Good job, but i really don't think you should count Nidhogg.

Here's a couple of links to similar topics:

Myth unit ratings by ManticoreKiller:
http://aom.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=ct&f=11,17733,,all

Unit rating system by Jackson:
http://aom.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=ct&f=11,13176,,all

How did you choose the numbers?? For example: why is the favor cost as important as the gold cost? Favor often takes more time to get than gold... is there any mathematical background for the modifiers you chose?
Moreover, what does it say that an Ulfsark has 250 points while a troll has 151? Do I have to draw any kind of conclusion from that?

good questions..all the numbers were based on the inital score ratio to all the other variaables..for example:

take hack damage. having an 11 hack compared to a 13 hack is not the same as having 130 hp and a 132 hp. So i used multpliers respectively to balance all this out.

My reasoning behind food/wood/gold/favour was that food is the median. wood is far more easily gathered and less required for upgrades making it an easier commodity to accumulate quickly. thus, creating a unit requiring 50 food would be less debilitating (economically) vs a unit requiring 50 wood. of course if u chose to build only units only needing wood then you would notice that you're alwys short of wood and have an abundance of food.

and yes, an ulfark is almost twice as good as a troll. of course there are certain (controlled) scenarios where a troll would always come out 'better' then an ulfsark, but this unit scoring is not to compare units in PARTICULAR situations or against PARTICULAR other units. Its taking all their info and giving them a score to be able to compare them to others.

obviosly the higher the number the more you should build of this unit.

exclude nidhogg (cuase its a god power) and jormund cause i dont think many people play water maps excessivley, lets take the top 3 units vs the bottom 3. IMO, its safe to say for an experienced norse player 70% if not 80% of the units used are the top 3, and around 5% or less are the bottom three. the hersir probably would of scored better if i included the following:
can pickup relic
favour gain

so lets say the worst three norse units are the einghar, fire and frost giant. I for one rarely build any of these three.

What a wonderful system.

I always wondered how much better a raiding cavalry was than a fenris brood.

Quote:

Do I have to build more Krakens than Hersirs? And more Jormund Elvers than Raiding Cavalry?
By the way, I think not everyone here will agree with the uselessness of Fire Giants and Einherjars.

in a water map yea

I would like to see you try to win against anyone on a water map when you try to build more water Myth Units than human military units...

lol, personally i like how it basically says that you should never make a decent land myth unit.

Enharjars must be awfully bad :P

Wow, I'm certainly good to know that a little Ulfsark is beter than a Frost Giant, that a RC is better than Fenris. You haven't found a way to compare apples to oranged, good try though. This is either biased, or you need to find a better formula.

The modifiers seem some what arbitrary. I could change a few slightly, oh my, jarls and FG move up 3 or more spots.

its not biased. sorry if ur feelings are hurt that mythological units don't add up to your expectations.

get over the flashy lights of the valk, ur not 8 years old anymore (i think)

Quote:

... or maybe your system is horribly flawed?

Quote:

ROFL!!!!I'm sorry, but that is the funniest thing you have EVER said to me, and it earned you the title "Kid". Ok, kid, you say I'm probably not 8 years old? How old are YOU then? ANYway, I'm just saying that this is a bit inaccurate, and you yell at me and try to call me 8 years old? All I'm saying is, you're still trying to compare apples to oranges, and you still haven't truly found a way to do it correctly. Now, i'm not saying I could do so myself, but still...

Why is the Einherjar last? Thats a good myth unit, decent crush attack, in classical I use them as a siege unit, and thier second ability makes them good with a large number of human unit, as well if u did them upgrades and good god path, why didn't u do them to myth units? Why didn't u do them on the giant killer Einherjar, or the frost giant of thrym?

[This message has been edited by aomvanilla_4life (edited 03-23-2004 @ 04:16 PM).]

the myth units are fully upgraded...and most of them had such a high score cause of their bonus with hel (1 second production time).

the system is not flawed, rather ur obsessed with myth units thats all. its ok most noobs are. an nobody is screaming here, if ur exasperated i suggest a brown paper bag

i will admit that tnumbers used may be off (i took them off this web site and i dont know to which version they pertain) maybe somoene can enlighten me?

i know since the TT package the numbers have been changed significantly..who knows, maybe enough to bump certain units up or down, especially those already close like the ulf and husk.

Again you make me laugh. You say I'm a noob because YOU claim I'm obssessed with MUs. First off, I'm not obsessed with MUs, I simply know facts that they are better than human units. You claim the system is not flawed, and yes I would imagine that when TT came out that numbers changed drastically, but still, this is completely inaccurate.

Quote:

This made me laugh...

Quote:

Don't contradict yourself there kid, won't get you anyhwere

PS: Changed sig, thanks for the quote!

[This message has been edited by shminkledorf (edited 03-23-2004 @ 04:35 PM).]

If you want to expres the values of units you must first of all explicitly define 'value'. You will see that only defining the meaning of this word in this context is already difficult enough. In your formula you included things like LOS so I assume this 'value' is more than its performance against other units. I therefore assume you want a unit's value to represent its general "usefulness" divided by its price. This gives you 2 new questions: how do you measure usefulness and how do you deal with different situations, as usefulness is dependent on the situation. To make a long story short, the problems already start when you try to define the word your essay is all about. The only way to "solve" this was by making lots of assumptions and estimations which leads to undefined but huge inaccuracies.

[This message has been edited by NS_Cymophane (edited 03-23-2004 @ 04:41 PM).]

the numbers are irrelevant, its the formula used to derive the units score, plug anything in u want..now since TT if they changed the cost of a firegiant to 10gold and 10 fav and only 2 pop slots with the same hack hp etc..then damn right its the best unit, myth or not. (but i hightliy doubt that happened). thats why the formula isnt biased..takes raw data and gives u a resultant..not my fault es made myth units so crappy..if u think they're much better in post TT patches then give me thier new specs

[/q]not my fault es made myth units so crappy[q]
Wow, you're a persistent bugger. Try vs. Greeks premythic, massed MUs will OWNETH..and yes they're better in TT, cost wise, a few were lowered, I think a few got beefed up. Anyway, about me putting the new specs on MUs, I honestly don't feel like typing it all out using a flawed system...

There´s no reason to assume this is biased, but the formula really is irrelevant. This subject is just too difficult.

cymphomane ur abso, right..usefullness is based on my exp. and gameplay..

for example, adding +10 to a units LOS WOULDN'T change the score as much as adding +2 to its hack.

now if u beleive LOS deserves far more 'utility' then hack does (in overall gameplay) then yea it's totally 'flawed'.

but again, i mentioned inealier that the score is NOT meant to compare a unit vs. another unit in SPECIFIC or PARTICULAR examples or scenarios.

[This message has been edited by legendaryjarl (edited 03-23-2004 @ 05:07 PM).]

What you are trying to do simply isn't possible. Your weighing of stats is arbitary and doesn't prove anything.

First off, general usefullness means almost nothing in an RTS like this one.

The Niddhog is a good example. The Niddhog sucks. It's slow, easily killed, and can't be healed. Many buildings get huge hidden damage bonuses against it, and its damage vs heroes doesn't really exist. It's one of the worst Mythic GP's availible. And yet it makes number 1 on your list, presumably because it doesn't cost resources.

The Jormund Elver is your number 2. At first glance, this seems like a worthy contendor. Low cost, High-HP's and Damage, as well as good range and travel speed. In game, the Elver is limited by the fact that naval battles don't really happen in mythic, so it's only really good for sniping coastal units. Not bad in Medit, almost worthless on most maps.

The Bravery Husk is your number 3. A superb archer killer with decent damage output vs buildings. However, it isn't nearly as good against either infantry or Calvary, and thus isn't hard to counter en masse.

Lets take a lot at your bottom choices. Einherjer? The old Giant Killer is a superb rushing unit in classical with its crush damage, high armor, and damage boosting ability. At the point you will be dealing with Einherjer's, you'll have little to no heroes around to deal with them. Their slow speed is not much of a problem when they are pounding your base into the ground.

Then we have the Fire Giant. Number crunching will tell you it's weak. Experience will teach you otherwise. The Fire Giant is a ranged attacker with 80% peirce armor. This means he can safely hide in your backlines, and their is very little you'll be able to do to bring him down easily. In Small groups, Fire-Giants can fight almost anything very effectively. Titans, Towers, Archers, Calvalry, MU's, doesn't really matter. The Combined Fireball assault alone will devastate closely packed ranged units.

Ah, but according to him its not used for scenarios, so everything here is null . It is the closest thing to impossible to compare a MU to a human unit accurately. While yes you did try, this whole is is quite inaccurate, although with statistics I guess you're right on one part, it can't be biased, but just about everything else there is inaccurate. As above poster said, usefulness in AoM is different than the other RTS games out there. Most naval battles have ended by Late classic early heroic, and very rarely have I seen them occur in mythic. So you haven't truly made a usefulness list, since towers and I think fortresses get huge bonuses against flying units such as niddy, he is laid waste upon by almost any ranged MU, but does splash damage and good damage against non hero units. For niddy: Don't try to rate him. He's a godpower and shouldn't be compared to other units.

lol u taking units for what they are at face value take into consideration counters and shit things change ya?

so if someone masses firegiants according to your table i should make

Jormund Elver 337.56
Huskarl 250.47
Ulfsark 246.87
RegHuskarl 223.33
Raiding Cavalry 222.82
RegUlfsark 211.53
RegRaiding Cavalry 197.75
Throwing Axeman 196.52
Mountain Giant 194.95
Fenris Wolf 191.78
Battle Boar 191.53
RegThrowing Axeman
Kraken 176.30

hmm dude stfu u talk bs constantly someone make huskarls i aint making something with high points on your table im making tas dude shit units according to you ya?

read what i wrote about nidhogg and jormund earlier. for the rest it's accurate. yes fire giants suck! like all myth units easily killed and taken care of.

point is the ulf and husk r ur two best bets when playing norse. no good player wastes res. on myth units unless they're annihlating the enemy. building a myth unit is like investing in a tech stock. looks good, lots of hype, zero return.

Sorry, but no. Just no.

"No good player uses Myth Units"

Prove it.

And why is the Ulf one of the best Norse Units? If you are going Thor, then yes, Ulf's can be very good late game. Loki Ulfs can be ok. Later. In general though, you don't want to go Ulfs unless you are facing a lot of calvary. Your opponent will WANT you to go Ulfs, because they are the weakest infantry in classical.

Husks are very good, I'll agree. but not the best. I also see that Jarl is near the bottom of your list. Jarls own kiddo. They are the toughest(aside from elephants) Calvary in the game and do bonus damage against myth units.

Throwing Axeman are essential for Norse, unless you are using trolls. You need ranged units, and you need an infantry counter to offset your own weak infantry. Not using axemen is foolish.

Fire Giants are not weak at all. You just don't understand how to use Myth Units.

I mean, just look at that list. You list Kraken near the bottom when they are possibly the best of all water myth units. You put Frost Giant ahead of the Fire Giant.

You simply don't know what you are talking about, sorry.

As LegendaryJarl has repeated stated his opinion that Myth units are of little value, unless you wish to start another thread, let's agree he's right on this for the moment, shall we?

LegendaryJarl: even assuming that your multipliers are correct, there are few basic problems with your calculation system:

1) You claim to be able to calculate the value of a unit. How does one actually use this value? You gave, for instance, a Huskarl a higher value than a Ulfsark. Does this mean that I should always build more Huskarls than Ulfsarks?

This value must remain true throughout the game, which means that even if my opponent built nothing but Raiding Calvary, my combination of Huskarls and Ulfsarks must consistently beat it better than an equal number of Ulfsarks alone.

You can't argue that your values work in some situations but not others. AoM doesn't work that way; things move in unit-counter-cycles. Assigning fixed values doesn't work because a Ulfsark gets bonuses against certain units, affecting your values.

When comparing, for instance, an Ulfsark and a Huskarl, the Ulfsark's bonuses don't apply when fighting against a Huskarl. In that case, you'll have to cancel out the additional bonus value.

And should you attempt to evaluate every single possible unit in every single possible upgrades, your list would be so long it'll be useless during normal gameplay.

2) Here are some things you didn't even factor into your score.

If a unit can fly, shouldn't it affect your values?

If a unit can gather resources, shouldn't that also affect?

What about recieving resources, like an Ox Cart?

3) Unit use
An Oracle is intended for nothing but scouting. It's attack is weak. It's slow, it has little HP, and doesn't get bonuses.

Yet, an Atlantean player who abandons Oracles entirely because of their little value, according to your chart, will miss out valuable resources and chokepoints around his base.

It's like bonuses - the importance and value of a unit varies according to the situation. When countering calvary, anti-calvary bonuses should recieve more value. When scouting, LOS and speed should recieve more value. This varies so much, you can't claim to produce a universally-appropriate value.

3) Actual gameplay
Assuming your multipliers are correct, they are still comparing units 1-to-1. When strategies like meatshields, chokepoints, etc come into play, your values are again rendered invalid.

This is a pre-written reply to an objection I predict will come up.

You CANNOT claim that as your modifiers work for SOME situations, and not others, your evaluation system works. This is a false argument and renders your entire system invalid - I could arbitarily give any unit any random value, then place it in a situation where it would win - for instance, a Toxotes against a War Elephant seperated by a cliff. If you use this argument, your carefully-written modifiers are worth no more than randomly-generated ones, i.e.: worthless.

dnwq: you must be visual impaired. I';ve said REPEATEDLY that the socre system is NOT to determine what to build (based on mass of one unit OR when given SPECIFIC scenarios) like u did in this example: "This value must remain true throughout the game, which means that even if my opponent built nothing but Raiding Calvary, my combination of Huskarls and Ulfsarks must consistently beat it better than an equal number of Ulfsarks alone. "

for all the blind people in here..this is what the SCORE SYSTEM CAN BE USED FOR:

comparing the OVERALLL value (meaning the units score in every attriubute that pertains to aom - minus the cost/training time/and pop slots) It DOES NOT mean that using because ulfs are great but ur opponent is building 100% anti infantry that u r going to win (that would be making a scenario as i pointed earlier, and thats NOT what the scoring is to be used for).

the scoring system says that THE PRICE you pay for a fire giant and everything that you get from it (in all respects) is worth 'a certain amount' as compared to the price for an ulfasark and everything you get from it (in all respects). it doesnt mean that put a fire giant 1 on 1 to an ulf and the ulf will win..of course not, that inherent and i dint think somethign so stupid and obvious had to be pointing out! although u have all made a good point that in the future the obvious thing will be pointed for the 'challenged' user.

Dude, chill out.

Just because your system is useless for any purpose doesn't mean you didn't make a nice list in your post.