Age of Empires Forums

i am talking about aenna vs forest prowler and cetan vs wakina

 aenna vs fp

aenna can get 269hp 35 attack and fp can get 269hp and 47 attack

vs hi aenna=140 attack , vs rest =70 attack

vs hi fp=141attack , vs rest=47 attack

aenna has higher base attack , aenna is cheaper in vs AND aenna cost only food so ur furtraded coin will survive longer, they train faster

only disadvantage is their range  , u can mix like 30%fp and70%aenna(as ur ranged li core)

as most of the range fight is ski vs ski , higher base attack will help more

 

cetan vs wakina

cetan cheaper , higher base attack(almost twice) , (as enemy will be spaming mostly ski vs them higher base attack will work better), range slightly lower, also better vs hi too

why dont people use them  as mix with ski or sole , is range matter that much than higher base attack , (archer just **** ranged cav too) ? (just like china)

have anyone tried archer mix(mostly archer) combo with these civ(pr30+) ? 

 

 

 

archer toatally

I never play iro so I can't tell you the specifics on why ppl use forest prowlers, but you missed a few ups actually. Final stats (with firepit because you used it, but it shouldn't change relative stats), are 316 hp, 72 effective attack for aenna, 290 hp, 46 effective attack for forest prowlers after sending all cards. Forest prowlers have stealth as well, but that's not very useful in treaty.

 I'm pretty sure you missed a ton of upgrades with wakina, but the final stats are (tepee/wc will add a % on top, so it will only expand current stats differences) 189 hp, 76 attack for cetans, 187 hp, 45 attack for wakinas. So...cetans are better, though they train slightly slower. I also checked rifle riders vs bow riders. Base attack for bows is 58, 600 hp, rifles have 45 attack, 492 hp. However, rifles have a better bonus vs cav (3 vs 2.3), art (7 vs 3), and heavy inf (3 vs 1), making them better vs any of those. And bows still cost coin.

aenna 70 atack????

where did u see this??  

here is the real numbers and why we dont use aennas:

aena 36 atack, 18 range, 2x HI

Skirm 46 atack 22 range, 3x HI.

 

and aenna just have 30 more hp

gg

wakina rifle win in all cases, if you use teepes

Aenna ROF 1.5, FP 3.0

I've done a Aenna vs FP test with my friend a few times. He was confident that aenna were better. Regardless of better stats, fp on attack move will wreck aenna.

Wakina over cetan. you're gonna need range with sioux, otherwise you're gonna have a hard time keeping teepees in range of cetan, in range of enemy skirms.

@Tsnoe: Tepees add a % to the final stats as I said in my first post, they won't affect which is better.

With aenna losing to fp with attack move, it probably has something to do with the fire animation, you'd have to micro differently to get them to work well in treaty, and I don't know if there's a good way to do that.

And the range point is probably correct with sioux, though wakina only have 2 more range than cetan (18 to 16)

 There are probably cases where you'd prefer the archers to the skirms, but you'd still need regular skirms at least some of the time, and the difference probably isn't enough to make up for the ~5k resc you spend to upgrade both

i didnt actually calculated all upgrades but archer has better stat than ski in any way , cetan and wakina has only 2 range difference , and 50% more base attack, better to kill other ski , tepee boost both as same , ceten dont need gold 

while with irq aenna cost only food , thatz a VERY big advantage ,

i am suggesting , mix them with fp for better army and better long lasting eco ,

btw , what is fire animation ? , howz it affect effectiveness of a unit , can anyone explain plzzz

knight_br:

aenna 70 atack????

where did u see this??  

here is the real numbers and why we dont use aennas:

aena 36 atack, 18 range, 2x HI

Skirm 46 atack 22 range, 3x HI.

 

and aenna just have 30 more hp

gg

does fp has 22 range , i think they have 20 ?

btw aenna has rof1.5 , so there  attack is double so its 36x2 vs 46(according to ur values) 

Archers are just bad in treaty in general. Archers are extremely immobile. Skirms are very versatile and good at moving around the battle field. Anyway archers are terrible in TR. Using aenna over fp is like using spain pikes over rodelero. you just dont do it.

Fp have 22 range, but aenna also have +2 range over other archers.

LordStefanIII:

Archers are just bad in treaty in general. Archers are extremely immobile. Skirms are very versatile and good at moving around the battle field. Anyway archers are terrible in TR. Using aenna over fp is like using spain pikes over rodelero. you just dont do it.

Fp have 22 range, but aenna also have +2 range over other archers.

aenna has speed 5, fp 4 , aenna are faster

cetan and wakina has 4 , they are same

than how archer are immobile ?

 

people use and prefer almost exclusively chukuno with china over arquebusir , chu has 50% more attack and almost same hp , but lesser range than arq , and using them make china wood heavy

still people use chu not arq, why ?

why not aenna or cetan they have much better stat than chu  vs evrything

and for range issue , try to mix tham with ski

 

can anyone know about fire-animation of archer ? 

tsnoe:

wakina rifle win in all cases, if you use teepes

LOL who bothers using tepees

I guess no one did tell you what set up animation is. An archer has setup animation everytime you move it. Setup animation is when the bow starts firing, and its at 3.0 ROF, then the archer continues to fire at 1.5 rof after that. but everytime you move it, it has to go through a setup animation. Also att move causes archers to repeatedly do the setup animation. Therefore archers are crap, unless they're the chinese ones.

Because ckn don't have the setup animation, just to clarify.

And the range for fp/aenna is 22/18 because of an upgrade from the war hut.