Best and worst units per level

[BlackVegetable]

Those Skellie Archers seem pretty good but they only have 8 hp! How do you best utilize them? (Sorry about the level 3/4 Inquisitor Confusion.)

[Elwin]

Use gloth armor on them, timeback if some lost ..

[Razorflame]

skelli archers don't matter if they have 8 hp they receive 50% less damage from ranged attacks since they are bones

level 1 unit is obiously the peasant (this little bugger will get attack 60 in no time which means QUICK CRITICALS

level 2 hmm dunno really.. i hardly use them

level 3 royal snake
level 4 SHAMAN best unit there is :>

level 5 black dragon

[Ryastar]

Originally Posted by Razorflame

skelli archers don't matter if they have 8 hp they receive 50% less damage from ranged attacks since they are bones

Only arrow-based ranged attacks, IIRC, and it's 70% less. So they take less damage from archers (both human and skelli), hunters, and elves, and possibly more, not sure if it applies to other physical damage shooters as well. I know for sure that magic-based shooters do full damage.

As for the actual question of this thread, I don't really see the point of it. It's not like you are forced to only use one unit from each level in your army. I usually end up with a lower level army since I tend to use the elven army, more or less. Anyways, I guess these are my picks:

Level 1: Sprites>Lake Fairies>everything else
Level 2: Dryads as support in the late game
Level 3: Inquisitors, Royal snakes, Elves
Level 4: Evil beholders, cannoneers, Hunters (the best ranged troop by far, cause unlike certain other units they still own without dragon arrows, allowing you to cast a different spell)
Level 5: Giants are decent, all the dragons are very powerful, but I don't really use level 5 units very often.

[Vilk]

Originally Posted by Ryastar

Hunters (the best ranged troop by far, cause unlike certain other units they still own without dragon arrows, allowing you to cast a different spell).

Their leadership cost is a bit more than 10 times more than skel archer, for a same Leadership this give 20-30 damages to 10 skel archer vs 8-10 for 1 hunter. Then hunter get an attack bonus +22 in comparison to skel archer. At best it's a bonus of 66% But that's certainly optimistic. Even with 66% bonus it's 13-17 damages, that seems quite far to the 20-30 damages of skel archer for a same leadership cost.

[Ryastar]

Originally Posted by Vilk

Their leadership cost is a bit more than 10 times more than skel archer, for a same Leadership this give 20-30 damages to 10 skel archer vs 8-10 for 1 hunter. Then hunter get an attack bonus +22 in comparison to skel archer. At best it's a bonus of 66% But that's certainly optimistic. Even with 66% bonus it's 13-17 damages, that seems quite far to the 20-30 damages of skel archer for a same leadership cost.

Well, you also have to consider the morale bonus (I did say that I tend to use all-elven army, and apart from that, unless you invest in tolerance (which is too far up the mind tree for warriors and mages) or use all-undead, the skellis will ruin the morale of everyone else), the init difference (6 for hunters, 4 for skelli), that your numbers are slightly off - hunters have 24 more attack than skellis (ok, now I'm just nitpicking, back to actual considerations), the fact that Hunters have no range or melee penalty, meaning that they will always do full damage, and skellis have to move closer and can't fight well in melee, the fact that hunters do bonus damage against animals (a good chunk of the opponents you face) and the fact that hunters will die far less frequently, having more than ten times the health of a skelli archer, and 16 more def. Damage isn't everything, Vilk.

[Razorflame]

and hunter is faster
initiative

[Stepsongrapes]

Originally Posted by Ryastar

Well, you also have to consider the morale bonus (I did say that I tend to use all-elven army, and apart from that, unless you invest in tolerance (which is too far up the mind tree for warriors and mages) or use all-undead, the skellis will ruin the morale of everyone else), the init difference (6 for hunters, 4 for skelli), that your numbers are slightly off - hunters have 24 more attack than skellis (ok, now I'm just nitpicking, back to actual considerations), the fact that Hunters have no range or melee penalty, meaning that they will always do full damage, and skellis have to move closer and can't fight well in melee, the fact that hunters do bonus damage against animals (a good chunk of the opponents you face) and the fact that hunters will die far less frequently, having more than ten times the health of a skelli archer, and 16 more def. Damage isn't everything, Vilk.

Re hunters vs. skellies, it does real come down to an items/layout issue.

1 HUGE plus for skellies (and all weenies): big payoff for items such as whip or dagger that add damage.

Other benefits of lower level units include requiring less proficiency in magic to cast buffs on them. Finally, skels are just available a lot earlier in the game.

Of course, going all elf army makes the choice pretty darn clear, the other way.