Humans, the strength?

[The Apprentice]

So, to sum it up.

Hunters and Rangers are waste.

Veterans are backbone of the army, it's good to build them in a city with free perks. The best could be upgraded to Blademasters and/or Paladins.

Rogues are cannon fodder. The surviving ones could be upgraded to Assassins if Lunord temple is available. Upgrade to Cutthroats without Lunord temple is mostly waste of money.

Mages are for special tasks like eliminating Greater Fire Elementals, plus for some ranged support.

And the ultimate goal is to survive before you could start building temples.

For a different experience, I basically only build Hunters, Mages, and Settlers. Rogues remain fodder and are rarely built. In my current (90ish turn Impossible XL Island) game, I have yet to build any warriors or Veterans. Found or rewarded melee units are adequate until a Temple is built. I do choose a melee temple unit for Portal World/Capital/Avatar slaying. A single Hunter in each city on sentry makes for a great reaction force, and if needed can be upgraded to a Ranger if a dangerous threat appears (Like a "Kill the Heretics!" mission).

Resource perks are key to this being viable, I've found. Without the Silver Armory and Enchanted Weapons, Hunter/Rangers don't cut it for my playstyle.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Well, you do need rangers/hunters if better option is not around (like goblin archers or elves). And when you finally get temples, if you fancy dauros or krolm, helia is there with some uber archers.


EDIT:
Tier 1 ranged units are great sentries. They are cheap to build and upkeep, and when need arises you can upgrade them to their tier 2 version.

 

[The Apprentice]

Why do you consider Goblin Archers superior? Champion of Grum-gog is subpar compared to Beastmasters/AoH's IMHO, and the Archer's themselves lack the scout and forestry abilities. Same damage. GA's get a melee resistance, but if your archers are being melee'd, something has gone wrong already. Rangers have a higher attack that the sharpshooters, and I generally have perks available by then that diminish the impact of basic armor.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Their tier 1 version is more resistant to damage (+50% more hp), and tier 2 version is armored (so good against both melee and ranged attacks).

They are not foresters, but having 4 moves makes them still pretty mobile (unlike skeleton variants). Also, flat forest is only place where rangers are more mobile.

Yes, if playing human, that means you probably not gonna upgrade them to champions, but in the meantime they are the "best archers in the wooord", for their upkeep.

 

[unmerged(495697)]

The main issue with human archers is that they are imminently one-shottable by pretty much everything. Meaning that if you don't get a first shot on the enemy, they're dead against pretty much everything except roaches. THe upgrade for them does help in the sense, that now they only get one shotted by everything above rats...

That said archers do have their place, just not as a solo unit. I had fun times in my first avatar victory, when I spawned an avatar of helia, which turned out to be a flier. Fun times, when all my units where assasins...

 

[player1 fanatic]

The main issue with human archers is that they are imminently one-shottable by pretty much everything. Meaning that if you don't get a first shot on the enemy, they're dead against pretty much everything except roaches. THe upgrade for them does help in the sense, that now they only get one shotted by everything above rats...

Exactly

 

[unmerged(494828)]

I've just played 2 games of humans. Using Mages/Magister as ranged attackers to support Veterans is good. In another game I've started humans with Koatles and Koatl Archers are good ranged backing for Veterans as well.

 

[unmerged(493757)]

Magister? I would recommend getting other unit than this, it's one of the crappiest high tier unit, its upgrade from normal Mage is just Missile Resistance Aura plus a little attack and hp.

 

[The Apprentice]

Magister? I would recommend getting other unit than this, it's one of the crappiest high tier unit, its upgrade from normal Mage is just Missile Resistance Aura plus a little attack and hp.

Well, I can only note my experience, which is that nurtured Mages make fantastically powerful Magisters. In my games I make purchased perks a priority- so the it is common for Mages to have +30% unit power and Enchanted Weapons. If I don't have any temple units yet, Mages tend to receive whatever buffing spells I have. Because they see so much combat, they tend to be among the highest level units in my army- so another +20% elemental, +30% death, +25ish spirit. They also have decent resistances by then as well. They can one shot Red Dragons and Greater Fire Elementals, and with the Life Weapon spell even Vampires aren't really a threat.

I guess my point is that Magisters are an excellent unit in terms of scaling and usability for the entire game. To be sure, so are a lot of other units as well.

They are still squishy compared to Old Trolls for sure, but once they get Vampric Weapons only temple units are a danger in Melee.

 

[unmerged(494828)]

Magisters (and Mages) have special attack with range 3. It helps a lot to deal with tough creatures and cities. Other than that - regular human units aren't too fun.

 

[unmerged(493757)]

I used to play Human the most, and the first unit i study the most is this old man, but the more i play with this old man, the more i know that upgrading it is often an unwise course of action especially in larger map. You better buy other mage than upgrade your current mage to magister. Upg cost is 400, you can get 2 more mage which only cost 350. 3 Mage is much better than 1 Magister.

Magister is crappy, unless you desperately need huge Missile resistance boost. By the time you can upgrade Mage to Magister, you can get more useful unit, like temple unit or buying other mage, i often get temple unit almost before i get Magister.

Even if i can get Magister before i can get a temple unit, i'd rather buy other Mage than trying to make another Magister or upgrade a Mage to Magister.

Mage and Magister special attack is not that different imo, Magister just have 7 more damage, both have same damage type (Elemental Damage), both have range of 3, both reduce Elemental and Melee resistance by 20. So buying 2 more mage add much more to your kingdom than upgrading a mage to magister.

However, i never said that you mustn't upgrade Mage to Magister, certain situation demands you to upgrade it, and if you have spare gold Magister is always a nice addition to your army especially if it is a high level one. But more mage is much better than getting Magister.

 

[UncleJJ]

Sorry I don't agree with your analysis atlatea. Upgrading a mage that you have been nursemaiding for 30 turns which is say level 4 is very worthwhile. By that time, like The Apprentice, I will have added 3 or 4 good enchantment buffs (haste, windalking extra resistances, frost weapon), and spent on all the useful gold perks . So I am upgrading something that has cost me say 500 mana (including maintenance) and 500 gold in perks. That will add 10 HP (+45%) and the 50 missile aura (affects unit AND all surrounding hexes). But it increases the base damage from 17 to 24 and that increases overall damage output by 41% which will be a lot more than the simple 7 you seem to be assuming. There is also the experience benfit of upgrading, so it will only take 20 exp to reach the next level.

There is no way that 2 basic mages can compare to an experienced and well buffed and perked up magister. New mages are great and I would certainly consider buying a few more mages, their spell alone (with its bane) make them useful, but never consider them instead of having a powerful magister, such as I have described, where I already have a huge investment of time and resources. A strong magister like that is better than most temple units, especially any that start at level 1. A new temple unit will need a whole load more spent on it buying perks. Paying 500 gold or whatever is well worth the huge increase in damage and safety for the unit which would otherwise still be a mage that I would have to nursemaid. The upgrade is an insurance against losing such a valuable unit, apart from all the other arguments and good reasons I've given.

 

[unmerged(493757)]

Good point, i guess it depends on individual play style.

Though i always found that 2 more mage is better than 1 magister, perhaps i like quantity more than quality. But the math alone, 3 mage is much more better in damage dealing than 1 magister even if you have enchant, by the time you can get magister most of the late game weapon enchant won't appear in your research wheel, unless you are very lucky, thus your enchant is mostly only the frost weapon, 2 more mage = +200% damage, survival wise, magister is better, because 3 mage won't add their hp to each other. Let's also consider another benefit of having more mage, i can have the benefit of multi target, i mean 1 magister can blast only 1 enemy in each turn, while 3 mage can focus their fire or spread it to weaken more units, if they focus their fire their damage is comparable to level 10 magister with all 4 non divine enchants (Fire+Vampire+Life+Frost), though all those enchantments sometimes doesn't appear in research wheel when you can get magister. The advantage of having more mage is also long term, those mages one day will become experienced too. You can also give each of frost weapon enchant to those 3 mages if you want.

I often play Human and the result for me is more mage is much better, both short term or long term, especially if you try to buy 2 or 3 mage asap as soon as you get Wizard Guild, which i often do (2 mage most of the time though).

To sum it up, more mage = better damage, better flexibility (can focus fire or spread their damage), less survival. Getting magister have better survival and the advantage of strategic position, i mean if my mage is defending a critical location, and by upgrading it to magister my mage can do much better, i'll upgrade it because buying 2 more mage will require some turns for them to reach the critical location, and there is a chance i'll lost that location before they arrive. But i often buy 2 mage asap as soon as i get wizard guild in capital, sometime i add the 3rd if the need arise, these 2 mages working side by side is comparable to 1 magister in later turn, not to mention the gold spent on these 2 mages are much better than the gold spent on pursuing Military Academy and then trying to get a Magister (the total upkeep is a burden if i rush it).

 

[The Apprentice]

It sounds like you opt for Mage production much earlier than I do, and in the scenario you outlined it would be better to flesh out your numbers. I don't build mages in my capital- I generally build mages out of my third or fourth city, which preferably incorporates an enchanters workshop. And as UncleJJ outlined, it would be rare indeed to upgrade a Mage before it has reached level 4 or five.