Legions or Immortals? Which is beeter?

[SJ Frank]

If you just look at the numbers...

When an Immortal attacks a Legion, the attack-to-defense ratio is 4-3, which means the Immortal as 57% chance of winning.

When a Legion attacks an Immortal, the attack-to-defense ratio is 3-2, which means the Legion has 60% chance of winning.

Head to head, the Legion is stronger!

Now, in real games, because it is much easier strategically to take advantage of attack power than defense power, Immortals are much, much more powerful. However, for the AI's, because they aren't capable of any strategies, they usually handle the Legions much better than they handle the Immortals.

So, my opinion is: I would rather command Immortals than Legions, but I would also much rather face Immortals than Legions

 

[Roland Johansen]

When attacking cities or major enemy armies, I'll use catapults to weaken the enemy and then it doesn't matter that much if I'll beat them with a 3 attack or a 4 attack unit. When I'm moving through enemy territory, it is very nice to have a 3 defence unit that will defend the stack. So I'm going for the legion.

Without any catapults, I would choose the immortal as I will be attacking more then defending and the immortal has a better chance of being victorious.

 

[Fried Egg]

I rarely play with either Rome or Persia but when comparing strengths, shouldn't defensive bonuses be taken into account? If I am not mistaken, a (land) unit always receives a minimum of 10% defensive bonus. Therefore, a Legionary defends with at least 3.3, and an immortal 2.2.

That means that when an Immortal attacks a Legionary, he will have only 55% chance of winning (at the best of times). 58% vise versa.

Interestingly, looking in the Civ editor, I noticed that the Immortal upgrades to a medieval infantry and the Legionary upgrades to an Immortal! Obviously, this means that the Legionary is non-upgradeable. But the Immortal is upgradeable, but is only worth doing when it can upgrade to Geurilla. Perhaps this point counts in Immortal's favour?

 

[Roland Johansen]

Interestingly, looking in the Civ editor, I noticed that the Immortal upgrades to a medieval infantry and the Legionary upgrades to an Immortal! Obviously, this means that the Legionary is non-upgradeable. But the Immortal is upgradeable, but is only worth doing when it can upgrade to Geurilla. Perhaps this point counts in Immortal's favour?

You misinterpreted how upgrading works. Any units not-buildable will not be considered in the upgrade path.

So legionary -> immortal -> medieval infantry

becomes

legionary -> medieval infantry

A more complete upgrade path is

swordman -> gallic sowrdsman -> legionary -> immortal -> medieval infantry

According to your theory swordsman are not upgradeble to medieval infantry, which is clearly not true.

 

[Fried Egg]

Oh, I didn't realise that...

 

[thetrooper]

im gonna go with immortals too - they have the exact same stats as midievil infantry (4 attack, 2 defense, 1 movement) and are 10 shields cheaper (immortals = 20, MI = 30), so basically you get 1.3 times as many immortals to MI's and they carry you all the way through middle ages

I've never built a 20-shield Immortal before. Nor a 30-shield MI. But maybe I just misunderstood your post?

 

[Dreadnought]

If you just look at the numbers...

When an Immortal attacks a Legion, the attack-to-defense ratio is 4-3, which means the Immortal as 57% chance of winning.

When a Legion attacks an Immortal, the attack-to-defense ratio is 3-2, which means the Legion has 60% chance of winning.

Head to head, the Legion is stronger!

Now, in real games, because it is much easier strategically to take advantage of attack power than defense power, Immortals are much, much more powerful. However, for the AI's, because they aren't capable of any strategies, they usually handle the Legions much better than they handle the Immortals.

So, my opinion is: I would rather command Immortals than Legions, but I would also much rather face Immortals than Legions

You didn't count defense bonuses

 

[SJ Frank]

You didn't count defense bonuses

Yep, thanks for pointing it out. Fried Egg brought up this point too. I think the defense bonus gives the Legion just a little bit more advantage, especially on younger worlds where there are a lot of defense bonuses to take advantage of. Though I don't think it's enough to make it stronger than the Immortal, because the problem remains that defense is harder to take advantage of than offense.

 

[Dreadnought]

Legions on mountains

I still like Legions. When an Immortal takes a town, the counterattack (made up of swordsmen) can easily recapture the city, but not with Legion protecting it

 

[SJ Frank]

Legions on mountains

That's the problem with using higher defense strategically -- when was the last time you saw an AI attack your vet legion on mountain?

Unless you could find a way to take advantage of the fact that the AI won't attack a Legion on a mountain, otherwise that extra defense point is just sitting there doing nothing.

I still like Legions. When an Immortal takes a town, the counterattack (made up of swordsmen) can easily recapture the city, but not with Legion protecting it

After you take the town, your culture control the tiles right next to the town, which means A) you can now use the roads, which allows you to attack the enemy that are already next to the town with your newly found mobility advantage, and B) if any other enemy swords want to attack your town, they have to stop for a turn first, standing right next to your Immortal stack

 

[mastertyguy]

Immortals. Is it a real question?

 

[jguy100]

That's the problem with using higher defense strategically -- when was the last time you saw an AI attack your vet legion on mountain?

Unless you could find a way to take advantage of the fact that the AI won't attack a Legion on a mountain, otherwise that extra defense point is just sitting there doing nothing.

Place the Legionaires on the mountain, wait for unsuspecting enemy units to pass, pounce. I perfer Legionaires just because I like catapults, and catapults and legionaires work pretty darn well together.

 

[I am the Future]

i just like legions better OK
Dont make fun of me. Rome is the "Classic" Civ in my mind with the exception to greece

 

[Minesweeper]

Immortals definently own, because of faster construction time, plus they dont seem to get bogged down in the jungle and marsh, which is where i normally start. lol

MAthias

 

[azzaman333]

Masses of Legionaries are killer. nearly as killer as waves of immortals. Immortals are better.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Immortals. Longer shelf life, and offense > defense, as far as CivIII is concerned.

 

[jb1964]

Immortals. Longer shelf life, and offense > defense, as far as CivIII is concerned.

I concurr but would add offense >> defense

 

[ferenginar]

It's probably a version difference but I cannot upgrade immortals, I don't know about legions as I have never played Rome.

 

[ist..since1453]

gallic swordsman better than both of them(speed is the most important in AA) but has a shield problem.but i have to say that AI controling legions are more frigthening than immortals.

 

[lances]

What he said. A > D, but M > A > D.