|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Kingof the Apes
I would think that the Carthiginians would be weak early game, with their expensive defensive unit. They would be like slow developing Greeks. Personally, I think that the Carthaginian UU is more worthless than the musketman. Who would want to use these expensive early game units to attack?
|
Let's look at it this way:
Cost of Archer: 20
Cost of Greek Hoplite: 20
Cost of Carthaginian Numidan: 30
Cost of Greek Hoplite + Archer: 40
Not only have you saved a net ten shields over what the Greeks would have to pay, but you also can build them much SOONER than any Civ can build any unit that has attack 3. You also need NO resources whatsoever to build them. The time when the Numidan unit shines brightest is the time up until opposing Civs possess Swordsmen or Horsemen in large numbers.
To put the Numidan's strength into perspective, note that out of all the Ancient units, only the Iroquois Mounted Warrior and the Swordsman (and its UU variants the Roman Legion, the Gaelic Swordsman, and the Persian Immortal) have higher attack, and only the Roman Legion and the Greek Hoplite can equal it on defense--and it is STRONGER than the Hoplite and available SOONER than the Legion, without Iron!
Now, the place where the Numidan is strongest is where counter-attacks are involved. If the AI counter-attacks against you, then you have the 3 defense that can endure the attack, while if you are doing the counter-attack, then your 2 attack will make short work of the damaged (and they WILL be damaged by their earlier attack if they won or retreated at all) enemy units.
In summary, the Numidan has all of the strengths of the Roman Legion unit, but it sacrifices one attack point in exchange for being available MUCH earlier in the game and without the need for any resources. For the Carthaginians, a Numidan rush can happen just as soon in the game as an Archer rush, and is MUCH more deadly!
