Posts from Evaluating archers.

Of course, I won't. Elves are naturally stronger!!!
And there's no need to compare them one-on-one. There are always more of them. Elves are often given to the hero. Elves are cheaper. 14*(3-5)*2=84-140 versus 4*(16-20)=64-80, and that's 140 damage against 84!!! How is that possible?

The downside of cyclops, like titans, is their small number compared to other archers. After all, they are higher-level units. But monks/fanatics from the castle are powerful. If you count all archers, fanatics are in fifth place. And if you don't count sorcerers, then in fourth place. And there's no penalty in melee combat.

I completely agree!!! But I would also add that the lizards are terrible archers: they shoot once, dealing little damage.

Well, that's really cool! But you described the increase in detail, but you didn't say anything about the stats, why is that? And I'll tell you: create a map in the editor and check it - 100 "Great" Elves laid down their bows before 25 upgraded Cyclops. If you decide to calculate, then keep this in mind: one Elf deals 1 DAMAGE to a Cyclops!!! And the Cyclops, in turn, deals 13-16 (all, of course, with parameters 0 0 0 0). Yes, and I forgot to say: the "Great" Elves went first. I sometimes like to argue, but this is a different case... The parameters of the "Great" Elves are - attack 9, defense 5, health 15; Cyclops - attack 17, defense 13, health 70. Think for yourself - you can gather 100 "Great" Elves faster than in 7 populations, and 25 Cyclops in just over six. Any more questions?

one Elf deals 1 DAMAGE to a Cyclops!!!

What questions could there be? I made a map with 100 Elves against 25 Cyclops. And 20 Elves are still left ;)

Moreover, in a real map, there would be more than 100 Elves against 25 Cyclops, believe me. Of course, the parameters are smaller, so what?

Regardless, I'm talking about their stats, not about which unit is available earlier or which one can be produced in greater numbers. For example: High Elves are easily defeated by Cerberuses, and even Dragonflies, so if we're talking about which unit is more effective in the early stages of the game, then it's clear, and as for the stats, I'm sorry, they just don't compare favorably.

Yes, Cerberuses and Dragonflies will defeat Elves... there's nothing you can do about it... But wouldn't Nagas, Champions, or Death Knights defeat Cyclops? Here, the comparison has shifted to who will win: Archers or Footmen... and not Archers versus Archers.

Well, it’s clear that everything depends on how you evaluate archers. If we’re talking about raw power, then Titans are undoubtedly the best. But when it comes to usefulness, Elves are the way to go!

Well, you might as well say that elves are more useful than titans?

Absurd!

How did you even test that? Maybe you can tell us? I personally created the scenario: sand, two heroes (mages, i.e., A. and Z. with zero skills), deliberately let the cyclops pass by so that the elves would shoot first, all without any extra morale or luck, and in the end, the elves are defeated. Check again, you are wrong.

P.S. of course, when I say "great" elves, I also mean that the cyclops are upgraded as well.