What's the worst basic land unit?

alexman · May 30, 2002, 14:50

It has always bothered me that musketmen, while more technologically advanced than pikemen, are actually less cost effective defenders.

If you want numbers, two pikemen cost exaclty the same as one musketman. Two veteran cavalries attacking a fortified veteran musketman in grassland win 91% of the time. The same cavalries win only 78% of the time when attacking two fortified veteran pikemen. This doesn't seem right.

So what exactly is the relationship between unit stats and cost? A good fit to the basic units in the game, is this formula:

Cost = (MajorStrength-1) + 0.5*(MinorStrength-1) + Movement

MajorStrength is the maximum between attack and defense strengths. MinorStrength is the other one.

Here is a comparison of basic unit costs to what the above formula predicts:

Code:

Unit      cost formula overpriced (%)
-------------------------------------
Warrior      1    1      0.00
Archer       2    2      0.00
Spearman     2    2      0.00
Chariot      2    2      0.00
Swordsman    3    3.5  -14.28
Horseman     3    3      0.00
Pikeman      3    3      0.00
Longbowman   4    4      0.00
Knight       7    6     16.67
Musketman    6    4.5   33.33
Cavalry      8    9    -11.11
Rifleman     8    7.5    6.67
Infantry     9   12.5  -28.00
Tank         10  20.5  -51.22
Mech Inf     11  24.5  -55.10
Modern Armor 12	 33.5  -64.18

From the above table, we can see that:

The ancient age is very balanced. Swordsmen are a pretty good deal, but they don't upgrade so it's not a no-brainer.
Musketmen are 33% overpriced. No surprise here, as stated in the example above.
Knights are 10 shields too expensive. No wonder some players prefer to skip them and go directly for cavalry!
Cavalry is 10 shields too cheap, but just like swordsmen, they don't upgrade.
Industial and modern era units are in a different ballpark. Much more cost-effective, according to this formula, than older units.

In general, I have to say that Firaxis did a good job in balancing the units. But for the next patch, please, please, please let them do something about those musketmen!!

Jawa Jocky · May 30, 2002, 15:22

Chariots

I don't actually have a big problem with it, but I have never been able to use them sucessfully. All you get is the extra movement point, but you lose mobility. Vel has a good strategy for fast attacking with them if you build a road network (need Industrious), but I haven't been able to impliment it successfully myself.

Personally, I'd rather get a few cities down and by that time you just build archers, swordsmen, or horsemen instead.

Arrian · May 30, 2002, 16:27

Archers. They suck, and the upgrade to a unit that also sucks (though I have used longbowmen once when I didn't have horses).

I build warriors and chariots, not to fight with, but for upgrading to swords and horsemen. This is central to my strategy, actually.

Musketmen are a bit pricey, you're right. Otherwise, I think things are fine... ok, Tanks might be too cheap.

-Arrian

MiloMilo · May 30, 2002, 17:10

Most people agree, the jump in cost is too much from pikemen to musketmen. This is simply remedied, however, by reducing the cost in the editor. I have found that charging 50 shields instead of 60 is a mild but effective change.

This is something that should probably be made official, everyone seems to agree that it is a necessary change. But they have resisted putting simple unit alterations into a patch, and probably for good reason. People also generally agree that ships should move faster, but that hasn't changed either. These values are already published in manuals etc., and it's easier to simply let people mod their own games as they see fit. I just worry about multiplayer compatibility.

Sean · May 30, 2002, 17:42

I don't bother with chariots. The attack is too little, and most exploring is pretty much done with original scouts or warriors.

alexman · May 31, 2002, 02:59

I see chariots are leading the vote! That's quite surprising to me.

As Arrian said, you don't build chariots to actually use them, you build them to upgrade them to horsemen.

In Civ3, shields are much more difficult to get than gold. When I'm in Democracy I find myself buying improvements in corrupt cities all the time. You can't do that in Despotism, but building cheap units like the chariot and then upgrading them is effectively the same thing.

Actually, it's even better. Rushing costs 4 gold per shield (8 if rushing from scratch). Upgrading a unit costs 2 per shield (or one if you have Leo's).

If you accept the fact that shields are more valuable than gold, then the these strats are a logical consequence:

Always build up your army just before discovering the upgrading technology, or just before connecting the required resource. You might even go so far as to diconnect iron, build many horsemen (or even better, chariots, if you have managed to avoid horseback riding), re-connect the iron, and mass-upgrade them!
Never build wealth, unless you have absolutely nothing else to build. Actually, before economics you save gold from building and disbanding units (4-to-1) than building wealth (8-to-1) in one city and rushing improvements in another, but that's another story.
Always maximize production over commerce (for the same food) in your cities, by carefully selecting the worked tiles. Don't trust those default city governors! This is worth doing in the beginning of the game. It becomes tedious fast though. [BTW, I wish Firaxis would fix those governors. When I set "max production", why does that grassland tile get worked when there is a mined hill available!!]

dunk · May 31, 2002, 09:19

How did you come up with your formula? Seeing as how just about every modern unit is underpirced by your calculation, it doesn't seem too good. It doesn't matter what the cost of modern armor is because there's not really an alternative to build at that stage of the game... AND everyone else builds it at the same cost (Regent level assumed).

The fact that chariots cannot move through jungle or mountain tiles isn't reflected.

I would think most people are voting on the usefulness of each unit in combat or in terms of their game strategy. I have never built a chariot, never. I'll build a settler or a worker before I would even consider building a chariot.

Harovan · May 31, 2002, 09:35

I'm into ultra-early warfare now and find Archers very useful. Even if I already have Iron Working, I still use them, because they're cheap and they are perfect to finish off a wounded spearman.

I use all land units in your list, less or more, and find none of them useless. I use musketmen less, I find them too expensive, but not bad. Also, I seldom build longbowmen, because Musketman/Longbowmen come in a time, when I'm either out for prey with Knights, or avoid to fight and build wonders. But I can see circumstances, where they are useful.

I never use Paratroopers and Marines, but they are missing in your list.

alexman · May 31, 2002, 09:56

Quote:

Originally posted by dunk999
How did you come up with your formula? Seeing as how just about every modern unit is underpirced by your calculation, it doesn't seem too good.

This formula was meant to determine the smoothness of the units' cost. I'm not saying that it should be used by the game, but it does fit most units well so you get a good comparison of cost-effectiveness between units of the same era: You can easily see units that are too cheap or too expensive for their stats.

By the way, it also works for other units:

Code:

Unit            cost    formula overpriced (%)
----------------------------------------------
Paratrooper       10       10.5  -4.76
Marine            10       10.5  -4.76

Scout              1       0.5  100.00
Galley             3       3      0.00
Caravel            4       4      0.00
Frigate            6       5.5    9.09
Galleon            6       5     20.00
Ironclad           8      8.5    -5.88
Transport         10       8     25.00
Carrier           18      11     63.64
Submarine         10      11.5  -13.04
Destroyer         12      19.5  -38.46
Battleship        20      27.5  -27.27
AEGIS Cruiser     16      20.5  -21.95
Nuclear Sub       14      12.5   12.00

A couple more points of interest:

Destroyers are more cost-effective than battleships. Maybe I'll start building some!
Marines and Paratroopers are actually quite good, especially compared to riflemen (even not taking account their special ability), but since infantry is so much more cost-effective, that's why people don't build them.

dunk · May 31, 2002, 10:14

I see the point of the formula, but I still won't build Chariots.

It doesn't work for all units either, Scouts, Transports, Carriers, Missle Boats are notable exceptions. To me, these are non-combat units.

Marines are good. Paratroopers are difficult to use for their intended purpose.

I understand your argument about Battleships and Destroyers.

There's not just the pure shield cost to consider... I think more importantly, we have to look at how many turns something requires to be built. If I can build a Battleship in 5 turns or a Destroyer in 3, I'll build the Battleship.

It all depends on how you like to play. Bombard isn't included in your formula either. This is what I use Battleships for primarily.

King of Rasslin · May 31, 2002, 10:25

Archers and Longbowmen aren't very popular here. Maybe you should go back and look at the unit. Notice that it doesn't require any resources! You can't appreciate some units until you can't make the other ones. Really, the fact that you don't need resources to make a 2/1/1 or a 4/1/1 is awesome. I hate the stupid chariot so much. Who is going to use horses to make a 1/1/2? Not only is it a bad unit, it requires horses! That makes it way, way too expensive. It can't even go on rugged terrain.

Finally, I don't believe in upgrading chariots. I make spearmen early on, and make horsemen when they become available. The only upgrading I do is from riflemen to infantry and knights to cavalry.

I am still shocked to see Longbowmen regarded so poorly. They are so powerful. When PTW comes out and you face someone smart enough to cut off your resources, you will begin to appreciate Longbowmen more.

DrFell · May 31, 2002, 10:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Jawa Jocky
Chariots

I don't actually have a big problem with it, but I have never been able to use them sucessfully. All you get is the extra movement point, but you lose mobility. Vel has a good strategy for fast attacking with them if you build a road network (need Industrious), but I haven't been able to impliment it successfully myself.

Personally, I'd rather get a few cities down and by that time you just build archers, swordsmen, or horsemen instead.

Chariots rule... but not for actually fighting. They're great if you build tons and upgrade to horsemen->knights->cavalry. It's great having like 20-30 chariots (depending on the map size) instantly upgraded to knights. It truly is death to the AI after that, because they can generally not handle such numbers. You should try it.

Personally, I find longbowmen as the most useless unit, along with musketeers. Neither I build any of, and muskets are too expensive while longbowmen are obsolete by the time they are available (too weak defence, slow, and no retreat coupled with mediocre attack) and not along any upgrade path.

chiefpaco · May 31, 2002, 12:40

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
I see chariots are leading the vote! That's quite surprising to me.

Your question was "Which of these do you build less often?" A bit different than "What is the worst" or "Which is overpriced". Just because some are overpriced, doesn't mean I don't build them. And the worst is not necessarily the most overpriced, it could just be outmatched in its era.

Which do I build least often?
- Chariot to actually use

Which is the worst?
- Archer. Outmatched in its era. Especially on Emporer & Deity.

Which is the most overpriced?
- Indeed the musketman. I play with player1's mod which reduces the price to 5, I think.

Nice post, once again, alexman.

Jamski · May 31, 2002, 14:15

Going with Chiefpaco's 3 choices strat...

Least often - Rifleman. ???? you all say. I ALWAYS skip Nationalism and head for Infantry and the Hoover Dam. I always get rubber, as I seem to start in an endless jungle half the time (sound familiar)

Worst ? Pikeman. The unit's not good enough to sto it main opponent - Knights. Its got the same stats as a Hoplite, for cring out lound and the Greeks are building these in 4000 BC

Most Overpriced. I would have to say Musketman like everyone else, or maybe Knights.

This is a great poll.

-Jam

ShredZ · May 31, 2002, 14:29

I voted Longbowman, I think in the last 6 months of playing Ive had 3 from upgraded Archers..

On the topic of Musketmen vs. Pikemen: Isnt there something that, even tho it may be a better deal price-wise to get Pikemen, since they will be facing units of the next age it puts them at some sort of mathematical disadvantage ??? And Musketmen dont get that disadvantage b/c they are within the same age as Knights and so on...

Unregistered · May 31, 2002, 16:27

Humm. I don't ever build chariots. I may have to rethink that though, I'd never really considered the 'cheapness' of the upgrade angle to cavalry. The first horse unit I usually build is horseman.

I don't build archers much either, but I do when I find myself in an early war. (I tend to avoid early warfare for the most part)

Musketmen do seem to be a bit on the expensive side, but I find that 'fits' pretty well historically. They were more expensive to train and outfit compared to the other ground-pounders of the day, causing them to be just a part of the mix on the battlefield for a long time.

Cheers,

Cyclotron · May 31, 2002, 16:43

I would build chariots, but I always seem to get Horseback Riding before I get horses...

DrFell · May 31, 2002, 20:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Unregistered
Humm. I don't ever build chariots. I may have to rethink that though, I'd never really considered the 'cheapness' of the upgrade angle to cavalry. The first horse unit I usually build is horseman.

Chariots upgrade to horsemen for only 20 gold - even better if you have mounted warriors.

Quote:

Musketmen do seem to be a bit on the expensive side, but I find that 'fits' pretty well historically. They were more expensive to train and outfit compared to the other ground-pounders of the day, causing them to be just a part of the mix on the battlefield for a long time.

True but as they're only really good as defensive units, and as pikes are cheaper they generally aren't worth building. If they cost say, 50 shields, they'd be much better

Jawa Jocky · June 3, 2002, 10:29

damn, I need to take my vote back. I started a new game as Egypt and brought Rome to its knees with nothing but War Chariots. I don't think there really is a bad unit as long as you have a lot of them.

Solver · June 3, 2002, 10:39

I voted for the Chariot. While Musketmen are not too effective cost-wise, I still want that defense factor of 4, not 3 - and Musketmen are good in the field fighting off Knights, as I discovered.

The Chariot is though near to useless. Can't pass those Jungles, attack value of the Warrior... why?

DeepO · June 3, 2002, 12:53

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman

Code:

Unit            cost    formula overpriced (%)
----------------------------------------------
Paratrooper       10       10.5  -4.76
Marine            10       10.5  -4.76

Scout              1       0.5  100.00
Galley             3       3      0.00
Caravel            4       4      0.00
Frigate            6       5.5    9.09
Galleon            6       5     20.00
Ironclad           8      8.5    -5.88
Transport         10       8     25.00
Carrier           18      11     63.64
Submarine         10      11.5  -13.04
Destroyer         12      19.5  -38.46
Battleship        20      27.5  -27.27
AEGIS Cruiser     16      20.5  -21.95
Nuclear Sub       14      12.5   12.00

A great poll, alexman, and also a nice formula to work from. However, for the transports and the like, you should take their ability to transport stuff into account, wich makes it even smoother.

For instance, working from
Cost = (MajorStrength-1) + 0.5*(MinorStrength-1) + 0.5*(TransportCapability-2) + Movement
(with the TransportCapability factor capped, so it can't go negative)
you get

Code:

Unit            cost    formula overpriced (%)
----------------------------------------------
Galley               3       3        0.00
Caravel             4       5      -20.00
Galleon             6       7       -14.29
Transport         10      11     -9.09
Carrier             18      12      50.00
Submarine       10      11.5  -13.04
Nuclear Sub     14      12.5   12.00
Helicopter         8        7       14.29

With this formula, you see that carriers and nuclear subs might be a bit overpriced, but they can carry highly powerful units. (submarine added just for comparison to nuclear sub).

Does anybody ever build helicopters? I can see it could have some use, in very specific cases, but I'd rather drop a paratrooper than use a helicopter to fly in some reinforcements.

BTW, In the manual it is indicated that the nuclear sub and the carrier both have a cost of 16. That should make for a 33% overpriced carrier, 28% nuclear sub. Although this was quite balanced, they decided to change it somewhere (before release?) So, I don't see any problem why they couldn't change the cost of the musketman to 50, the manual isn't correct at this moment, there shoudn't be a problem adjusting another stat.

DeepO

Marquis de Sodaq · June 3, 2002, 13:27

I've never built a longbowman, but have lost a city to them! I had muskets, and had cut off my neighbor's resource supplies. Over the next turns, a crowd of longbowmen butchered my pikemen and muskets and knights. It took a bit of rebuilding to turn the tide back my way.

Calling the scout overpriced is ridiculous. One tipped hut will result in far more value than the pittance he cost to build.

Chariots are lame, too. Their only real value is as a shield storage for future upgrades. So basically, they suck, but can be used to get something better for cheap.

Musketmen are too expensive. Perhaps this was intended - consider the material differences between them and pikemen. If they are supposed to be scarce, it makes sense. However, I agree that it is not so good for game balance.

jshelr · June 3, 2002, 14:24

As some have noted above, those voting for chariots should read Arrian's comments in the ancient era war thread started by Thunderfall. The comments are a real eye opener. He advocates building as many chariots as you can while hoarding gold. Don't research horseback riding until you're ready. Then upgrade (it's cheap) to horsemen, allowing you to rampage through the early tribes at will. It works. Combine it with warrior upgrades to swordmen and you will rule. Too easily IMO. This makes the chariot a key starting point to the most successful strategy I've seen.

King of Rasslin · June 3, 2002, 20:06

Cheap? As in 20 gold per chariot to upgrade? No thanks, man. That's useful money in the ancient era. I think the upgrade from horseman to knight (80 gold, I think) is a better deal because knights own the middle ages. Horsemen have a harder time killing spearmen than knights have killing pikemen. And only a really, really lucky person is able to get horses before researching horseback riding.

Besides, that early on, I get out spearmen to fight off the barbs. I make horsemen after my empire is set in stone and defended. I don't make early chariots because early spearmen are better. Also, try attacking and pillaging the AI with spearmen. It just isn't designed to fight off that kind of attack.

Jethro83 · June 4, 2002, 01:25

I definitely find chariots to be the worst land unit. The next unit up is only one tech away, and since I am an early warmonger, I go straight to Horseback riding, so as to be able to build my horsemen. I have never actually found any use for them at all. And building them for the purpose of upgrading to knights didn't work either, since I rarely have enough cash floating around for that kind of thing.

Even if I'm Egypt and use War Chariots, they are still somewhat useless. Sure, horsemen cost more shields, but at least they can cross unroaded jungle and mountains. I also like to avoid the early golden age.

I also agree that musketmen are too pricey for what they are worth. Either increase their defence or decrease their shield cost. I know I'll mod that soon.

DrFell · June 4, 2002, 08:50

Can't believe some people don't like chariots. I ought to post some saves of me using them to great effect (via upgrading of course).

jshelr · June 4, 2002, 10:37

You are right. It's pretty incredible. They just have not tried the upgrade routine. If anything, it could make the early game so heavily weighted in favor of the human player it becomes uninteresting.

King of Rasslin · June 4, 2002, 11:01

Upgrading is too expensive that early on. And chariots are obsolete by the time you acquire horses, unless you restart every time you aren't next to horses and cattle

In a few rare circumstances, I could stand upgrading them to horsemen. The only reason it is unexpensive to some people is that they lower the science so low they can get horseback riding very late and use the gold to upgrade the chariots. It just isn't useful, in my opinion.

Arrian · June 4, 2002, 11:15

Rass,

I find that shields are harder to come by in the early going than gold. I also find that locating and hooking up a horse resource is pretty easy on the settings I play (Standard maps, normal continents, 8 civs), particularly when playing Japan, which starts with the ability to see horses.

Yes, I lower my science rate to 10%... though only after discovering 4-5 other advances at 50%. Only horseback riding is at 10% (or 0% + one scientist). And then, for the bargain-basement price of 800 gold, I have 20 horsemen and 10 swordsmen.

It works, and I find it very useful. I'm sure your way works too.

-Arrian

King of Rasslin · June 4, 2002, 11:21

Do you make the Great Library? That is the only way I would lower science so low. 800 gold is a lot, especially in the ancient era. If the attack fails, you are going to have a hard time catching up in the tech tree. You are placing all of your faith in making an AI submit and give up all of his techs. I wouldn't bet on that.