... I am suppose the title explains itself . Here, why dont I start with some of mine:
Cavalry-line is okay: On the early Bronze Age, the Cavalry is a fairly decent, "jack-of-all-trades-ish" unit, being able to counter both light infantry, archers, and to a extent even siege weapons on this early stage of the game pretty well. It loses momentun as the game goes on, however, even on the late Imperial Age, as overpriced as the Cataphract upgrade may be, looking at it as a-Unit-, I think it has its uses. A fun fact is that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no unit that is simultaneously able to defeat the Cataphract in 1v1 AND is fast enough to chase it down. This makes it a great unit to support Heavy Cavalry Archers, as they can run away-With-Then, and if the opponent tries to chase you down with Chariots, the Cataphracts can actually stomp down Chariots pretty easily. Main point being, even in the Iron Age, I dont think the Cataphract is the worst unit.
Elephants suck: I tried to like Elephants, I really did. The concept of a super heavy cavalry unit that can stomp down units and buildings alike SOUNDS pretty badass... Until you realise just how few units can the Armored Elephant actually, truly counter. Almost every ranged unit counters then, as well as Centurions, what means that the Elephant is generally restricted to being used as a pseudo-siege weapon, as well as sometimes against meele cavalry and sword-line infantry( However, Phalanxes, without the Centurion upgrade, are actually most definitively-Not-Cost effective against Elephants. ) In general, if I am plaiyng as a civilization that has access to both Centurions and Armored Elephants, I am gonna go with Centurions, which serve the same role while being actually a bit better in my eyes. There is also the Elephant Archer, though, I dont think it is even that "unpopular" of a opinion that it is a worthless unit compared to the HHA
Cavalry-line is okay: On the early Bronze Age, the Cavalry is a fairly decent, "jack-of-all-trades-ish" unit, being able to counter both light infantry, archers, and to a extent even siege weapons on this early stage of the game pretty well. It loses momentun as the game goes on, however, even on the late Imperial Age, as overpriced as the Cataphract upgrade may be, looking at it as a-Unit-, I think it has its uses. A fun fact is that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no unit that is simultaneously able to defeat the Cataphract in 1v1 AND is fast enough to chase it down. This makes it a great unit to support Heavy Cavalry Archers, as they can run away-With-Then, and if the opponent tries to chase you down with Chariots, the Cataphracts can actually stomp down Chariots pretty easily. Main point being, even in the Iron Age, I dont think the Cataphract is the worst unit.
Elephants suck: I tried to like Elephants, I really did. The concept of a super heavy cavalry unit that can stomp down units and buildings alike SOUNDS pretty badass... Until you realise just how few units can the Armored Elephant actually, truly counter. Almost every ranged unit counters then, as well as Centurions, what means that the Elephant is generally restricted to being used as a pseudo-siege weapon, as well as sometimes against meele cavalry and sword-line infantry( However, Phalanxes, without the Centurion upgrade, are actually most definitively-Not-Cost effective against Elephants. ) In general, if I am plaiyng as a civilization that has access to both Centurions and Armored Elephants, I am gonna go with Centurions, which serve the same role while being actually a bit better in my eyes. There is also the Elephant Archer, though, I dont think it is even that "unpopular" of a opinion that it is a worthless unit compared to the HHA