Once and for all: who is the dominant offensive late ancient age UU?

[Jaguar]

My vote would have to go to the Persian Immortal.

I think if it went face to face with Mounted Warriors, it would be crushed. Fast units can usually pick whether they are going to attack or defend, which means that the majority of the battles would be the Mounted Warrior's 3 attack vs. the Immortals 2 defense. In other words, the MW uses its strength, while the Immortal gets sandbagged.

However, if they have people between them, the Immortal is, no contest, better. The extra attack and defense of the Immortal more than compensate for the 2 movement. The retreat ability, at least for the horsemen and MWs, is nearly nothing. A 1-defense 1-hp unit isn't going to do any good unless you take the city. Otherwise, even spearmen can crush it in its weakened state. Yes, the Mounted Warrior upgrades, but usually there aren't that many guys left to upgrade. It isn't a significant advantage.

Legions, yes, you could argue that they are better. In fact, I think they are better than the Mounted Warrior. But they are not as good as the Immortal. If you need a defensive unit to hold the cities once you capture one, bring a spearman along with the Immortals.

[Jaguar]

come on, MW people. defend your position, instead of hiding.

[Aeson]

Mounted Warrior. The larger the map and higher the difficulty, the bigger the gap gets. I would give the Legions second nod out of these three, as they serve well as defense through most of the Middle Ages.

A 1-defense 1-hp unit isn't going to do any good unless you take the city.

So bring enough of them to take the city. If it's not guaranteed victory, the movement allows you to wait until it is. Even if that wait is until they get upgraded to Knights and later Cavalry... Your Immortals will still be Immortals.

MW's are very good at whittling away a slow army, so a swords invasion against the Iroquois wouldn't go too well. The MW's can wait for the invaders to approach, fight, then back off and repeat the next turn. With roads they can move twice, attack, and then retreat back into the city. Each MW would be worth 2 or 3 Immortals in Iroquois territory. With equal numbers, the Immortals should never even get the chance to attack.

Yes, the Mounted Warrior upgrades, but usually there aren't that many guys left to upgrade. It isn't a significant advantage.

This is the kicker. It's an overwhelming advantage. Not as much as before the retreat roll was added, but still about 50% of my Mounted Warriors end up as Cavalry eventually.

The Immortals are working under a time constraint (no upgrade), the MW's aren't, and can hold off an Immortal attack with fewer casualties.

----------------

The main advantage that the swords units have is that they can be built with only 1 or 2 advances, and the prebuilds (Warriors) are available from the start. Mobile units take 2 or 3. The Japanese can start their prebuilds as soon as Horses are hooked up, and everyone else after 1 advance.

---------------

The really scary units are the Impi though.

[Aeson]

The comparison of MW to Legion is a lot closer. The 3 defense means that MW's would lose a bit more often than they win, even on flat terrain. MW's retreat should mean they live more often though, and it comes back down to the upgrade.

[notyoueither]

I've always said that people paid too much attention to the 4 attack of the Immortal. Definitely the Legion is the best all round unit of the Ancient Age.

For pure offence, MW. Plus the upgrade, gives the MW the crown in open terrain maps.

For rough terrain the Legion rules, there's no other reasonable way to see it.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Aeson
Your Immortals will still be Immortals.

Fine by me.

Aeson, I have never gone head to head with you, you are a GOD, but I'll stand by Immortals here.

4-attack... need I say more??!! I cook, and tonight I had to cut up some frozen butter quickly...

One forgets that Immortals are UU Swords, and have a defense of 2... keep to the highlands, and now you've got a defense of 3-4, without fortifying. Given that these bad boys are derived from your original Warriors, and have probably gotten to at least vet, MWs and certainly Horsemen are not a problem.

Industrious, so with roads the Immortals have mobility.

The upgrade advantage of mobile units? I'll disband elite+leaders, and either put the rest into Armies or use them for garrisons... anyway, building a horse horde is not problematic while my Immmortals are off plundering.

For the umpteenth time: Immortals have the greatest relative strength for the longest period of time.

Sidenote: Arrian, my apologies. Samurai are indomitable... but that's also due to civ characteristics, not just the unit itself.

[notyoueither]

I am soooo looking forward to testing the Legion / Immortal question in MP. Elite/Vet 3.3s vs Vet 4.2s.

[Aeson]

For rough terrain the Legion rules, there's no other reasonable way to see it.

There is a lot of map dependancy, you're right NYE. The Legion/MW comparison is really close, and a map one way or the other (flat/hilly) could make the difference. I still think it comes down to a standstill though when played right by both sides, and upgrading is the difference.

It's also dependant on difficulty. The higher the difficulty, the more important upgrading becomes. Same with map size, which also makes movement more important. The most extreme situation, Huge/Deity, and even MW's have a hard time getting to the fight before they are Knights.

keep to the highlands, and now you've got a defense of 3-4, without fortifying.

Of course it would be wise to not build next to good defensive terrain, or at least to put some defensive units there. Spearmen fortified on a mountain are 5 defense, and 10 shields cheaper than any attacker. Hills you can build cities on, so they end up helping the defenders, everything else can be chopped down.

A smart Iroquois player will force the Swords to come down from the Mountains eventually to get at the cities. A smart Persian player will stay up in the mountains. Again the standoff lasts until eventually the Swords become obsolete.

Given that these bad boys are derived from your original Warriors, and have probably gotten to at least vet

Elites get taken back down to Vets when they upgrade. Assuming the player builds their units from Barracks, it's a wash either way, everyone should start out Vets. The Legions (Militaristic) should have an edge in overall experience, somewhat offset by the MW's ability to retreat and not die when it loses. The retreat ability cuts down on defenders chances for promotions.

I'll disband elite+leaders, and either put the rest into Armies or use them for garrisons

When you upgrade elites they can give Leaders again.

Disbanding is inefficient in comparison to upgrading. It costs 2 gold per shield to upgrade, and you get 7 shields per Sword when you disband. Upgrading a Horse to a Knight costs 80 gold. Disbanding a Sword and then rushing the Knight with gold costs 252. The price of rushing a full Knight (without the doubling penalty) would be 280. The Sword cuts that by 28, and the Horse cuts it by 200. So a 30 shield investment in a Horse is worth 7.14 times as much towards a Knight as a 30 shield investment in a Sword is.

It becomes a little closer when Warrior/Chariots are used as prebuilds. A sword ends up as just a 10 shield, 40 gold investment, while a Horse is 20 shields and 20 gold. The Chariot to Horse to Knight = 20 shields and 100 gold, the 20 shields worth 8 gold each. The Warrior to Sword to Knight = 10 shields and 262 gold, the 10 shields worth 2.8 gold each. The Horses are still 2.85 times more efficient.

anyway, building a horse horde is not problematic while my Immmortals are off plundering.

Why build Horses if Immortals are better though?

Swords should get a big boost in PtW, there is supposed to be a Middle Ages upgrade for them in the expansion. At least all the debates about MP will need to be rehashed with the actual advent of MP.

[Torkkeli]

Well I wouldn't know about those as I always play as Egyptians.

But should I have to play against the ones in the poll I would definetly try to eliminate Persians first then Iroquois and last Romans as they aren't a threat because legions are defensive units.

[Harovan]

I voted for MWs. I often played with the Iroquois, and my mounted braves often smoked Immortals in their kalumets. Fast, retreat, deadly, upgradeable. I tried Legions only once. They worked fine for me, but not so good like MWs.

[King of Rasslin]

Mounted Warriors upgrade to knights, then to cavalry. Legions and Immortals stay where they are.

Mounted Warriors can wage war over long distances and retreat quickly. Legions and Immortals can't.

Mounted Warriors are better than both Legions and Immortals

Between Legions and Immortals....

Legions have insane defence when fortified in a fort or forest. Immortals are incredible powerful, but easier to pick off than Legions. Against the AI, Immortals win. Against another person, Legions are better.

Overall best UU: The Samurai, of course!

[Solver]

Note that it's actually asked about the late ancient age - and then it's the Legionary. Its defense lets me hold off attacks very nicely, especially in favorable terrain, and these guys can fight very good.

However, as long as we talk about a bit earlier in the Ancient Age, it's the Immortal. If you go straight for Iron Working (Persia has Bronze already!), and get a source of Iron nearby, just start cranking out Immortals, and you will conquer anyone but the Greeks easily.

In late Ancient Age, Legionary becomes better due to defense.

[Arrian]

I also voted for the Mounted Warrior. Mobility + retreat + upgradeablility trumps +1 attack/+1 defense easily.

Immortals are fun, I'll grant you. They slice 'n dice spearmen in their sleep. Hoplies & Legions pose more problems, though. Frankly, I'd rather go at those guys with horsemen and a couple 'o swords than with a pile of Immortals.

Legions... sorry, but I don't think much of these guys. They may well be powerful in MP, due to their durability, but against the AI I would rather have Immortals.... or better yet, MW's... or even normal horsemen. IMO, the defensive power of a unit, when facing the AI, is nearly irrelevant. Why, in the name of Sid, would you allow the AI to take the initiative?

Aeson, I freakin' HATE Impis. I'm talking about virulent, seething hatred. Nothing ruins a horseman rush like Impis. Samurai, on the other hand...

-Arrian

[Panag]

hi ,

the legion rocks , ... a bit slow but still , it holds any ground and has the power to get more , ..

have a nice day

[King of Rasslin]

Impi are just so powerful. I would choose Zulu if they didn't have that stupid expansionist trait

[MiloMilo]

Legion gets my vote. Equal defense to MWs means even chances when attacked BUT: only in open ground and unfortified. If Legions have a geographical advantage they become clearly superior.

Also, the retreat can actually work against mounted units. If they retreat they don't use that last hit point to attack, so we're effectively talking about (for vets, say) a 3-hp MW against a 4-hp Legion. Which mean even in open ground, even unfortified, the defending Legion has better odds half the time.

Plus, you have to look at other factors. My legions will have a couple of horseman slowly advancing with them to pick off stray MWs. Will the Iroquios drag spearmen along with their MWs to defend them? Then they lose the mobility advantage.

Finally, the upgradeability is a non-factor. When I research chivalry and my Legions are finishing up their various campaigns, I will simply build knight armies fresh. Even in the middle ages, I will rather have 20 knights and 10 legions than 25 knights (or whatever it evens out to taking upgrade costs into account).

I know Aeson is the king of strategy 'round these parts, but I have to disagree here.

[I-iZ-1337]

Mount33d warr33orz r00lz d00dz! S0r33 t00 all j00 naj sajerz but th33 2 m00ves juzt d00 it for m33. Thinkz... th33 r33tr33t m33nz j00 iz gonna l00ze much lez than j00 wi11 l00ze 33ven with mortalz. If j00 iz fightin mortalz j00 can wear them downz, attackin and retr33tin and watchinz them all diez. 33ven if th33 mortalz ar3 on mountainz j00 wi11 sti11 winz mozt oftenz. L33ginz winz on mountainz mozt oftenz so they iz tougherz, but th33y diez s0 oftenz againzt 33ven a cit33 with wallz and a couplez sp33rz. S00 th3yz wi11 l00ze a f33w cominz in t00 attackz and l00ze a f33w attackinz th33 citi33z. T00 top itz all off, they can b33 upgradedz and lazt right upz to the early induztrialz. They iz 1337z!!! But I iz the 1337ezt.

H00p3 j00 takez note of my tipz and l33rn fromz my mad 1337 skillz! I Iz th33 1337ezt.

[King of Rasslin]

I iz m00r l33t th3n u d00d!!!

[I-iZ-1337]

Wa33t ti11 j00 playz MP againzt m33, I will r0xx0rz j00. J00 don't havez the skillz d00dz, j00 iz not jet 1337.

[vulture]

Originally posted by MiloMilo
Legion gets my vote. Equal defense to MWs means even chances when attacked BUT: only in open ground and unfortified. If Legions have a geographical advantage they become clearly superior.

Also, the retreat can actually work against mounted units. If they retreat they don't use that last hit point to attack, so we're effectively talking about (for vets, say) a 3-hp MW against a 4-hp Legion. Which mean even in open ground, even unfortified, the defending Legion has better odds half the time.

For a veteran 3 attack mounted warrior against a veteran legion unfortified on open ground (3.3 defence), the legion wins a whole 27.9% of battles, with the MW winning 40.5% and retreating 31.6% of the time. If the retreat is turned off (or we are dealing with a vet swordsman attack) the the legion wins 44.8% and loses 55.2%.

If the legion is able to counterattack the wounded MW (assume we're dealing with a 1 on 1 fight) in open territory, then those 31.6% retreats become 30.4% wins for the legion and 1.2% for the MW (total 58.3% wins for the legion, 41.7% for the MW). In the real civ3 world, things are more complicated, since both sides will usually have more than one unit involved in the fray.

Plus, you have to look at other factors. My legions will have a couple of horseman slowly advancing with them to pick off stray MWs. Will the Iroquios drag spearmen along with their MWs to defend them? Then they lose the mobility advantage.

MWs do well attacking from defended positions (cities, stacked with defensive units) or when they can use roads to attack and retreat out of range in the same turn (comments about horsemen stacked with legions noted, but the counterattacking horsemen are themselves guaranteed prey in this case since they can't get back to the stack in the same turn) if necessary. In rough terrain their movement advantage is negated and the retreat actively works against them with the whole couterattack problem (by essentially making them fight their last hp with a combat strength of 1 rather than 3 if they manage to retreat).

Surprise, different units are more useful in different situations.

[MiloMilo]

Vulture, how did you come up with those numbers? 3 attack MW against 3.3 defense Legion and the Legion only wins 44.8% of the time (given no retreat)? Makes no sense... Anyway, 2 points:

I count a retreat as a win for the Legion - that's why the horsy retreated in the first place. If you're lucky enough to get it to your city to heal well, you better hope you stay lucky...

And yeah, my Horseman taking out your wounded MW will in all likelihood mean one quickly dead horseman. But that's a trade I'll make. If we trade 1-for-1 Horsemen for MWs all game, guess who comes out on top?

Anyway, yes, of course the poll is kind of silly. Different units for different situations.

[alexman]

Originally posted by vulture
If the retreat is turned off (or we are dealing with a vet swordsman attack) the the legion wins 44.8% and loses 55.2%.

I think your calculator is a bit off. The highest modified strength (the legion's 3.3 in this case) should win more often than it loses, no?

[Arrian]

[SIZE=1] I count a retreat as a win for the Legion - that's why the horsy retreated in the first place. If you're lucky enough to get it to your city to heal well, you better hope you stay lucky...

That's just it. Retreating isn't the same as losing. If a legion loses a battle, it dies. No more legion. If a Mounted Warrior is forced to retreat, you can heal up and fight again (anyone who consistently loses beat up mounted troops exposed in the field doesn't know what they're doing).

Furthermore, if a MW attacks a legion and is forced to retreat, the Legion does not benifit as it would from a victory (killing another unit). By this I mean promotion, or rather the chance of promotion or leader generation.

So I would not count a retreat as a win for the legion.

-Arrian

[vulture]

Originally posted by MiloMilo
Vulture, how did you come up with those numbers? 3 attack MW against 3.3 defense Legion and the Legion only wins 44.8% of the time (given no retreat)? Makes no sense..

Mea culpa. I transposed the numbers - legion wins 55.2%, MW 44.8% if there is no retreat. The other numbers are correct.

[King of Rasslin]

The legion will become more powerful when they (hopefully) add in a middle age advanced swordsman and make commercial a better trait. But the Iroquios deserve the MW because they are stuck with expansionist.

In the actual game, sending horsemen with legions is good. It just isn't fast. MWs have the speed advantage. They are better at crushing AIs. As for multiplayer, MWs will still be better because of retreating.

In fact, most people would choose horsemen over legions. It's all about the mobility. In fact, MWs don't go obsolete quickly, and the golden age comes at a better time than the Romans. Iroquios are a religious civ. An early golden age will hurt the Romans bad.

If they attack early, they lose a good GA. If they attack late, the Iroquios will have enough MWs to kill the attack.

The main point here is that it is very easy to defend and very hard to attack. But when I want to attack, I choose MWs. I like legions more than immortals but not as much as MWs.

[jshelr]

It's interesting that I would rather see an AI civ that I'm attacking have MW first, immortals second, and least of all the legionary. They are the toughest to attack and the AI does not use stacked MW's very effectively in my experience.

But for my own civ, exactly the reverse is true: MW's are the best, immortals second, and legionary third. Against another human player I'd reverse legionary with immortals. But attacking the AI, the 4 rating counts big.

Basically, I like the sound the MW makes as it races across the screen.