Favorite UU? - Page 3

peterfharris · May 14, 2003, 23:31

I always play the English (and edit the traits and starting techs but not the UU) and therefore effectively have no UU. The English get some fancy boat later on but I can't even remember what it is.

I tried the Babylonians a few times and those Bowmen can really rock for ultra early war in some circumstances.

I find the most dangerous UU's in the hands of the AI are Roman Legions and Persian Immortals. The Impi and the Jaguar Warriors can be real pains very early. As for the remaining UU's, I couldn't really give a hoot whether the AI sends them or regular units at me.

Theseus is not the only one who finds the plain ordinary old swordsman most useful.

They are so good at taking and holding that ground and they have a good defence rating for the time period.

Dominae · May 15, 2003, 00:33

Favorite UU: Numidian Mercenary
Second-favorite: Samurai

Favorite standard unit: Infantry
Second-favorite: Artillery

If I could count Artillery and Infantry as one unit, I would (hey, they arrive at the same time and always travel in stacks together...).

Dominae

Arrian · May 15, 2003, 08:19

The Merc? Really?

I'm curious... explain please.

-Arrian

statusperfect · May 15, 2003, 08:24

Quote:

Originally posted by peterfharris
I find the most dangerous UU's in the hands of the AI are Roman Legions and Persian Immortals. The Impi and the Jaguar Warriors can be real pains very early. As for the remaining UU's, I couldn't really give a hoot whether the AI sends them or regular units at me.

Sipahi? Panzers?

cheers

Dominae · May 15, 2003, 08:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
The Merc? Really?

1. Relatively powerful. The AI is very afraid to attack fortified Mercs. in the Ancient age. But, unlike Hoplites, they can pull their own in an offensive (with support, of course). Human players are also often hesitant to go up against them, which makes for interesting diplomacy.

2. Cost-effectiveness. Mercs. have the best stats of any unit in the Ancient age that does not require a Resource (and the Medieval age, if you think 2/3/1 is better than the Longbowmen's 4/1/1...Berzerk's and War Elephants aside). The extra 10 Shields is hardly noticeable once you get used to it because: a) you should never lose of these guys, b) Spearmen are not really needed until you get some good production going (in other words, the shelf-life of Warriors is long than most people think, especially against the AI).

3. Personal playstyle. Many people have listed primarily offensive units as favorites. My play typically revolves around the idea that if you can defend yourself well enough (which includes not losing too many units in any confrontation), you'll eventually overcome no matter what offensive unit you can muster. And this is why I like Infantry/Artillery; there is simply nothing to be done against Bombard, and Infantry are tough nuts to crack. Mercs. just apply the same principle three Ages earlier.

4. Fun. I might grant that some UUs are better than the Merc., but the latter is still my favorite (cool animation, name, parent civ, etc.).

I hope this answers your question!

Dominae

Arrian · May 15, 2003, 09:18

I figured there had to be a certain amount of #4 (fun) involved.

I have noticed the respect the AI has for the Merc, and I do like that. Also, the civ traits of Carthage do give you a little more production to play with, so the added cost isn't too bad. They are also excellent barbarian killers.

-Arrian

Dominae · May 15, 2003, 09:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
I figured there had to be a certain amount of #4 (fun) involved.

Actually, I do (currently) believe that the Numidian Merc. is a Tier 1 UU, against the AI and human alike. Fun plays a part, but I like to whoop butt too!

Dominae

Arrian · May 15, 2003, 09:31

To each their own, of course. Not a tier 1 for me.

1) Less control over GA. Or rather, you have to go through more effort to avoid an early GA via AI sneak attack. It can be done, sure. I've done it. It's just kinda a pain.

2) +1 offense on a defensive unit :shrug: I've only rarely used Mercs to attack anything.

Having said all of that, it isn't a bad UU, and I did really enjoy making a 2x sword + 1xNumidian army. I could almost see the AI cowering in fear of it...

-Arrian

Dominae · May 15, 2003, 09:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
To each their own, of course. Not a tier 1 for me.

Warmonger!

Quote:

1) Less control over GA. Or rather, you have to go through more effort to avoid an early GA via AI sneak attack. It can be done, sure. I've done it. It's just kinda a pain.

AI sneak attacks can be a pain, but then again you can usually avoid them diplomatically (or, even harder, strategically). You're right that this takes more work, but that's not argument against Mercs. being Tier 1. Often, the Mercs. need not be used at all until well into the Medieval age, so there is quite a bit of leeway for when GA triggering. For instance, you can embark on an offensive war without using Mercs. at all! The same cannot really be said for some other UUs, like the War Chariot or the Legionary (although this is problem with Rome's traits more than anything, since without the Legionary Rome is...sub par).

Quote:

2) +1 offense on a defensive unit :shrug: I've only rarely used Mercs to attack anything.

It's all about attrition. How many times have you been defending with Spearmen or Pikemen, and lacked units to counter-attack? I imagine not often, given your play-style. But I'm sure you can see the advantage of keeping all your offensive units at full health, while your big-butt defensive units mop up the stragglers.

Another point I forgot to mention: along with the Hoplite, Rider and Berzerk, the Numidian Mercenary is in the class of units that the AI simply "cannot deal with". The "mistakes" the AI makes when facing Mercs. often offset an early GA (I know this from my No Improvement Challenge game).

But...to each his or her own (UU). You asked for explanation, and I've given one!

Dominae

Arrian · May 15, 2003, 10:12

Quote:

For instance, you can embark on an offensive war without using Mercs. at all!

Yep, done it. Swords & Horsies with no defender backup (normally, I'd bring a couple of spearmen). It worked just fine.

I certainly admit that having a defensive UU allows less contraints on one's offensive operations if you're worried about GA timing (which I am), unlike Rome (Egypt too to some extent, but the upgrade path of the WC makes it a lot more flexible).

As for counterattacking... hmm, I very rarely encounter a situation where I don't have enough attack units to do the job. In a recently completed Carthage game, I did use Mercs to attack. Twice. Once simply to trigger my GA. The other time I legitimately needed to kill an AI unit (bastard killed my horseman) that otherwise would have forced me to move some workers.

Anyway, I'm just in the mood to debate stuff today, and the Merc is, well, debateable.

-Arrian

Nakar Gabab · May 15, 2003, 13:46

I have to agree with Dominae about the Infantry being the best standard unit. Actually, I already DID, but it merits further explanation!

Short of the obvious benefits of an Infantry/Artillery stack, there are many reasons why the Infantry outstrips the pack:

1) Cost: Infantry are reasonably cheap, especially compared to prior upgrades of the Spearman line. You're sure to have plenty of them, they're likely to already be in place for upgrades (since most will be in cities), and their low price (even to build new) means you can spread 'em all over your empire.

2) Availability: I don't think I've ever NOT had rubber. Oh, I'm sure it happens, but it's easy to secure it and it never goes away. Once you have one, you have all the infantry you need. Park said infantry on said rubber, and you're golden.

3) Power: 10 defense in an era where the best attack is 8 (Sipahi)? AND it gets fortification bonuses (and it will)? AND it gets city defense bonuses? That's gonna sting those cavalry, and even artillery has a tough time wearing down a defender.

4) Lockdown: If you get Infantry and a lead, the game is over. Without extensive (and slow) counter-warfare with Artillery and your own Infantry, the game passes from the "just about over" stage to the "completely over" stage. Humans or AI, for that matter. It's just too tough a nut to crack, and by the time you have tanks, odds are whoever has the lead and Infantry have MORE tanks. Too bad.

Sure, other units are more IMPORTANT in the grand scheme of things. Horsemen and Swordsmen are more IMPORTANT than other regular units because of what they can do. But for my money, no matter my playstyle for the day, the one unit I love to see in every game and hate to see against me is the good old Infantry. Show love to the doughboys.

Yahweh Sabaoth · May 15, 2003, 13:55

Yeah, I hear a lot of people around here talking about modern wars... me, I hope I never see one. By the time infantry shows up, it's to keep my empire virtually unassailible, while I swallow up those that do NOT have infantrymen.

But then again, I'm hardly the master of artillery... I guess artillery can make a BIG DIFFERENCE, or so I'm told, though I can't seem to find a good thread on it's use...

Arrian · May 15, 2003, 14:02

I hate fighting against infantry if I don't have Tanks. I generally try to avoid it while either not fighting at all or picking on civs w/o replaceable parts or rubber. Most of my fighting is done by then, usually.

Infantry really is a good unit. Definitely cost-effective. Dominant on defense (at least against the AI, which cannot use artillery), competent on offense. 6/10/1 is a big jump from 4/6/1, with very little cost increase. In fact, it usually seems like a decrease if you're building them from scratch since you should have railroads, factories, and possibly Hoover to boost your production.

-Arrian

Dominae · May 15, 2003, 14:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
Yeah, I hear a lot of people around here talking about modern wars... me, I hope I never see one. By the time infantry shows up, it's to keep my empire virtually unassailible, while I swallow up those that do NOT have infantrymen.

Time for you to move up a notch in the difficulty scale...

Arrian, since a debate is what you want (!!), might I venture a guess? The main reason why you and others do not think the Numidian Mercenary is that impressive is that it rarely enters battle. And units that do not get a chance to strut their stuff are not that great, right? Wrong. The AI is not only afraid to declare war on you because of your military rating, it's also afraid to simply attack a given Merc. in the field. This means the AI will march around your beautiful stacks, while you pick off their units and pillage their improvements at will. The "untouchable" Army effect is present in each and every Merc. (it's not this drastic, but you get my point). Of course, this is also an argument for the Hoplite, which is why I think the +1 Attack on the Merc. is actually pretty cool: untouchable on defense, and sting on offense! And so what if your Mercs. never enter battle? They're not going to obsolete anytime soon, as they're useful well into the Medieval age.

If you think the Merc. is just a dirty trick against the AI (which it is, IMO), just check out what Mercs. can do when they're put to action in MP games! Here the early GA is a small price to pay for what is generally considered the best MP unit (as far as I've heard).

Dominae

Arrian · May 15, 2003, 15:02

Quote:

Arrian, since a debate is what you want (!!), might I venture a guess? The main reason why you and others do not think the Numidian Mercenary is that impressive is that it rarely enters battle. And units that do not get a chance to strut their stuff are not that great, right?

Nope, that's not my reasoning. First of all, I've seen the Merc in action (or rather, the AI running around it). Second, even if I hadn't, I've seen pikemen and archers (pikeman + archer -> one unit = Merc).

You are quite right that the AI is scared of the Merc (just like it is scared of the Legionary) and that's an advantage. However, if you put it in the field, they will eventually attack one and trigger your GA. Same thing with Legionaries. The AI will typically dance around them, but if they pull together several archers at once, they will try to overwhelm one.

Hell, I remember a Regent game my girlfriend was playing as Carthage... the Romans were stuck in a crappy part of the continent and there was a chokepoint. I had her build a city over there and stick a Merc up on a hill, fortified, blocking the Romans. They declared war and hit the Merc with a warrior (which WON

). So yeah, generally they avoid it, but the AI will hit that unit.

It's not that the Merc is a bad unit. It's that there are several others I'd rather have.

-Arrian

Yahweh Sabaoth · May 15, 2003, 15:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae

Time for you to move up a notch in the difficulty scale...

Hey, buster! I've still got to attain victories as the Arabs, Germans, Indians, Aztecs, English, Egyptians, Zulu, Koreans, Americans, Celts and Carthaginians... but THEN I'll move up! And then I'll... I'll.. be BETTER THAN YOU ALL!!! YEAH!!! THAT'S IT!!!

Of course, by the time that happens, I might have another eight civs to win as...

Dominae · May 15, 2003, 19:14

Yahweh, you could just play those remaining civs at a higher difficulty level. It might be more fun. Just a suggestion.

Dominae

peterfharris · May 15, 2003, 19:31

Quote:

Originally posted by statusperfect

Sipahi? Panzers?

cheers

Umh. I think the AI Legions and Immortals are more dangerous to me than the Sipahi and Panzers. By the time the Sipahi arrives my defences, production and diplomacy will be in order and I should have the resources to deal with the situation. I have not always sorted myself out by the time the legions or Immortals arrive on my borders so that can get ugly.

If I were playing against a human opponent the sipahi and panzers may well be more dangerous, I don't know having never played MP.

Mountain Sage · May 16, 2003, 04:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth

Hey, buster! I've still got to attain victories as the Arabs, Germans, Indians, Aztecs, English, Egyptians, Zulu, Koreans, Americans, Celts and Carthaginians... but THEN I'll move up! And then I'll... I'll.. be BETTER THAN YOU ALL!!! YEAH!!! THAT'S IT!!!

Of course, by the time that happens, I might have another eight civs to win as...

YS,

Dominae has a good point. You should go up a level. If you finish all the remaining civs at Regent, then start again at Monarch, then at Emperor, by the time you'll be through we will all be playing Civ5

Yahweh Sabaoth · May 16, 2003, 10:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Mountain Sage
Dominae has a good point. You should go up a level. If you finish all the remaining civs at Regent, then start again at Monarch, then at Emperor, by the time you'll be through we will all be playing Civ5

You guys are probably right. I'm playing as the Arabs right now, and I sort of feel like, "Wow, I've played this game already 5 times now..." especially since my land doesn't allow for full use of the Ansar...

...still, I'm a purist. A few more games at least. I might skip the Aztecs - I've already won as them in "vanilla" Civ.

Arrian · May 16, 2003, 10:14

Play at whichever level you find fun, and whichever style you find fun.

That's my approach. Some people find it fun to play at high difficulty and really strain for the win. Others don't. I play on Monarch not because I can't win on Emperor, but because I don't enjoy Emperor. I'd rather play for UP on Monarch than just play to win on Emperor. I like winning BIG. I could win BIG on Chieftain every time, but that isn't fun for me. Neither is Warlord or Regent. Nope, for whatever reason, Monarch is the place for me, at least for now.

So play whereever and however you want. [/soapbox]

-Arrian

Yahweh Sabaoth · May 16, 2003, 10:25

Thanks, Arrian.

You guys are always going to be better than me - by the time I hit Emperor or Diety "Conquests"'ll be out, and then it's sort of back to the drawing board... I'm happy to be the guy who (hopefully) asks good questions and starts interesting threads around here...

But mark my words, my old Civ2 best score was 732% and I won't stop playing this damn game until I can win Deity, every time.

Arrian · May 16, 2003, 10:43

Yahweh,

Did you ever try the Europe Map that came with CivII Gold? It was HUGE for a CivII map (mostly land). The scores you could rack up were silly. My best: 1642% (Deity). But then again, one that map you knew where everybody was, you had tons of room, and I played it over and over trying to top my score (and competing with a good friend, who eventually cracked 1700%).

-Arrian

Yahweh Sabaoth · May 16, 2003, 10:47

Holy crud. Maybe I never will be as good as you guys.

1642%? That's freaking insane! My score was from large world, 7 opponents, Deity level, maybe "restless" barbarians (raging is just too irritating for me).

I also never got Civ2 Gold. The Europe map was bigger than a "large" map?

I did play the Europe map that came with Civ2: Scenarios quite a bit... remember that one spot in "Bulgaria" that had the perfect city placement?

Ah, but I digress...

Dominae · May 16, 2003, 11:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Play at whichever level you find fun, and whichever style you find fun.

I would like to get one thing straight: I'm not criticizing anyone for playing at their chosen level of difficulty (ok, I would probably criticize if someone enjoyed played at Chieftain and posted here regularly!).

My purpose in pushing people to go up a difficulty-notch is twofold: 1) I want people to get better (AU, yeah!), 2) as much possible, I do not want strategy talk to be tainted by the differences in difficulty level.

I know this second hope is somewhat unrealisitc; early warmongering is just really hard on Deity. But in the Regent to Emperor range, I believe certain strategies are constant. But sometimes people's "arguments" for their personal strategy come out of a expectation how games are supposed to play out. And so comments like: "the Industrial age is not important because I always seal up the game with Cavalry", or "I never build the Pyramids because I can just capture it", or even "I always go for a Science city (requiring, The Colossus, Copernicus', Newton's, etc.), are no so much strategic advice as reports as to how your games play out at the difficulty level you play on. I have no problem if anyone derives enjoyment from these types of games (I certainly like to seal things up before the Industrial!), but it's misleading to label them as "strategy".

Regent strategy is different from Deity strategy. And some things are good strategy at all difficulties (for instance, good FP placement). I think it's important to make the difference between strategy that is only applicable at a certain level of difficulty, and strategy that is applicable across levels. The clearest example is tech: on Emperor you can (still) do quite well just buying techs from the leaders, while on Regent you're better off doing your own research.

Dominae

Arrian · May 16, 2003, 12:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
Holy crud. Maybe I never will be as good as you guys.

1642%? That's freaking insane! My score was from large world, 7 opponents, Deity level, maybe "restless" barbarians (raging is just too irritating for me).

I also never got Civ2 Gold. The Europe map was bigger than a "large" map?

I did play the Europe map that came with Civ2: Scenarios quite a bit... remember that one spot in "Bulgaria" that had the perfect city placement?

Ah, but I digress...

The Europe map was used in a scenario or two, but you could fire up a normal game on it. Yeah, it was bigger than the regular large maps, because of the ratio of land to water. Let me put it this way: I hit the city limit and started moving cities that could "only" get to 20 pop to better spots so I could get them up to more like 30. I cut down the entire Siberian forest, and terraformed it all to grassland. Alps? Gone. The Northern Sahara was all grassland. I had started in on the Himalayas when I ran out of time.

It was mainly a function of four things:

1) The sheer size of the land mass
2) My discovery of the power of Caravans to boost wonder production (I never did use food caravans, though)
3) "We Love the President Day"
4) Spies. Why fight when you can buy the other guy's empire?

-Arrian

Yahweh Sabaoth · May 16, 2003, 12:43

ah yes... spies were too powerful, but the terraforming option is sorely missed...

Arrian · May 16, 2003, 13:00

Oh, and Dominae, points taken.

-Arrian

Panag · May 16, 2003, 19:05

hi ,

looks like there are eight new UU on the way , .....

screenshots of some can be found here > http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...20#post2004424

lets hope there is a new one for the modern age

have a nice day

Jaybe · May 17, 2003, 01:20

Also slightly off topic:
To me, the most entertaining unit (not UU) is the fighter, followed by the jet fighter, at any time there is an interception. Haven't seen the F-15 in action in some time.

Whether I am intercepting a bomber or being intercepted, whether I win or I lose - I AM entertained!