Which Egyptian units should I be building?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    Would you like to know what’s going on in the Tournament 2017 Finals?
    Keep yourself updated by reading "The Corner"!

    • Which Egyptian units should I be building?

      I just started on the Fire and Sand server and I am playing as the Egyptians. I was wondering which unit is best for offense and defense in the start? I'm not a heavy raider but I would like to start a small offense shortly after my 2nd village.
    • Jump to the most helpful post

    • I like the khopesh unit, Egyptians are more heavily weighted to offence than I expected. Unless something changes I can see them taking over Gauls as the favourite multipurpose tribe. As a die hard Gaul player, I'm almost, but not quite, convinced to defect. Romans will always be the best for serious offence though.
    • That all depends if you care for costs or not.
      Egyptians have a better defense/offense scale than Romans, however, it costs more too.
      Where Romans start their offense with Imperatoris (tier 3) and Equites Imperatis (tier 5), Egyptians start theirs with Khopesh Warriors (tier 3) and Resheph Chariots (tier 6).
      Defense: Romans - Preatorians (tier 2) and Equites Caesaris (tier 6), Egyptians use Ash Wardens (tier 2) and Anhur Guards (tier 5).

      So defense is better and a bit cheaper for Egyptians than Romans, and offense may be on par... but it's more expensive.

      Mod/MH/SH (aug 2007 - feb 2010) // MH (sept 2015)
    • Helpful

      I sincerely have no idea how you can get to the conclusion that Egyptians are efficient at building hammers. They might prove useful to feed one of another tribe due to their high resource production, but that's pretty much it.

      They are last on any useful aspect of a hammer, even behind the gauls which was the worst of the three original tribes by a large margin when it comes to hammers.

      1. Attack power/training time

      2. Attack power/crop consumption


      3. Attack power/cost


      You could also consider the raiding capacities of each tribe which would allow it to afford higher level barrack/stable/workshop and thus getting a stronger hammer faster. Huns (thanks to the Steppe Rider) and teutons (thanks to the Club) would be first on this regard. Romans are a bit behind on the raiding due to the higher cost of the EI. Needless to say Egyptian raiding capacities are quite lacking when compared to the SR, Club and EI.
      There is also the consideration of the longer training time on the Egyptians rams: 10 min 48s compared to Teutons rams : 9 min 27s (Romans rams : 10min 21s and Huns rams : 9min 54s). Resulting in a weaker hammer for the Egyptians.

      I could elaborate more on the matter, but I think I've made my point clear that Egyptians shouldn't build a hammer themselves as the troops just do not have the stats to make a proper hammer. A player who would like to have both an hammer and anvils would most likely have more success with Teutons or Romans. Huns could do it as well due to the huge raiding potential of their defensive cavalry unit (Marksmen) which allows to compensate its lower stats when compared to other defensive units.


      P.S I'm aware this doesn't answer OP's question at all, but I had to address some of the answers that were given.
    • Thank you for those figures Askia, really useful info there.

      I don't think anyone here suggested they would make a good endgame hammer, but fire and sand don't require one anyway. My own observation was merely that they were better in attack then I expected them to be. Phlyinghigh wasn't asking which tribe to play though, he was asking which basic offence unit to build for Egyptians so it would have to be the khopesh warrior.

      Your stats are indisputable and an alliance playing as a team would do well to have some Egyptian players for storage however;

      - Travian has a rule that an account should be played for its own benefit, so some domains would frown on using accounts this way.
      - Not everyone plays with the intention of building a hammer or an anvil. If you are just messing about, having a bashy server for example, the extra wheat production makes up for the extra feeding cost.
      - experimenting tells you which units are particularly strong in particular ways - for example I learnt that TTs love to rip through praetorians. I don't think we have experimented enough with the new tribes yet to discover all their unique strengths and weaknesses. That's why mess around play servers are really useful.

      Numbers are indisputable, but not everyone plays for numbers, otherwise a server would be really boring with everyone playing the same tribe :(
    • Obviously still off topic, but I'm actually impressed with the Huns as a multipurpose tribe, which I really didn't expect. The Mercenary/Marksman combo is actually more attack per hour than Swordsman/Haeduns, while also being nearly the defense per hour of phalanx/druid. The downsides are that it's a high upkeep combo, and the defense is tilted heavily towards infantry.
      S6-r1 The_Chuck S8-r1 Lanie S5-r3 Tyche S7-r3 Chuckles
      S2-r6 Tommo and rebuild S1-r7 Country S5-r7 Office Space S19-r2 The Joker
      S19-r3 Chuckles
    • You're very welcome Meme, I always enjoy the math side of Travian. :)

      Muchacho NL did suggest Egyptians offense might be on par with the Romans offense, which is obviously not the case looking at the stats. I'm not only thinking of crushing a Wonder when I look at the different armies for a hammer, I'm just thinking about efficiency (attack/time, attack/cost or attack/crop consumption). And some troops (and tribes) are more suited for offense than others.

      Phlyinghigh asked for what troop was best for both offence AND defence at the start. Honestly, I don't think any Egyptian unit fits this role. Once again, looking at the stats, you'd find the Kopesh warrior to be on par with the legionnaire for attack power/cost (using this category due to the early game condition). As for the defensive stats, we find the Kopesh warrior just a little bit above the Club. And I don't think anyone (willingly) defends with his Clubs. :D



      Meme wrote:

      [...] an alliance playing as a team would do well to have some Egyptian players for storage however;
      - Travian has a rule that an account should be played for its own benefit, so some domains would frown on using accounts this way.

      There is a discussion about this subject on this thread and Templar Knight says someone shouldn't get banned for using his account this way (answer #4) : Question about the rules


      I agree with you on the last part, people can play their account whichever way they want. I just enjoy playing it in an efficient way, which is why I prefer certain tribes to satisfy my destructive urges. :thumbup:
    • That just shows that I'm clearly only interested in offence troops because I didn't notice him asking about offence AND defence :D

      Every domain has it's own interpretation of that rule, I know players have run into issues where they have done something which is acceptable on one domain but not another, I would just advise erring on the side of caution if setting up an account specifically to garage someone else's troops.

      Now I'm going off topic! Am I reading your numbers right that slave militia is now the best defence unit in the game?
    • Yes, the militia is the best defense unit in the game based on its training cost. But the unit is unique as it brings very little defense point on its own. Its strength comes from the huge amount of troops you're able to train in a short period of time and for a low cost. This causes the unit to eat a lot of crops. So the longer it stays alive, the lower its efficiency is compared to other units.
      Some people would compare the militia to the club. To those, I'd point out the club is able to bring a huge amount of resources through raids and mitigate easily its crop consumption.

      You can see in the following tables how the militia gets on par with the phalanx after just 56h and after 150h (6 days and 6 hours) gets on par with the ash warden. In times of heavy conflict when you need to have access to the most defense in a short period of time, the militia might find its use. But I think in most cases, the ash warden (for its efficiency), the anhur guard (for its speed) and the resheph chariot (for its balanced defensive stats) would prove more useful to the Egyptian player.
    • Meme wrote:

      That just shows that I'm clearly only interested in offence troops because I didn't notice him asking about offence AND defence :D

      Every domain has it's own interpretation of that rule, I know players have run into issues where they have done something which is acceptable on one domain but not another, I would just advise erring on the side of caution if setting up an account specifically to garage someone else's troops.

      Now I'm going off topic! Am I reading your numbers right that slave militia is now the best defence unit in the game?
      You get more defense per hour with militia and resheph combo, but that's if crop was an unlimited factor. It'll cost you more in the long run to maintain a militia anvil. So, build up a nice fat militia anvil, then slam it into your annoying Hun neighbor to cull the herd a bit, maybe kill his precious steppes and bows. Then repeat the process in two weeks. You'll have your suicidal militia army again, and he'll still be recuperating the losses from before unless he merges, but so can you!

      Also, hidden benefit of militia: it's the natural unit for the OCD afflicted.

      Ash Wards: 1 day build on L20 barracks: 485 for 46075
      Militia: 1 day build lvl 20 barracks: 1200 for combined def of 60,000

      See? More zeroes. More calm. ;)
      ..And that is the Final Word.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Final Word ().

    • Final Word - you talk my language! Be interesting to know how much the Egyptian oasis benefit saves in wph and how that works out on total costings and offensive/defensive tribes.

      Thinking about what benefit each tribe has or has had in the past;
      Teutons used to have the cranny dip and still have the brewery
      Gauls trappers were changed to kill a proportion of troops trapped and cost raiders in wph
      Romans have always had the horse drinking trough
      Egyptians have the waterworks
      Huns have the command centre which gives one extra expansion slot

      Which of these gives the biggest benefit and why? My initial feeling is that Romans and Egyptians win the most as their extras give them more troop feeding.
    • Meme wrote:

      Final Word - you talk my language! Be interesting to know how much the Egyptian oasis benefit saves in wph and how that works out on total costings and offensive/defensive tribes.

      Thinking about what benefit each tribe has or has had in the past;
      Teutons used to have the cranny dip and still have the brewery
      Gauls trappers were changed to kill a proportion of troops trapped and cost raiders in wph
      Romans have always had the horse drinking trough
      Egyptians have the waterworks
      Huns have the command centre which gives one extra expansion slot

      Which of these gives the biggest benefit and why? My initial feeling is that Romans and Egyptians win the most as their extras give them more troop feeding.

      Always felt it was in this order:

      Egyptians>Romans>Teuton>Huns>Gaul

      Egyptians, you could make 20k+/hr crop by week 2-3 with waterworks, and hero double bonus is a real nice boost in early game. Cheap building, huge payoff.

      Romans, HDT reducing cavalry training and crop consumption; hero gets more to FS - why 2nd? Because it doesn't really come into play until around late early game, early mid-game, since it requires lvl 20 stables and it is more expensive than waterworks.

      Teutons, anything that boosts your troop's overall power is good, and it scales as your hammer grows. Hero cranny dip bonus is ok, not great.

      Huns have the Command Center which lets you easily make 3-chief sets for cheaper than palace to 20 (975,475 vs 1.16M), faster than palace (28h vs 52h at MB20), and with less requisites: (1 WH vs 2WH ). You won't need to destroy the building to rebuild it elsewhere. Just keep it standing like any other Residence. If your 3-set dies, you can rebuild it quickly. As for hero, it speeds up your cavalry troops only when traveling with them. I feel it is still worse than the other tribes though because it really does not come into play until maybe v4-5 when you even consider making chiefs. And it does not increase your army strength, reduce crop consumption or training time which are better bonuses in my opinion.

      Gauls have +2 to hero speed and the vile Trapper. Most useless unique building there is unless you want to maximize your pop (which for ROA can matter greatly) or annoy the local raiders. It's a deterrent in early game, but most experienced players I know don't bother wasting a spot for it. The hero extra speed is nice to have when you need to pick up an arty in a pinch, but it's nothing spectacular. It's also the only building where you not only have to invest in building it up, but also in building all the traps. There's no passive bonus (like bonus to attack power, crop production or extra cp slot) once it is built.
      ..And that is the Final Word.

    • Out of the two new tribes, I have the most experience with the huns, where my dual and I are the top raider on the beta server by a huge margin. I can say for a fact that the command center gives a huge advantage due to its lower cost to get the 2nd and 3rd expansion slots when compared to either the residence 20 or palace 20. Not having to destroy the palace every time you want to re-create your 3-chiefs saves resources obviously, but most importantly, it saves time.
      Managed to get a 3-chiefs set out to chief (a real player, not a natars) about 1 month in the server.
      It's not an essential building, Huns would still be very good without.

      The same cannot be said about Romans and Egyptians. Without the reduced training time in the stable due to the HDT, the roman armies (both EI and EC) would be below the gauls Haed hammer in term of attack power/time (see below).
      With the HDT, you basically get the huns' cavalry : 180 attack for 3 crop consumed and 120 attack for 2 crop consumed. And with the HDT, the roman EC hammer is the third strongest hammer (behind Club + TK and Bow + Marauder).
      It also allows for arguably the best spies in the game, with their high speed & training time and the 1 crop consumption.
      Of course, the HDT loses some of its importance with a defensive roman account.



      As for the waterworks, it's also a must for the Egyptians. Without any proper raiding unit, they had to have some other way to generate more resources. The WW helps in this regard. But seeing as someone with a 15C 150% will get only about 33% more resources from his village, I think you should stick with one of the good raiding tribes if you have the time to raid. But for the random defensive player who doesn't want to raid or raids very little resources, the Egyptian tribe is great.

      As for the Teutons, I think the brewery is of very limited use. The inability to aim with the catapults and the reduced influence of the chiefs makes the brewery hard to use. It has its use for the classic rammer and some other minor uses, but most of the time, it will be close to useless.

      The Gauls traps are a joke compared to all the previous buildings. You could use them to hide the settlers in previous version, but now you have the auto-dodge feature and a BP so long you have time to settle before it ends. I guess you can still use it to hide chiefs.
      The added capacity on the crannies is nice, but since everyone got a buff on it in previous version, I feel like it's not as good as before.

      So for me, it's Romans > Egyptians > Huns > Teutons > Gauls; seeing as it's a must have for the first two, they have to be first.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Askia ().

    • Askia wrote:

      And with the HDT, the roman EC hammer is the third strongest hammer (behind Club + TK and Bow + Marauder).
      Just a small note: mercenaries actually give more off/time than bows. Not sure why kirilloid didn't include them in the off combination overview - guess he thought of them more as defensive units (and they are the defensive infantry of huns, that's true), even though they are good for off too. They come at higher consumption per off, and higher res cost per off, but as said give more off/time.


      Animis opibusque parati
    • Yeah, the mercs allow for slightly more attack/time (+1,1%) whereas the crop consumption is insanely higher (+27,8%) and, as you pointed out, a slightly higher cost (+3,4%) (even though I don't think this last point should be a consideration as they are better raiders than the Bow and should be able to compensate it easily). Considering the crops might become an issue in the later stages of the game, the Huns player might want to plan ahead of time and go for the Bow1. We've had issues in the past when there were so many offensive troops on the account, we could barely use them to hit the enemy alliances. Our alliance wasn't really organized so we couldn't rely much on their help to feed the hammer when it was on the move.

      1 I'm not saying an hammer should only be built on the attack/crop consideration. I believe the Club + TK remains the strongest hammer even with it's high maintenance (+6,8% attack/time for a +20,2% maintenance when compared to Axe + TK). But for practical reasons, the Bow seems like the logical choice for the Huns hammer.
    • I personally feel like they're worth it for the raiding. Don't think crop consumption of hammers matter that much here on f&s, it's not like you're making a WWK or anything, so you should be using your hammer(s) often enough to not run into too many feeding issues.

      They have the added benefit of making it pretty expensive to attempt to ghost hun hammers too. They could be used defensively too if you have an important asset that is worth sacrificing some "hammer" for - which I also think makes perfect sense on a f&s server, with regional control relying on you keeping your villages (the beta is more or less dead in this regard, but on the actual birthday server, regions should be actively contested), so having troops that can be used both offensively and defensively might be valuable.

      If I cared a lot of about crop consumption, I'd go for Romans, due to the HDT.

      Not saying one is necesarilly better than the other of the two though. It was merely because you said romans have the third strongest hammer combination, when actually it's 4th, due to Huns having both bows and mercs as viable options. EC hammer is very expensive though, whereas both merc and bows with maruaders is quite a bit cheaper - so the lesser crop consumption does diminish some in value, unless you run your account with a low amount of gold and don't want to occasionally NPC other res to crop.


      As an aisde, I generally see more Romans running EIs than ECs too - and here Huns beat Romans too; Bow/Mercs + steppes gives more off/time, is cheaper and raids better than imp + EI.


      Animis opibusque parati