In campaign, which is better - ripperdactyl or horned ones?

[skyhrg]

After having experimented a bit, I think the rippers are better since the AI does not get many missile troops anyways. They're more fragile than the horned ones, but they're cheaper and do much more damage, especially to infantry. They're faster so you can reach routing units quicker. And they're flying so you don't have to pull off crazy flanking maneuvers like normal cavalry does. With (rear) charging enemies already engaged, rippers tend to do more damage than horned ones from my testing.

What do you guys think??

[The Warmongering Khan]

Originally posted by skyhrg:

After having experimented a bit, I think the rippers are better since the AI does not get many missile troops anyways. They're more fragile than the horned ones, but they're cheaper and do much more damage, especially to infantry. They're faster so you can reach routing units quicker. And they're flying so you don't have to pull off crazy flanking maneuvers like normal cavalry does. With (rear) charging enemies already engaged, rippers tend to do more damage than horned ones from my testing.

What do you guys think??

Depends on who you're facing. Sure other lizards may field almost no ranged, but say late game skaven? or wood elves? Oh lots and lots of ranged.

[Obiwan]

you clearly have not met any AI Empire yet. Handguns will end you.

[skyhrg]

Originally posted by Obiwan:

you clearly have not met any AI Empire yet. Handguns will end you.

Haha, you're right. I actually haven't lol. But I'm using the "Better AI recruitment mod" and I think this plays a role; as a result, the AI tends to make armies composed of around 75% melee, 20% range, and 5% artillery. I think this lower range unit composition is making rippers much more useful in such campaigns.

[Wh♂♂par]

Never state something as in OP without making clear you're using mods.