What do you think the best UU IS IN MP & SP?

[realpolitic]

I think the Mounted Warrior is the best in 8 human MP, on most maps. I think that early war is going to be the most important determinant in 8 human games, and the Berzerker and Sephaphi are going to make their civs targets in the early game.
On an archipelago map, the Beserker might be OK. As for SP, I think the Beserker is a good tool for cutting up civs, and the Calvary will assure that the civ won't build the Spaceship.

[alva]

The berserker is a great unit in MP IMO.
It forces your adversairies to put units in coastal cities;
wich you don't have to do if they weren't there

1. they can't use those units anywhere else

2. this will cost upkeep

A very good psychological unit

[Arnelos]

Beserker is even more powerful than that... it makes it so that even putting units in coastal cities could be inadequate...

IM(NS)HO, the beserker is WAY too powerful for MP games.

[Donegeal]

Hmmm, I take it a Beserker is an amphibious assult unit in the Ancient or dark age?

What a concept! That would seem perfect for the Glory of War!

[notyoueither]

Yup. The Berzerks are potentially devastating in MP or SP. But there are many situations where they would not be as useful.

Most of the new UUs are on the upper end of the UU power scale. Another good reason to get PTW?

[Apocalypse]

I find Carthage's UU to be very underpowered. I can see the Beserk being used more times than it.

[Arnelos]

btw... now that I'm actually playing a game (found some extra time since we got back from our trip to Maryland early), here's what I can report:

- The beserker is not all it's cracked up to be.... why? IT COSTS A FRIGGIN' MOTHERLOAD! The most I could afford to do as the Scandinavian civ was to build an invasion force of 8 'zerks on 4 galleys to take over my neighbor Greece... it took me FOREVER to complete that many 'zerks, though...

The SIX attack value came in very handy, though... I probably couldn't have beaten the Greeks w/o it. So 'zerks are a tradeoff...

--------

As for the Carthaginian UU, the Numidian Mercenary, it's not all its cracked up to be either... the increased cost and the near uselessness of the 2 attack value basically makes it nothing more than a pricey Hoplite that you don't start the game with (while the Greeks do start the game with the Hoplite...).

As for the Celtic "Gallic Swordsmen"... those things seriously rocked, but they're also rather expensive for the ancient era (took me FOREVER to build up an attack force of 6). So it's essentially an expensive Mounted Warrior (though the 2 defense value is significantly more useful than the Numidian Mercenary's 2 attack value)...

I haven't yet seen the Hwach'a (Korean), the Ansar Warrior (Arab), the Sipahi (Ottomon), the Keshik (Mongol), or the Conquistador (Spanish). I will tell you that you shouldn't pay ANY attention to the booklet that comes with the game... at least half of the values for the UU are wrong... the civilopedia seems to be correct on all values, however.

Here's what they look like, however...

It looks like the Hwach'a is essentialy an "artillery" unit instead of a "cannon" at the time everyone else has "cannons"... this doesn't seem to ground-shattering, but it very well could make all the difference when taking on musketmen or even riflemen.

The Sipahi with the +1 attack doesn't seem to be terribly important (other than for getting the very well-timed GA - at least in my opinion).

The Ansar Warrior and the Keshik seem to be the true powerhouses of UUs in PTW... why? Simple: they're CHEAP. The Ansar Warrior probably takes the cake for sacrificing the un-needed defense value of 3 (down to 2) while making it cheaper AND faster! I honestly think the ARABS, not the Celts or the Vikings, will likely the powerhouse warmonger civ of PTW... with the Mongols perhaps just as good (they do get the militaristic value...).

As for non-UU stuff, the Carthaginians are tough to beat. That Commercial/Industrial combo is really powerful as a builder, though their expensive UU (which is unfortunately also their defense unit...) can make things TOUGHER early on (making expaning more expensive due to the cost of building those stupid Numidian Mercenaries rather than the cheap spearmen...).

Still just getting a feel for it... but I'm guess that the Koreans and the Carthagians are the best "builder" civs and I'm d*** sure that hte Arabs will probably be the best for warmongers...

[korn469]

Arnelos

the Siphai gets +2 attack so it is 8.3.3 but it cost 100 instead of 80...personally i think 7.3.3 80 is better than 8.3.3 100

but i think you're pretty much on the money with your overview

[ruby_maser]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Yup. The Berzerks are potentially devastating in MP or SP.

If you can afford them... they are expensive as hell IIRC.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by korn469
the Siphai gets +2 attack so it is 8.3.3 but it cost 100 instead of 80...personally i think 7.3.3 80 is better than 8.3.3 100

If you can afford it, then it's a powerhouse. It will completely dominate Musketmen and Pikemen, and even through to Rifleman you have an advantage. It's not until you get to Infantry and beyond does it become a liability.

[alva]

I'm 100% with you on this one, the life span off this unit is it's biggest bonus IMO.
Even tanks don't have the 3 movement points.
Great for attacking wounded units and retreating back to a city. No other unit can do this.

[Jon Shafer]

Double post due to 'Poly's stomache ache.

[ruby_maser]

Originally posted by alva848
I'm 100% with you on this one, the life span off this unit is it's biggest bonus IMO.
Even tanks don't have the 3 movement points.
Great for attacking wounded units and retreating back to a city. No other unit can do this.

Life span of usability is one thing, but I don't think the lifespan of the individual unit would be that long in enemy territory. Units that get badly damaged enough sometimes don't have the ability to retreat and are sitting ducks for the counter attack that usually follows. As a homefront defense unit, its looking very good though.

[alva]

I don't think I made myself clear enough

lifespan: from late midevil--->modern
damaged units: example; an infantry unit just outside yout borders with 1 hp left.
If you take tank to kill him of, your tank will be able get back into your border, but will remain stranded there. So either you have to sacrifise it, or protect it.
Now this siphai unit can most certainly kill it and get back to a city.

[zorbop]

im surprised noone has said the jaguar warrior.
not only does it virtually give the aztecs the expantionist trait, it's simple speed will alow you to take at least 2 enemy cities before ironworking. (all you have to do is build about 4-6 and you'll take another civ out of the game before they even have a chance.
the early GL seems bad, but this only ads to an extreme early advantage.
this allows you to the pyramids and collossus quickly, and this is normally enough to assure an avantage atleast until the industrial age if you play right.

and, the jaguar warrior has a lastability the entire game. they are great for sending hordes of them to kill cavalry (3 or 4 can actually do the job), and grate for killing ai swordsman, horseman, longbowmen and make great suicide pillagers in the modern age.

aside from that i like imortals, riders and mounted archers...

[joncnunn]

IMHO, the following 2 UUs are so powerful they would be overpowering in a Single Player Game if a Human was controlling them:

1. Viking Bersker

2. Ottoman Calvary

There's also a couple useful in special situations:

Wars that involve crossing mountians: Mongol UU

If you discover your AI oppoent on a deserted island was way behind in tech and you want to conquer them for their luxary monopoly: Spanish Conquister.

[realpolitic]

Don't get me wrong, I think the Berserker is a great unit, but it takes so long toget Invention, that in an 8 human game, the Vikings will be targeted by human players with earlier UU's.

The Celts may be able to get their UU's earlier than the Iroquis, but it won't take the Iroquis long to build as many UU's as the Celts. I think the MWs are great, because they cost as many shield as settlers, but no pop, and if you build enough, you can conquer one city per MW.

[joncnunn]

Well, if we are making a list of whose UU is so powerful that your likely to be attacked by humans with them earlier just to keep you from building them:

1. Berskers.

2. All UUs that replace the Knight. (Except India's)

3. Ottoman Calvary

4. Russian Cossacks

5. German Panzer.

(The Mounted Warrior is difficult to preempt.)

The other Ancient Era ones are even more difficult to preempt with some that are impossible to preempt because they are adviable from turn 1.

[WarriorPoet]

I've played allot as the Carthaginians lately...well, ever since I bought PTW. At any rate, the extra cost of the Merc just means that you use him differently that might be obvious. Early on you don't build them, you just don't. However, continue with warriors and archers, then after some of your cities get to size 2 or 3, and have an improvement or two under their built, you start building these.

Even then, however, you still use them like the hoplite. It's a hoplite that defends until you need him to make that attack that will save your but.

Think about it. You've got 4-6 archers stacked on a couple mercs. Even in thickly contested enemy terretory, defended by swordsmen, this is a great combo. The over-all army price is much cheaper and more effective.

The enemy's swordman blunt their swords on your mercs and get finished off by your archers.

The mounted warrior is a great unit...but if you're going with the best value civ, you have to go with Industrious and Commercial.

Following the above statement, then you have to choose the Carthaginians.

QED

[Arnelos]

WarriorPoet,

I have also been playing the Carthaginians more than any other new civ and my experience is consistent with yours. The Carthaginians are not so much harder to play because of the Numidian merc, but require a far more specific strategy to play.

So, in other words, there's a "right way" and a "wrong way" to play Carthage. If you play them "right", they can be devastatingly powerful.

Personally, I'm really growing to like playing Carthage...

[ZargonX]

So far I've been playing a few rounds with Spain, and though the conquestador seemed somewhat weak at first, I think it has some good strategic uses, especially in an MP game.

By the time it can be produced, a 3 attack just really isn't going to cut it against much unless you find a really behind neighbor. However, its movement bonuses make it one of the most effective pillagers in the game. A small group of these units can swarm across any terrain in your oppenents territory and cut of their resources very quickly.

They also make a nice unit for harrassing slow moving enemy stacks. You may lose a few, but you also stand a good chance of being able to attack and flee with minimal losses.

Just a few thoughts!

[WarriorPoet]

I've heard allot about some of the new UU's being good for harrassment and pilaging...this is a different quirk to the puzzle...

I usually want to capture cities with all of their improvements in tact, so why would I ever want to raid and pillage them? However, if I were in dire straits, then I could see how this tactic might save my but.