn’t viable against Mameluke.
In equal numbers, cata is better against infantries but Leitis is cheaper than Cataphrapt. If we consider 1 gold = 2 food (ı think it is fair calculation), leitis cost will be 170 and Cata’s 220. Therefore, Cata is 30% expensive than Leitis. In this regard, 20 Cataphract cost is equal to 26 Leitis (2 relic). You can test this against 40 berserkers or 50 champions. Result will be more or less equal. If you test against other civ infantries like celts, Slavs, Aztecs etc., You will see Leitis is better than Cataphract.
Teutons melee armor is worth less than the +16 cav armor the cata has.
Also what’s the point of celts infantry ? They fight as every other they just move a bit faster. No real value in that(minimal due to faster re-engaging, but that’s not important when your unit dies first)
It’s more extensive than that. Even the ETK doesn’t survive any longer against a Cataphract than a Leitis with two relics (adding extra doesn’t help matters at all). The Leitis is made to counter the ETK and it pretty much does exactly the same as the Cata in 1v1 because of the +18 anti-infantry the Cataphract has and the faster attack rate. (leitis will have a tiny edge with two relics in a pure 1v1. Like, two-thirds of a second tiny.)
Once you count in the trample damage from adjacent Cataphracts it beats ETK faster and with less damage taken than the Leitis, so it’s not a matter of “some infantry does better against cata and Leitis will outshine it.” He’s just wrong. The best case scenario for the Leitis is it breaks even, and there’s exactly one infantry unit for that scenario.
The Cataphract does the entirety of the Leitis’ normal attack damage, when fully upgraded, as bonus damage to infantry before even considering trample damage. Leitis does fine against infantry but to claim it even holds a candle to the Cataphract is misguided.
I don’t understand why we ignore unit’s cost. Leitis is 23% cheaper than Cataphract in other words Cata is 30% expensive than Leitis which mean you can create 30% more Leitis than Cataphract (you consider them equal numbers which is wrong). In this case, Leitis is as good as Cataphract against infantry units. Cata is still better against Kamayuk, Genoese, Pikeman, Halberdier, Camels (but it isn’t too important because Leitis is also fine). These are advantage of Cataphract but is it enough to justify it? I don’t think so.
I already explained these things in my first comments. You are coming with same arguments which is weird.
I prove my point with this video. It is old Leitis, therefore you can ignore archer results. 25 Leitis (it must be 26 due to cost) against all unique units and 20 Cataphract against all unique units and Leitis perform pretty much same as Cataphract against infantry of course.
I’m ignoring your cost point because it’s irrelevant. You don’t use the Cataphract when you can’t afford it. When your opponent is capable of fielding a strong midgame composition you don’t ever go into catas, you go up Imp quick and use early arbalest powerspike to push.
When you’re in a situation where the Cataphract would shine and it’s the proper play (like against Aztecs or Goths) the cost is irrelevant to the fact that it literally does the Leitis’ base damage as an afterthought to Infantry units.
Further
Alright. I tested 50 berserks against 20 catas, on average 13 survive and catas win
I did the same test with 26 Leitis and under the same circumstances with the same patrol, with two relics, Leitis win with ~5 left over (they lost two rounds).
At least in your defense, the Leitis looked really comparable to the catas when I forgot to make the Berserk player the Vikings. Not having Chieftains and having lower HP is kind of a big deal.
The more infantry you add to the equation the worse it gets for the Leitis. This should shock absolutely nobody.
i don’t know if i would say 23% cheaper. it costs 25 gold less then a cataphract and the same price in food. its 120 total resources to 145. 17% would be closer to the truth
i’m not considering equal numbers alone. but let me put it into perspective. 20 cataphracts would beat 65 fully upgraded japanese halbs. who attack literally 33% faster then normal. its easily the best halbs in the game at attacking cavalry. Leitis in that situation literally get shredded. even with 26 of them instead of 20.
you mean the video which doesn’t include micro at all? that’s a great way to see how archer units do isn’t it?
you mean like those berserks, where 19 of 20 cataphracts survived the fight (95% of them), meanwhile the leitis had 16 out of 25 left (and with less health too?) let’s see. the leitis won, but they lost 9 units, for a total of 630 food and 450 gold lost. the cataphracts lost 1 unit for a total loss of 70 food and 75 gold.
and you’re gonna tell me the leitis is pretty much the same against infantry as cataphracts?
against jags, which do no bonus damage to either unit it was 17 out of 25 for the leitis and 17 out of 20 for the cataphracts - which means again the cataphract lost much less resources (560 food and 400 gold for the leitis, 210 food and 225 gold for the cataphracts, so less then half the resources lost, and you’re gonna tell me the leitis performs nearly the same?) against woads it was 19/25 leitis left and 18/20 cataphracts.
Gold is valuable than food. If you think gold = food, you must accept 10 paladin is equal to 17 hussar but it isn’t simply true. I consider 2/1 ratio for gold/food and I calculate Cata is 30% more expensive. I explained this but probably you don’t look at. In melee fights, no one use micros even pros. Therefore, you can compare melee fight results. I didn’t look how much unit die. I looked how much hp left in table. Also Cataphract could die against enemies just as Leitis die. Yes, Cataphract is far better against halberdiers. I admitted this like 5 comments ago but you repeat again. I didn’t answer you if you mention finished topics and undisputed false arguments.
2 to 1 is much too high an exchange rate. In castle age pros have been known to buy 100 food for prices as high as 130 gold.
Even if you’re right about no melee micro the
And yet you claimed leitis perform nearly as well against other infantry as the cataphract. Yet we see thr truth even in the test you linked. Both frequently won but the leitis was losing 25 to 40% of its force. Meanwhile the cataphract was only around 10 to 15%
For gold to food everything from 100 food = 130 gold in castle age to 100food =14 gold in postimp is possible. So it’s never possible to define a good value. Also with trade in tg gold food ratio is different to 1v1.
I said several post above not to get into deep discussions here, but you ignored that post and now you have to fight these guys saying leitis is more than fine, in fact it should get more PA and more attack, they don’t understand how important is the cost of a unit and several other things, you can ask their ranks to figure it out.
Lithuanians in general needs to lose several bonuses and techs to be a good civ, they are at chinese level when it comes to strat diversity but stronger when it comes to raw power given their gold units, when they nerf a little chinese, liths will get their place in tournaments, well they are already being picked all the time so things will get more clear even for low skilled players.
Simple you can create 3 leitis for the same gold than creating 2 paladins, its insane.
Expensive as in, way more expensive to fully upgrade with Logistica, the elite upgrade both substantial costs. Then, expensive since you need multiple castles if you want to produce them faster than one at a time, and castles are expensive to make.
please show us anyone who is saying the leitis should have more pierce armor and attack. honestly i would be okay with increasing their PA back to 2, but only if the unit cost more to offset it. or maybe lower their cavalry armor to -2 so they take a bit more damage from halbs and camels.
honestly at this point i do think Lithuanians need to be toned down a little, but it’s kind of hard to tone down the civ because they really only have a few bonuses to work with.
what i would do is start with reducing the starting food bonus to 100, or capping the relic bonus at 3 in castle age, or maybe reducing the team bonus to 10% faster monastery.
and yet if the unit is as insane as you say it is, how come almost every time we see Lithuanians played, its with knights and not Leitis? oh. because the pierce armor is a HUGE WEAKNESS that most civs can take advantage of.
Lithuanians are great on Hybrid maps but on Arabia they are maybe A Tier at best, even in the recent Arabia invitational they weren’t played at all through 7 series, and were only banned twice. so 5 series they could have been played, and they didn’t see a single map.
