Champion better than Samurai?

[Rin]

I was just messing around and did some testing because I wasn't sure if I should use Champions or Samurai as a Japanese player.
In a 1v1 fight, the Samurai always wins, no questions here.
When I massed up like 20v20 or 30v30 the champions almost always wins by a large number. Not even close, the Champions outright beats the Samurai despite being the cheaper and weaker unit in 1v1.
After that I changed the sides: I used the Champions and the KI used the Samurai.
This time the Samurai won always.
Why is this happening? Is the KI on my side too stupid for some reason?
And before you ask: Yes, both civs were Japanese.

[Hezekieh]

A lot of players make the mistake of assuming Samurai is a stronger Champion and massing them. Their strength is they murder popular UU's like Teutonic Knights, Huskarls, Jaguar Warriors, Woad Raiders ect.
Also, Samurai are faster and harder to kite.

[Experienced Noob]

As far as the different result, were you using 'patrol' when you sent the units at each other?

I think Samurai are better vs other unit types than champions. I see pros use them a lot when Japanese. I also see pros use berserks a lot when they draw Vikes in random civ.

[Pantera]

did you used patrolling when fighting? patroling improves a lot.

[Rin]

I just placed them on the map and let them start fighting. I didn't want micro-management influence the result because I wanted to see who is the general better unit.
I was running more tests and when both units were controlled by the AI of a CPU opponent the Samurai wins like he should all the time.
So am I assuming right that the AI is not as smart when it orders my units as with CPU units?

Edit:

Originally posted by Rasputin666:

A lot of players make the mistake of assuming Samurai is a stronger Champion and massing them. Their strength is they murder popular UU's like Teutonic Knights, Huskarls, Jaguar Warriors, Woad Raiders ect.
Also, Samurai are faster and harder to kite.

Jaguar Warriors actually seem to be on par with Samurai. I agree with the rest tho.

[Hezekieh]

The AI is retarded, you never played the Campaigns?

[Rin]

Originally posted by Rasputin666:

The AI is retarded, you never played the Campaigns?

Not done with all the expansion campaigns yet but otherwise I know what the AI is sometimes capable of...
It still suprised me that the AI seems smarter when using his units than my units.

[NIKFS]

Samurai are nice to use when your opponent relies on his own UU otherwise champions are better, both for their abilities and for the reason they are made in barracks

[Pantera]

Originally posted by NIK_F_S:

Samurai are nice to use when your opponent relies on his own UU otherwise champions are better, both for their abilities and for the reason they are made in barracks

Champions are only better when you can be 100% sure that the enemy wont produce his unique unit, other wise samurai are cleary way better.
Champions are easier to mass but its not as big as you might think. champion gets created in 21 seconds vs samurai in 9 seconds. You need 2,3 barracks to keep the same production up which are 402 wood. The castle is still costs 248 resources more but thats nothing when you consider that a castle can attack. On top of that one of the japanese main strength is their trebuchet with kataparupto. Even if ♥♥♥ players dont go for samurai you will always see them make atleast 2-3 castles just for the trebuchets.

[NIKFS]

Originally posted by WoodyWorld:

Originally posted by NIK_F_S:

Samurai are nice to use when your opponent relies on his own UU otherwise champions are better, both for their abilities and for the reason they are made in barracks

Champions are only better when you can be 100% sure that the enemy wont produce his unique unit, other wise samurai are cleary way better.
Champions are easier to mass but its not as big as you might think. champion gets created in 21 seconds vs samurai in 9 seconds. You need 2,3 barracks to keep the same production up which are 402 wood. The castle is still costs 248 resources more but thats nothing when you consider that a castle can attack. On top of that one of the japanese main strength is their trebuchet with kataparupto. Even if ♥♥♥ players dont go for samurai you will always see them make atleast 2-3 castles just for the trebuchets.

Well you are probably right because i dont play often as them, i prefer archer civs because i find them easier to micro when the game is a bit laggy so my opinion might not be the best on this matter

[Rin]

I tested the massing of both and what I got is basically this:
One castle can mass about equal numbers of Samurais than 3 barracks. You always need the double amount of barracks + 1 to be on equal. So for 2 castles you need 5 barracks etc.
So I'm still wondering what is more efficient. Upgrading from Militia to Champion costs around 560g and Elite-Samurai 875g (which is a HUGE difference!). Is that really worth it?

I ran some tests and found out that the from 875g you could have made 29 Samurais instead of upgrading to Elite (or spending it on something else). The Elite-Samurai is 42% stronger and thanks to the high costs it pays back at around 70 created Samurais.
Going from Two-handed Swordsman to Champion costs 350g which equals around 17 THS. I found out that it pays back when you plan on creating 80-90 Champions. This means the improvement from THS to Champion is around 20%.
So looking at the costs it kinda seems fair. Elite-Samurai costs more than double the gold but the improvement is also more than double. So it really just depends what you're up against.

On a different note, that might explain why Champions are rarely used. For them to be cost-efficient in comparison to the THS you would need to use ALOT of them during your game (not to mention the Upgrade costs before and the research time). For being a good but basic unit this seems not much worth it when you don't have an infantry civ.

[Hezekieh]

Dude you're overthinking it. Champions are rarely used because they're the only trash units that cost gold.

[gamevideo113]

You had different results in the various fights because the AI is stupid. As japanese you should always try to have at least 3/4 castles up because japanese trebs are the best siege in the game and samurais > champions. Go samurai every time you can, they are better.

[Rin]

The comparison made sense for me because of the different cost.
Considering how much cheaper Champions are and how expensive the Elite-Samurai upgrade is I was wondering which unit would be smarter to mass when the hidden boni are not a factor (like enemy is not massing his unique unit or Eagle Warrior).
So if I understand correctly I should go for Samurai almost always, except:
If I am playing against Mayas.
If the Aztecs or Incas or not doing their unique infantry for some reason.

[gamevideo113]

When you are against meso-american civs Samurai are even more a no brainer, they beat every meso unit if used right (eagles, jaguars, plumes, kamayuks and so on). As i already said, as japanese try to keep your castles alive because from them you have the best siege and the most damaging melee unit in the game. Champions are just a bit better than Samurais vs eagles but overall the Samurai is the better unit.

[Rin]

Originally posted by gamevideo113:

When you are against meso-american civs Samurai are even more a no brainer, they beat every meso unit if used right (eagles, jaguars, plumes, kamayuks and so on). As i already said, as japanese try to keep your castles alive because from them you have the best siege and the most damaging melee unit in the game. Champions are just a bit better than Samurais vs eagles but overall the Samurai is the better unit.

Shouldn't plumes manage well against samurais? Unique Archer units are not best countered by Samurai from my experience.
If my opponent doesn't/forgets to micro then sure, Samurai destroys them.