The main weakness of Banshees are the same weakness sorceres has.
Due to there limited range there is not a single way they can avoid not being hit unless they kill the enemy in 1 hit.
Yes they do have better HP so if they need to take a hit they can take it better. but that doesnt make them great.
In general if I would use a banshee, I can also use one of many free sorceres I have. yes banshees are a bit better but they aren't "free"
Yes, Banshees and Sorceress have the same range movement and attack, and that´s the most distinguished particularity that makes them identical, beyond that, I repeat they have their own way to play them.
I thought you did know in what manner and against what enemy combos I was referring with the respect of Banshees, but seems it does not.
Banshees are specially good in Crystal and Dust tourney, or in encounters that includes lot of Heavy Range/Mage units, mainly if you focus them to hit the enemy mages and then the damage they get from HR units is almost null, (nothing at all with sorceress, that are damaged to the half of their HP if a single hit from a steinling reach them). They are also good by their initiative, they can be hide from the reach of enemy abbots and enemy fairies, making specially good in some scenarios where map does not favor you. Banshees also are real good to support units like own HR since their debuff ability help you kill units that with other way will endure HR hits ( but this last feature is more a secondary advantage of this cool unit).
No, banshees can´t endure very well hits from everyone in the battlefield, they endure very well the HR ones, beyond that they get damaged as all the other mage units with some differences in the level of how much.
By far Banshees are the second best mage unit if you´re an elf, and the third if you´re human.
Dryads have there use, aspecially when you need to lower the enemies punch back. similar to the banshee. or I use them as a diversion for annoying mistwalkers.
I do use them but when I make to many of them I am using them only to use them. not because I need them.
Yes they work better vs steinlings which can really hurt your rangers and archer quite a bit, but agains any other unit I prefer the other 2.
It hits a bit harder than the elite archer but also has a lower HP per weight. also it's main enemy (heavy melee) to whom it's completely engineerd is so incredible weak that you can use anything agains it. Archer, rangers, Blossom, Priest it's all better than Dryads.
Also Elite Archers are "free" and for dryads I need to spend building time.
Exactly because elite archers are free is the reason they are better to trow them away in the battlefield like they were not that important.
Elite archers were made specially to be a not that specialize unit, with an effect that is cool, and a performance relatively good in the battlefield, but you can´t compare them with Dryads please.
Dryads can endure much more hits against almost every other enemy unit in the battle field. They can deal vs dogs (yes you can put 5 dryads in the battlefield where there are 1-2 dogs and they will succeed, while rangers and elite would be annihilated), they endure hits from HR units better than Ranger or Elite Archers, and also hits from mages better than elite archers ( if you let an abbot or fairy hit your elite archer the damage is huge, in comparison the dryad tolerate it better, not as good as a ranger but better than an elite archer).
And you´re forgetting one of the best attributes of dryads, the support factor. They make combos with Ranger, HR and mage very strong.
I don´t want to deepen in it, but in many enemy combos the use of Dryads is a need.
Yes, enemy HM is cheesy thing, but the second best option against them is the dryad, blossom mages are not always in plethora existance, and in some cases, especially if the enemy combo have LR, you´ve got to use, for a cleaner game, Dryads.
I want to know, why you haven´t noticed all this?
