Quantity vs. Quality

[nvm]

I`ll try to explain the question on the 3rd conquest (Fall of Rome)

You have free upkeep for all units.

There are 2 units you can possibly pick from:

Raider:
Attack 2
Defense 1
Cost 10

Marauder:
Attack 4
Defense 2
Cost 30

Now, is it worth to advance to marauder, when your city could produce 3 raiders instead of a marauder?
We do not know, whether our enemy uses legionaries, or garrisons, or if they are even fellow barbarians.

 

[vmxa]

Never played it, but 2/1 unit is just fodder once att 3 or 4 units arrive.

 

[keldr]

I've only played Fall of Rome a few times, and usually as the Huns.

I'm pretty sure the marauder is only 20 shields, but it's a valid question either way. I would definately say it's worth upgrading to the stronger units, since you (in my experience) will face legionaries (4/4) in the roman cities.

I would even recommend upgrading further to pillagers and warlords (though it wasn't part of your question)

I have usually kept producing raiders without hooking up iron until I research sacking. Then I connect iron, turn off research and start upgrading raiders to warlords.

 

[Diviner]

I agree with the others. Definitely upgrade. In each fight, the engine compares attack/defence strengths for each hits. So if your unit's attack strength is higher winning is even more probable then the sheer ratio of attack/defence would result.

 

[Opies]

the 2 attack units will be mauled by a 4 attack unit, or fodder for a 4 defense unit. Even a stack of 10 might not drop a 4 defence unit since it will probably upgrade twice on the first 4.

 

[zenmonkey12]

I agree with using Marauders rather than Raiders. You would lose many more Raiders with a lower DEF than you would with Marauders with a DEF of 2. I always assume that the AI civs have equal quality units that I do (unless I am absolutely sure to the contrary). In the long run, during combat, you would lose far more 1 DEF units than 2 DEF units. Ultimately, your civ's production of shield would be crushed by the losses suffered each turn of combat.

 

[SKS]

I would just say that, hypothetically, you would say lose one marauder for every two raiders on a good day. That may sound OK, but remember you are fighting more than one battle here. A hardlined marauder can be healed back to full health before you build yet another two raiders to replace the one you lost. And that time you spend replacing you could instead be building more marauders.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I go with the quality

 

[Ataxerxes]

I go with the quality

I would too. Any scenario or regular game. Remember, you pay maintenance for your units, the same regardless of how good it is. Your 2 and 1 strength units die in the attack and you get nothing.

 

[Sparthage]

Actually, I believe that on the 3rd Conquest if you're barbarian you have unlimited units, so you can just keep on building. Still, definitely go with quality. Those warlords can take down Legionaries fairly easily.

 

[nvm]

Well, if Marauders only cost 10 shields more than Raiders, then I meant to compare Marauders to Pillagers, actually...