Skirmishers, Mali's UU.

They replace archers, and are identical in every respect (25 hammers, +25% hill defense, +50% city defense) except for two: they have :strength: 4 instead of 3, and they get an extra 50% chance for a second first strike. (Like having Drill I.)

There's general agreement that Skirmishers are an inferior UU. It's easy to see why.

Compare them to, say, the War Chariot, Egypt's UU. They cost the same (25 hammers), but the War Chariot has :strength: 5, a double move, and a 30% withdrawal chance. And the War Chariot is available immediately, while Mali must research two technologies. (Cheap ones, to be sure, but still.)

But ISTM the biggest grumble against the Skirmisher is that they're crappy offensive units. They can't take cities even as well as the lowly Quechua. Axemen cost more but give you far more killing power. A stack of Skirmishers is just not all that.

A second complaint is that they require you to research Archery, a tech that many players prefer to bypass.

Okay. So what's to like about Skirmishers?

1) Believe it or not, Skirmishers take the prize for "biggest upgrade over the base unit". Skirmishers get a whopping 33% :strength: increase over Archers. Praetorians get the same over Swordsmen (8 vs. 6), but the Skirmisher also gets another 50% chance at a first strike.

Think of it this way: a Skirmisher is like an Archer with Combat I, II, and III, plus Drill I.

2) They are superb defensive units. A city full of Skirmishers can laugh at any attacking stack up to the appearance of catapults and macemen. With no promotions and no defenses, a Skirmisher starts with 6 city defense. A fortified Skirmisher with City Defender I in a 20% culture city gets a whopping 8.6 defense. Nothing can touch that but a well-promoted City Raider Swordsman or a War Elephant... and the elephant costs 60 hammers while the Skirmisher is just 25.

Most players spend more time on aggression than on defense, so this tends to get neglected. Still: Skirmishers are great on defense.

3) Skirmishers are cheap -- you can buy three for the cost of two Axemen. It's relatively easy to crank out a swarm of these little guys.

4) Skirmishers require no resources... no horses, copper, iron, nothing. If you're stuck in one of those awful starting positions with no metal, you'll be desperately grateful to have them.

5) Skirmishers are superb barbarian killers. They eat the early animals, warriors and Archers for lunch. Then barb Axemen can almost always be persuaded to attack Skirmishers in hills or forest, over rivers, etc. (Barbs are strangely dim about terrain modifiers.) Basically, a couple of well-positioned Skirmisher fogbusters mean that barbs cease to be anything but an amusing source of promotions.

All that said, I would still agree that Skirmishers are not one of the great UUs. And they shouldn't be! Mali has Spiritual and Financial, which most agree are the two best traits. If Mansa Musa had a killer UU as well, nobody would ever play any other leader.

Still, ISTM Skirmishers are better than they're usually given credit for.

Thoughts?


Doug M.

I agree on all but the statement that it's a bad thing that you(inpersonal) would have to research archery, i sometimes skip that tech, but i was never under the impression that it is common... however; it's much faster to get than BW, which makes for a nice early battle against your first wictims warriors... and perhaps a few archers. (-if you're late, that is)

I have always liked the Skirmisher. But that is because I prefer defensive play that early rather than aggressiv. An early unit with great defence and quite some shelf life, that just cannot be bad. And no resources needed, that is also really strong as it removes the luck factor.
Overall, all your points are valid and show them as really good UU.

ISTM
Thoughts?
What's that mean?

Think of it this way: a Skirmisher is like an Archer with Combat I, II, and III, plus Drill I.

It's nowhere near as good as that. Heck, i'd rather have an archer with just 2 of the above promotions for free than have a skirmisher. Having those promotions would open up more advanced and more powerful promotions. Having skirmishers doesn't.

2) They are superb defensive units. A city full of Skirmishers can laugh at any attacking stack up to the appearance of catapults and macemen. With no promotions and no defenses, a Skirmisher starts with 6 city defense. A fortified Skirmisher with City Defender I in a 20% culture city gets a whopping 8.6 defense. Nothing can touch that but a well-promoted City Raider Swordsman or a War Elephant... and the elephant costs 60 hammers while the Skirmisher is just 25.

Having any defensive units at all is useless when playing against the AI. A simple warrior should do the job just fine, since if you're playing right, the AI shouldn't even get close to your cities anyway, and all wars should be fought in there territory, taking their cities, not defending yours.

3) Skirmishers are cheap -- you can buy three for the cost of two Axemen. It's relatively easy to crank out a swarm of these little guys.

2 axemen cost 5 less hammers than 3 skirmishers, and are better at taking cities than 3 skirmishers. Besides, even a chariot is at least as good as a skirmisher (i'd say better), for the same price. And you don't hear people talking about how good chariots are compared to axemen.

4) Skirmishers require no resources... no horses, copper, iron, nothing. If you're stuck in one of those awful starting positions with no metal, you'll be desperately grateful to have them.

If that's the case, you won't be able to expand, with or without skirmishers. You'll be able to defend just fine with or without them. Skirmishers still make no difference in that case.

5) Skirmishers are superb barbarian killers. They eat the early animals, warriors and Archers for lunch. Then barb Axemen can almost always be persuaded to attack Skirmishers in hills or forest, over rivers, etc. (Barbs are strangely dim about terrain modifiers.) Basically, a couple of well-positioned Skirmisher fogbusters mean that barbs cease to be anything but an amusing source of promotions.

Same for axemen, except that the promotions you gain are actually useful (city raider). Again, that's a reason NOT to build skirmishers.

Still, ISTM Skirmishers are better than they're usually given credit for.

I've played Mansa Musa a lot and have come to the conclusion that even with skirmishers, archery is best completely ignored. I think you put too much emphasis on defense and too little on offense. The way to win is offense, not defense. Skirmishers are useless on offense. Archery is still a waste of otherwise good beakers.

I agree on all but the statement that it's a bad thing that you(inpersonal) would have to research archery, i sometimes skip that tech, but i was never under the impression that it is common... however; it's much faster to get than BW, which makes for a nice early battle against your first wictims warriors... and perhaps a few archers. (-if you're late, that is)

You must play on very low difficulty levels, or be talking about multiplayer. Playing single player at a high difficulty level, your opponents START with a bunch of archers, before even building their first city. At Deity, i think they also start with archery and don't make a single warrior for the whole game.

lol your extreme (but right) zombie :o

well, I often play with 'raging barbarians', and then defense cannot be ignored. I think skirmishers might also be useful in MP since your warmonger neighboor will probably prefer attacking another guy with archers than you.

(at deity AI doesnt get archery as start, but AI always go for this tech very fast - in the 3 first tech, worst case --> found a religion, hunting, archery ;))

at deity AI doesnt get archery as start, but AI always go for this tech very fast - in the 3 first tech, worst case --> found a religion, hunting, archery ;)

If they don't start with archery, i'm certain they all start with hunting (and a bunch of other techs).

Edit : now you made me go and check. I started a game and opened the worldbuilder. At Deity, all AIs start with the wheel, agriculture, hunting and archery. So there! :p

If they don't start with archery, i'm certain they all start with hunting (and a bunch of other techs).

Edit : now you made me go and check. I started a game and opened the worldbuilder. At Deity, all AIs start with the wheel, agriculture, hunting and archery. So there! :p

IRRC Diety start the AI gets 2 settler, 2 worker, 2 scout, 3 archer and all first tier techs - as well as the luxury of lower beaker/hammer cost.

Not all first tier techs, but the techs that i listed above. If you don't believe me, start your own deity game, open the worldbuilder, and look it up for yourself.

If they don't start with archery, i'm certain they all start with hunting (and a bunch of other techs).

Edit : now you made me go and check. I started a game and opened the worldbuilder. At Deity, all AIs start with the wheel, agriculture, hunting and archery. So there! :p
yeah i found something you didnt know for sure yet :goodjob: !

There are many such things, don't worry!

I started a game as Mali, on a small map with raging barbarians, and ended up on an island by myself which comprised at least 30% of the total landmass. Add to that, Timbuktu was well inland, so I was beset by a continuous stream of raging hordes for all directions. I'll have to say here that Skirmisher's saved my butt. Building momentum with promotions and low losses, I was able to fog-bust all the major portions of the island before any axes showed up.

On the other hand, I've never found any other good use for them 'cept as ass-against-the-line barb-busters.

It's nowhere near as good as that. Heck, i'd rather have an archer with just 2 of the above promotions for free than have a skirmisher. Having those promotions would open up more advanced and more powerful promotions. Having skirmishers doesn't.

If you have an archer with two of those promotions, you'll need 5 more EP to gain a third, then another 7 to gain the fourth.


Having any defensive units at all is useless when playing against the AI.

Well, this is a valid point.

OTOH, I have to say that I am sometimes on the defensive. Not often, but sometimes. I'm a Prince level player, win some, lose some. And it has occasionally happened that I've been dogpiled by aggressive neighbors. So, once in a while, my cities have come under serious attack.

Also, there's MP. Some UUs that are handy in single-player are totally useless in MP (Quechua, your phone is ringing). On the other hand, ISTM the Skirmisher should do OK there.

(BTW, ISTM means It Seems To Me.)


2 axemen cost 5 less hammers than 3 skirmishers, and are better at taking cities than 3 skirmishers.

If taking cities is the metric, it's hard to disagree. The skirmisher is briefly competitive in early-early war. Because Archery is cheaper than BW, a Malinese player can have 2-3 Skirmishers out there awfully quick. But after the first 40 turns or so, yeah, axes are just hugely better.


Besides, even a chariot is at least as good as a skirmisher (i'd say better), for the same price.

Here I disagree. Chariots don't get defensive bonuses. This is why I rate the skirmisher ahead of the chariot as a barb killer. They both can kill weaker barb units easily. The chariot is faster and can get there quicker, the skirmisher will have a slightly better kill chance because of the first strike, it's about a wash. But against barb axes, the skirmisher's ability to rope-a-dope lifts it well above the chariot.

Axemen are better still, as you point out. But skirmishers are cheaper, and can effectively keep barbs off your back while your axes are off kicking butt.


Waldo

And the War Chariot is available immediately, while Mali must research two technologies. (Cheap ones, to be sure, but still.)

sorry, but this is plain wrong. the war chariot requires animal husbandry (to reveal horses) and ah costs the same amount of beakers as hunting + archery.

skirmishers are great in multiplayer (if you're playing against smart opponents). but in singleplayer they should be bypassed in most cases, which is kinda too bad.

finally, i maintain that aggressive is superior to financial and spiritual. as zombie mentioned, aggression is the key to victory and free combat 1 + cheap barracks are just huge. combine it with a $$ trait (capac, tokugawa) or ag + the wheel starting techs (napoleon) and you're off to the races.

Yes, it's so hard for me to strategize for Mansa in my current game (drew him by random) because I am so used to an Aggressive play. If you can capture lucrative lands from the enemy early (thereby weakening them as well), you can outdo the Financial bonus quite easily.

Main advantage of skirmirshers in SP games is that they give you an option:
You can delay researchign bronsworking is you have space to expand peacefully and you are not dependant on early connected cooper.
It is a situational advantage, it's gives you flexibility and options.
Personally I am fanatic of flexibility.

i don't see why you would ever want to delay bronze since it gives you both chop and pop rushing AND reveals copper. that's just WAAAY too much benefit from one tech to hold off on it. no other ancient tech comes close to giving this much benefit.

You can delay researchign bronsworking is you have space to expand peacefully

I normally agree with you Mutineer but im not sure on this one. Due to slavery being tied with BW and it opening more useful techs I still think it wins out even if I want to expand for a while.

There are always very specific examples like Hans gave where they would be useful though.

edit- SP only... No experience with MP.

Don't delay bronze. You still get slavery and chop, which can benefit you more than the axe even if you don't get copper closeby. You can spit out settlers much faster if you do have alot of space to build (with a few exceptions, I suppose).

At monarch single player, I too have found that Skirmishers are only really useful on defense, since the AI starts with archer units and gets the tech to build more very early.

I am now playing Monarch level and coincidentally finished my first true CS slingshot yesterday as Mali... I love monarch. I started without copper and had to send chariots to the closest copper city (kindly built exactly where I wanted it, by Otto von Bismarck), then rushed some axes real quick to assimilate :borg: Berlin (resistance is futile), end his reign, add a quarried marble, and double my income (many clam and fish). (Getting the Marble actually made the CS slingshot a possibility since I was already beelining for CoL to get the religion.) Now I'm planning to take Paris, home of the closest Iron resource, before they get axemen in great numbers. That should let me shoot for macemen and the game is mine! It seems like my second monarch victory will be in the bag if Paris falls in this next war.

The skirmisher has its place, but I am becoming conviced that beelining to archery before bronzeworking has to be seriously evaluated against the flexibility you get from knowing where the copper is and being able to spit out units, including early workers and settlers, much faster with chop-and-pop than your production would normally allow otherwise.

I personally don't chop much in my games, since I like growing forests outside of my inner ring (WoodsmanII axemen make excellent scouts and anti-barbarian Rangers), but I will use a chop or two for early settler or Oracle builds.

My $0.02,
SR

v1.61, Terra, Standard size, standard speed, Mali, 11 civs, no save/reload permitted (I want to try MP one of these days).

in MP skirmishers are awesome. Probably the best UU in the game.

in MP skirmishers are awesome. Probably the best UU in the game.

Would that be because the other human players are axe rushing, too? A skirmisher defends really well against axes, considering how cheap it is.

I've also heard that they shut off barbarians in many MP games to minimize the unbalanced impact of Barbarians. Could that be a reason? I want to eventually try MP, so I'm quite interested in the reason for the opinion.

If you have an archer with two of those promotions, you'll need 5 more EP to gain a third, then another 7 to gain the fourth.

I said two free promotions, like the free combat promotion for aggressive leaders, and the free march promotion for navy SEALs.

Also, there's MP. Some UUs that are handy in single-player are totally useless in MP (Quechua, your phone is ringing). On the other hand, ISTM the Skirmisher should do OK there.

Agreed with that. Like i said, skirmishers are useless in single player but obviously very good in multiplayer. In multiplayer, you'll probably never even get to use them, because being Mali and having them, nobody will want to attack you. That's a good thing.

If taking cities is the metric, it's hard to disagree. The skirmisher is briefly competitive in early-early war. Because Archery is cheaper than BW, a Malinese player can have 2-3 Skirmishers out there awfully quick. But after the first 40 turns or so, yeah, axes are just hugely better.

I'd still rather have chariots than skirmishers. Same price, twice the move, and base 20% retreat. And i'd rather beeline for axemen than chariots. Bronze working is invaluable not only for copper and axemen, but for chop rushing and pop rushing. No matter what unit you intend to use, you should always go for bronze working first because that's the best way to produce an army quickly. And once you have bronze working, neither chariot nor skirmisher (neither of which you've even researched yet) is worth making.

Here I disagree. Chariots don't get defensive bonuses. This is why I rate the skirmisher ahead of the chariot as a barb killer. They both can kill weaker barb units easily. The chariot is faster and can get there quicker, the skirmisher will have a slightly better kill chance because of the first strike, it's about a wash. But against barb axes, the skirmisher's ability to rope-a-dope lifts it well above the chariot.

Chariots won't need defensive bonuses since they'll be attacking. There, their base 20% retreat could come in handy. The fact that they're attacking will mean more XP, and chariots also have better promotions available than skirmishers. As for fighting barb axemen, you should have axemen of your own by then anyway.

Axemen are better still, as you point out. But skirmishers are cheaper, and can effectively keep barbs off your back while your axes are off kicking butt.

Skirmishers aren't cheap when you take into account the price of the useless dead end tech that is required to make them. Axemen are cheaper because even if you don't intend to make them, you still need bronze working for chop rushing and pop rushing anyway.

Well to say that you will be always on the ofensive in sigle player is not true.... single player have MANY possible configurations that make very diferents kind of games... i like for example to play 18 civs/Huge Map/Marathon with dificult level Immortal/Deity... and you got to be on defensive and this is not uncommon... as you have many civs on the same continent and is much likelly to be "weak" compared to them as they have facilities on suport, and will be a good target...

You add it to the fact that is very likely to begin without cooper, the marathon/huge map makes goes to iron a long process and unless you restart the game you WILL have to go for archer before it, as the computar probably will declare war on you before you get an iron source, and have the barbarians too of course... not to say that even with the very good conditions you have to stop you expansion because of the number os cities and the cost of it... and in marathon will take much time before you have all the techs you need to continue expanding... meanwhile you WILL be on defensive, trying to build infra for support and maybe expand a little more withou CS...

Well this is the only configuration i play, but i belive that are others configs that put you on defensive sometimes... what makes the unit very good... not to say that on extreme situations a unit with att 4 is not so bad atacker is you choose a target without resource...

You're getting attacked because you go for iron. Instead, steal a worker, then attack with pop rushed and chop rushed axemen. You'll see that you won't need defense then. The settings you describe are actually the perfect example of a game where skirmishers are worse than useless.

Well i edited the post... i was trying to say cooper, not iron... and as i said even if you get the very good conditions, you will be on defensive soon , as yopu have to stop expanding, and you at that time you will get only one (max 2) disabled civs by your expantion, you will get other 16 civs to defend (not all of then on your continent of course unlless you go for panagea) and the computer know how to be opportunist... and good defensive and cheaper unit is all you want at that time...

and the about the worker... i always try to stell one with my first warrior, but in my last games the computer get allways it defended by archers... i'm getting no luck with it lol


well as i say you will get much situations where it is very much needed..

Bronze working is invaluable not only for copper and axemen, but for chop rushing and pop rushing. No matter what unit you intend to use, you should always go for bronze working first because that's the best way to produce an army quickly. And once you have bronze working, neither chariot nor skirmisher (neither of which you've even researched yet) is worth making.

this is the most important thing people need to learn in order to improve their game.

You're getting attacked because you go for iron. Instead, steal a worker, then attack with pop rushed and chop rushed axemen. You'll see that you won't need defense then. The settings you describe are actually the perfect example of a game where skirmishers are worse than useless.


his example involved not having copper to start. kinda hard to axerush without copper :) EDIT: nvm, he said he editted his post.

Would that be because the other human players are axe rushing, too? A skirmisher defends really well against axes, considering how cheap it is.

I've also heard that they shut off barbarians in many MP games to minimize the unbalanced impact of Barbarians. Could that be a reason? I want to eventually try MP, so I'm quite interested in the reason for the opinion.

Well I am talking about 1v1 or team games. Not FFAs.

In those situations skirmishers are the best UU in the game. Make a few and set up shop outside someones capital. He won't ever be able to get a worker out or a settler.

Obviously I'd rather have axes than skirmishers, but skirmishers come much earlier in the game even if you research BW first. You can easily get a couple skirmishers to an enemy capital before he has hooked up any metal.

No matter what unit you intend to use, you should always go for bronze working first because that's the best way to produce an army quickly.
Can we talk about the premise? i.e., WHY should one always produce an army quickly?

I can think of many games/situations where I don't need or desire to produce an army right off the bat. In those situations I'd much rather go for cottages earlier or something.

And that, I think, is the best value of all for the Skirmisher. It lets you play as Mali, which is Spiritual/Financial, a hugely powerful combo.

Myself, I think the designers intentionally designed UUs and the civ Traits together. Spiritual/Financial? Sure, give me a defensive early UU, and thanks.

Wodan

Maybe at lower levels, but at high levels, the AI will be all over you and you'll be lucky to get up to more than 2 cities before all the good spots are taken. And at high levels, you just can't compete with the AIs' bonuses, financial or not, spiritual or not. That's why you need an early war.

Maybe at lower levels, but at high levels, the AI will be all over you and you'll be lucky to get up to more than 2 cities before all the good spots are taken. And at high levels, you just can't compete with the AIs' bonuses, financial or not, spiritual or not. That's why you need an early war.
Okay, so we may not desire to fight an early war:
--at lower levels

I think I'd add:
--on some maps (I'll grant that it will take at least a few turns exploring before you know if this is the case); e.g., if you have a good sized continent all to yourself, if you have a good bottleneck you can send your 1st settler to hem in a large landmass for yourself and then backfill at leisure, if you're on archipelago/islands because the AI won't beeline for sailing and you have time to spread, etc. All these reasons are regardless of skill level, I think.

Any other reasons anyone can think of?

Wodan

Like you said, it will take some turns of explorig before knowing that this is your situation. By then, bronze working will be done researching or at least well on its way. Once you've got bronze, you don't need archery anymore, offense or not. No need to spend beakers to research a dead end tech that gives you access to weaker units than those you already have.

Like you said, it will take some turns of explorig before knowing that this is your situation. By then, bronze working will be done researching or at least well on its way. Once you've got bronze, you don't need archery anymore, offense or not. No need to spend beakers to research a dead end tech that gives you access to weaker units than those you already have.
I agree. Wasn't advocating researching archery, simply questioning the assertion that an early war is a Must.

Wodan

The only time I'd research Archery...

Initial exploration reveals no available copper and no nearby opponents and there are no sheep, pigs, or cow, so Animal Husbandry isn't terribly attractive. Then, and only then, I might get archery. It's fairly rare though. As such, skirmishers aren't really my cup of tea. As Zombie said, I'd rather have a chariot or an axeman any day.

One thing that's hasn't been mentioned about chariots... since you take an offensive stance using them against barbs, they'll be promoted faster; often gaining 5-6 xp from only 2 fights. Compared to that, skirmishers, fortified on their hills, level far too slowly; gaining just 1 xp per combat. And then there's the war chariot... man I love war chariots... mobile, retreating axemen... (sort of). If only there were a unique axeman replacement... just think of the possibilities... :drool:

I agree. Wasn't advocating researching archery, simply questioning the assertion that an early war is a Must.

Then re-read the sentence you originally quoted from me. In other words, it says :
Even if you intend to produce skirmishers (no specific intent given here, could even be for defense), you're still better off researching bronze working first, so that you can produce them faster using pop rushing and chop rushing.

But assuming for a moment that you quoted something else, yes i do believe that unless proven otherwise further down into the game (alone on an island being an obvious case of proven otherwise), early war is always the best way to go. Therefore, bronze working first is the best way to go. And after you've got bronze working, archery becomes useless, even with skirmishers.

Is there something in the above paragraph you don't agree with?

One thing that's hasn't been mentioned about chariots... since you take an offensive stance using them against barbs, they'll be promoted faster; often gaining 5-6 xp from only 2 fights.

Hasn't been mentioned? Are you sure?

Chariots won't need defensive bonuses since they'll be attacking. There, their base 20% retreat could come in handy. The fact that they're attacking will mean more XP, and chariots also have better promotions available than skirmishers.

If only there were a unique axeman replacement... just think of the possibilities... :drool:

That would be gross. To not be completely overpowered, it would have to be a very mild improvement, like samurais that replace macemen by only giving a first strike or two.

Hasn't been mentioned? Are you sure?

I stand corrected. :)

Hey, correcting you is a pleasure. It's not often i get the chance!