I've really enjoyed the points of view in the Worst UU poll, and I noticed a lot of discussion about how a good base unit doesn't guarantee a good UU. So, I thought I'd open up a worst unit poll just to make the comparison.

However, worst unit seems like a bad way to say it. I probably won't build a lot of triremes, but they sure do a nice job protecting seafood from barb galleys if I ever actually need them.

Instead the question is, what do you think is the least important unit? Your answer will probably take into account the era, the likelihood of you actually needing or using it in a game, the actual effectiveness of the unit in its era, and its useful life.

For me, it's probably the submarine. It seems like the unit, given there is also an attack submarine coming on line around the same time, should be available at Combustion rather than at Radio. Also, destroyers would then not be able to see them until the discovery of radio. At least this way you could have a useful life for submarines where they would absolutely savage old wooden navies (which hopefully wouldn't be in hiding since they wouldn't actually see the subs in the area) and then you could slide them into the missile carrying roll once they become vulnerable to enemy destroyers.


AS FOR THE 25 CHOICES:

I couldn't just put every unit up here, and probably didn't want to. For example, the Explorer is excluded because it has no useful purpose, and I don't think I've ever seen a game posted in these forums where the player has even a single Explorer running around. Also, I had to use some judgment and weed out a lot of units that I think would only get a few votes. So, no transports make the list. Destroyers are out. Infantry, Rifles, Axemen, Longbows, Archers, Marines, Mech. Infantry, Fighters, Bombers, Macemen, Trebs, Cannons, and a few other units that make frequent appearances in every game I've ever seen posted here were all excluded from the list.

I still ended up with some very useful units (in my opinion) on the list, but I'm hoping I didn't leave off anything that many people actually don't like. I suppose there are some people who have no use for SAM infantry, since I myself rarely build them, but that's the only one of interest I might have left out.

The Explorer.

explorers. by the time you build them, on anything other than a Terra/Archaepelago/Earth map all the goody huts will have been popped.

ironclad.

Seriously, no ocean squares and a short life-span? WTF?

Explorers, if I want a medic, I'll have one as a scout already. Besides, unless it's a Terra map, all the landmass has been discovered already. And if it is, the Explorer doesn't stand up in strength to the massive barbarian presence anyway.

Going to edit the OP to mention why Explorer (and the good version of scout) is not going to be on the poll.

surprisingly, I have found a use for machine guns. After grabbing steel from the liberalism and going on a nasty little romp and conquering a lot of territory, I find that railroad becomes an important support tool, and machine guns a critical new defensive weapon to protect newly captured cities on the front as my offensive is starting to run out of steam. Machine gunners can handle an grenadier, or rifleman with ease, which is what I'm up against at that time.

I voted for nukes as I refuse to use them :)

Ironclad is going to romp this ;)

I chose Ironclad but some of the latter units I seldom build, like Attack Submarine. Explorers are useful when there are huts to pop on other landmasses that are unguarded or guarded by a warrior or archer (better results than from spies). Can also be used for a supermedic as a 2-move unit when no horses are available and no scouts were saved.

I build explorers when I need a Medic III so they won't engage in combat. I voted airship because I've never built one. :) I always have better things I'd rather build at that period.

My second choice would be paratrooper. I've built them but never really used them for anything other than novelty. Ironclads mostly suck but at least you can use them if you need to finish conquering your own continent. They mop up the wooden ships and (IIRC) they upgrade to destroyers.

i have built a few ironclads in the odd game or two, so i went for stealth destroyer, never built one and don't recall ever seeing one anywhere..

If you've never seen a stealth destroyer then apparently they are doing their job.

Whoops, didn't see ironclads on the list or I would have voted for them vs antitank.

I like machine guns more since they added the intercept chance, making them better multi-taskers. My usual desire to found Mining Inc. also means I get them fairly early in comparison to when the AI gets Physics.

Privateer is pretty much strictly worse than frigates against humans...

Ironclad, no question. It isn't just the short shelf life and the no ocean squares, but also that you need to be the Vikings and have circumnavigated the globe to have a chance to ever attack something with them.

Ironclad. not only is it too slow to catch anything but it's manoevrability is too limited too. It is also obsolete in the blink of an eye.

Voted iron clad. I don't think they ever have a reasonable use, even Explorers are more useful :lol:. I quite like subs personally, the missile ability is very handy stealthily exploring rival waters and under sea ice are nice and having 80% withdraw from Flanking 2 is huge.
Privateer is pretty much strictly worse than frigates against humans...
Still can't see em being worse than Iron Clads though :lol:.
Even in MP the fact that Privateers cause no WW, can be built with copper, give sentry to a stack and can cause damage without getting close enough to be fired at must be worth something right? I do wish they could bombard though :(

I cannot think of a single situation where an Iron Clad can perform anything whatsoever without playing 3 levels below your own on SP where it might get to kill a galley or two, well I suppose you could block all coast tiles around your continent to stop an invasion :rolleyes:. For all intents they are obsolete when the enemy gets Astronomy :lol:

I voted ironclads even though I've actually used them in a game. I voted it least important, since I could very well have just built other frigates and SOL instead, and have it do pretty much the same job.

Grenadiers would probably be my next choice, since at that point, I'd usually rather have either more cannons, or they'll be used in cleanup (so I don't mind grabbing the cheaper muskets), or I'll already be close enough to machine guns for D, or I'll have rifling on offense. Plus, I like delaying grenadiers so I can build macemen and upgrade them immediately to rifles.

On that list? Ironclads. I'd have voted for the explorer if available, since it sucks so utterly even at its own role (at least spies can pop guarded huts).

I could see ironclads being used to blockade or annoy someone who can be reached via coast. However, it's still easily the worst unit on the list.

Someone picked nukes as a joke.

Grens were awesome before they were pushed back in BtS.

But Chemistry->Steel->Mil Science is still strong.

I would have gone explorer too. I can't remember the last time I've built one. Apart from using it as a two move super-medic and it being one of the last ones targeted in a stack, it has almost no uses imo. Maybe it can defeat a tank.

At least explorers have the useful ability to be carried by caravels, and therfore explore territory on other landmasses which they do a better job of than spies unless totally overwhelmed by barbs. They can also explore overseas rival territories without risk of being caught if you can get OB, and they make useful supermedics. Not being able to attack hut warriors does really suck though.
I still don't understand how they can be worse than Iron Clads? :confused:

Maybe it can defeat a tank.
IMO the 4:strength: greatly supports this theory!
:spear:

Has anyone had any worthwhile use of iron clads at all?
Defensively they are utterly worthless, they cannot catch anything. Ever. Period.
Blockading islands? Pointless as you could do it with astro, which you almost certainly will have if islands are an issue.
Its too slow to support any galleon based attacks.
The only things I can actually think of are slow mobile bombardment thats hard to kill, but cannons cost the same, need less techs and resources and are so much better at this its mostly pointless to consider. The only slight advantage the iron clad has is its somewhat difficult to kill.
Being a blockade ship thats awkward to remove, this seems to be the only plausible use. But blockading isn't going to be huge on a pangea and I can't see iron clads being used on anything else :lol:.
or supporting an erm..... galley based coastal invasion :confused:

I'd have voted for the explorer if available, since it sucks so utterly even at its own role (at least spies can pop guarded huts).
At least it has a role :lol:

Voted stealth destroyer but it's a tie with choppers and subs. Basically all the late modern stuff.
If the game isn't won with infantry/artillery, it is with tanks, maybe tanks/mobile artillery. I beeline mobile arti right after tanks if I still have some strong rival and it's my favorite modern unit.

Ironclad sucks but sometimes I use it to defend seafood from wooden ships.
Edit: if I beeline infantry, oil ships aren't available until much later, so actually there's a decent window for ironclads to have at least SOME use.

We are talking of really least important or least important against a player that thinks it can defend using archers solely ( that is, the AI :D ) ?

Anyway, ironclad is definitely a almost useless unit....

Ironclad sucks but sometimes I use it to defend seafood from wooden ships.
Edit: if I beeline infantry, oil ships aren't available until much later, so actually there's a decent window for ironclads to have at least SOME use.
It only prevents wooden ships from pillaging the seafood they can however, still blockade it from the ocean in complete safety :lol:. Just a shame the AI doesn't do things like these :mischief:

Ironclad as well. It's practically a purely defensive unit that doesn't have enough mobility to defend well.

I'd also argue Musketman - just because I seem to skip them on the way to Grenadiers and Riflemen. Macemen can get CR and it seems that Longbows defend almost as well as they do. But I suppose the ignoring walls thing has some value.

I rarely build Paratroops.

Mostly agree with the results of the poll. No offense meant but the one person who said MA is useless should get his head examined imho :lol:. A bit surprised at the 3 votes for muskets. Often a useful unit, it's not always that you can research to rifling fast enough. Muskets are draftable which makes them strong in situations where you need backup for your attack troops.

I think ironclad might be most useless but honestly i don't know, i've never build a privateer too and i have no idea what things an attack submarine can do.

Mostly agree with the results of the poll. No offense meant but the one person who said MA is useless should get his head examined imho :lol:. A bit surprised at the 3 votes for muskets. Often a useful unit, it's not always that you can research to rifling fast enough. Muskets are draftable which makes them strong in situations where you need backup for your attack troops.

I think ironclad might be most useless but honestly i don't know, i've never build a privateer too and i have no idea what things an attack submarine can do.

I forgot about drafting Muskets, mainly because I usually draft Riflemen if I draft at all... good point.

Attack Submarines are great at defending sea stacks against other Submarines... they get a great bonus and can save you from having your Battleships worn down by attacks from Subs with Flanking. They do carry a Spy which is occasionally useful.

Privateers are a lot of fun vs the AI and can get you cash, free GG points and seriously wreck AI economies. But they are probably much less useful vs humans and it's hard to break even with them once the AI has Chemistry/Astro.

I like privateers. I think that they're quite useful and easily exploitable. They pay for themselves (and then some), they cripple the AI's economy without any diplomatic consequences, and earn easy XP (for powerful destroyers and GG's).

I'd be tempted to vote archers if they were in the poll.

Archers are often essential on emperor+.

Ironclad. At that stage of the game, a unit that can't leave the coast or territorial waters is a lot less useful than we'd like it to be.

Anti-tanks definitely have some importance. Upgrading anti-tanks to mech infantry, which doesn't cost all that much, is a great way to get free Ambush promotion on mech infantries. Also, when playing Pro civs, anti-tanks are actually pretty decent units anyway, for their cost.

I suppose if you play a small enough map or low enough difficulty though, you might not ever see enemy tanks or modern armors. In those cases it would be fairly useless.

I find anti tanks pretty useful. They obviously kill tanks well but they also start with 20% intercept and have access to the intercept promotions. They're the first sort-of-effective AA weapon in the game, great for killing airships in particular.

I wouldn't vote ironclad because I've actually used them. They're like a cost effective coast guard during that period when: 1. I really don't want to build any more wooden ships given how expensive they are to upgrade to destoyers, and 2. I am almost phoning in a war to gain diplomatic points. All it takes is 3-4 ironclads to protect my seafood from marauding frigates.

I like paratroopers! They're excellent CG units, and I find that paradrop ability makes them easier to move in behind my tanks than marines.

Voted stealth destroyer but it's a tie with choppers and subs. Basically all the late modern stuff.
If the game isn't won with infantry/artillery, it is with tanks, maybe tanks/mobile artillery. I beeline mobile arti right after tanks if I still have some strong rival and it's my favorite modern unit.

Ironclad sucks but sometimes I use it to defend seafood from wooden ships.
Edit: if I beeline infantry, oil ships aren't available until much later, so actually there's a decent window for ironclads to have at least SOME use.

Just so you know, subs can carry 3 tac nukes.

Gunships are very very good in modern wars. if you have enough of them you can pillage all roads around you and get the ships save. Ai just can't touch you anymore no matter how strong he is.

ironclads since i do not get their meaning...

If you are bothered with frigates just add few ships of line...

i rather dance around AI's ironclads with my galleons...

I voted ironclads and I'd pick them over Explorers since I usually have them as my super medics. But I never build ironclads. Completely useless.

subs are in my mind pretty worthless, unless the A.I. manages to get SDI set up. Attack subs too, I mean, do they exactly counter any particular units, why build them over the missile carrying normal submarine that really can have its uses?

In any case, 3 tactical missile spots, you gotta move into range of the enemy cities to nuke em, and come back to port to refill the missiles. In all this time you could have built simply ICBMs that are a bit more expensive but have infinite range... So I wouldn't say that submarines are the worst units, ironclads clearly are :D. or the most useless, whatever.

I build explorers when I need a Medic III so they won't engage in combat. I voted airship because I've never built one. :) I always have better things I'd rather build at that period.

My second choice would be paratrooper. I've built them but never really used them for anything other than novelty. Ironclads mostly suck but at least you can use them if you need to finish conquering your own continent. They mop up the wooden ships and (IIRC) they upgrade to destroyers.

explorers and scouts cannot go medic or guerilla III as they are attacking promos (at least in BTS) I went ironclads

Well, I think the second least important unit is Musketman (no prizes for guessing what I thought the least important unit was- although I didn't bother voting for it). Sure, the Musketeer can be useful, with double movement, but I always find Musketmen to be outdated by the time I attempt to use them, or am forced into using them.

For me, it's probably the submarine. It seems like the unit, given there is also an attack submarine coming on line around the same time, should be available at Combustion rather than at Radio. Also, destroyers would then not be able to see them until the discovery of radio. At least this way you could have a useful life for submarines where they would absolutely savage old wooden navies (which hopefully wouldn't be in hiding since they wouldn't actually see the subs in the area) and then you could slide them into the missile carrying roll once they become vulnerable to enemy destroyers.



Subs can be spotted with physics using airships, well before they can be built. If a sup is spotted, it can be attacked by a destroyer, regardless of having radio or not. Airships are rather useful all round, as they make excellent recon units. The recon mission can be used in peacetime, to find the enemy SoD (provided you or vassal border enemy), and plan your attack accordingly.

Subs can be spotted with physics using airships, well before they can be built. If a sub is spotted, it can be attacked by a destroyer, regardless of having radio or not. Airships are rather useful all round, as they make excellent recon units. The recon mission can be used in peacetime, to find the enemy SoD (provided you or vassal border enemy), and plan your attack accordingly.
I was actually trying to make a suggestion that ordinary subs would be more useful if they came into play at combustion and were invisible (to all units, air or sea) until radio.

What that would mean is that ordinary subs would have a useful life as really dangerous attackers. Even if they'd still be 24 versus 30 when hitting destroyers, the high chance of withdrawal combined with the fact that they could actually HIDE from the destroyers after attacking would be great. I would be much more likely to build a bunch of them in this scenario. Not only that, but once radio is out there, I would be much more likely to actually build a bunch of cruise missiles and load them on my subs for invasion support. As it is right now, I'm just not motivated to build subs for the specific ability to carry cruise missiles.

If I had a bunch of subs on hand however...

On that list? Ironclads. I'd have voted for the explorer if available, since it sucks so utterly even at its own role (at least spies can pop guarded huts).

I could see ironclads being used to blockade or annoy someone who can be reached via coast. However, it's still easily the worst unit on the list.

Someone picked nukes as a joke.

Not as a joke as I allready mentioned before, but simply because I refuse to use them. I just dont like it. I've never ever used one in the previous civ series too :D
Ofcourse i'm aware that it by far ain't the worsest unit, far from even, but it's the only unit i've never used so to me it's the crappiest unit.
p.s. I've never build an ironclad too, but I didnt doubt that it would get most votes ;)

ironclads are cheaper to upgrade into destroyers than frigates )

Cuirassier , by the time I can make them I can make infantry...

Ironclads make great defenders against frigates trying to raid your coast imo.
Also, I can't see why anyone would vote for paratroopers, they're invaluable to getting to small off shore islands without transports and also beat marines and infantry imo, as soon as I get them I spam them. Both anti tanks and sam infantry are handy for defending cities against an advanced opponent.

And muskets, definitely not least important, I have muskets much sooner than I have medieval units usually due to my tech path ( liberalism race) thus it's usually muskets vs weak units like longbows and crossbows on my games) or even vs early units.

Have used carriers a lot and can't see why they're on the list.
Also, subs are handy to bomb coastal cities with cruise missiles.

Hmmm...

Well, I never build Explorers - so I'd call them pointless rather than useless. It's just a scout in a fancy hat isn't it? :p

I've certainly found a use for ironclads before now (esp. popping one out to own all those annoying AI frigates which have been ruining my sea improvements!)

So my vote has to go to...the musketman, with special mention to the machine gunner.

Machine gunners...well, they just die. That's what they seem to do which is pretty useless. Can't attack with them, only defend (but NO defensive bonuses available?!) And when they defend...they die. :confused:

As for my 'winner', the Musketman - :lol: No thanks (waits for rifles...) :D

Have used carriers a lot and can't see why they're on the list.
Also, subs are handy to bomb coastal cities with cruise missiles. Carriers were one of those things that I left on, but didn't expect more than one or two people to even consider. I actually don't use them that often, but in games where I need them, they are very important.

I think that if I ever played a game with Nukes, subs would be extremely useful. The thing is, subs come into play around the same time I can put all of those hammers into carriers and fighters rather than subs and missiles. Maybe I'm missing something, but it sure seems like I get better value with the carriers and fighters for my air support. Not only that, but the carrier/fighter combination gets better when I can upgrade to jet fighters.

If the damn subs had another use besides scouting and sneaking missiles up to the coast, I'd be all over them. It's why I make the suggestion that they should first have a useful life as anti-ship weapons before they settle into their missile carrying role.



I'm not sure if muskets are the least important unit, especially since I normally build them, but I could certainly get by without them. They are the first unit that ignore walls, but there's no way to make them city raiders. I like them as CG units in that period of time before I can field rifles but am possibly waging a war with cannons. They do a better job of holding the new cities than would longbows/pikes/macemen, especially if I'm an aggressive or protective leader.

Since explorers aren't an option, (pfft)

Definately Ironclads.

Carriers were one of those things that I left on, but didn't expect more than one or two people to even consider. I actually don't use them that often, but in games where I need them, they are very important.

I think that if I ever played a game with Nukes, subs would be extremely useful. The thing is, subs come into play around the same time I can put all of those hammers into carriers and fighters rather than subs and missiles. Maybe I'm missing something, but it sure seems like I get better value with the carriers and fighters for my air support. Not only that, but the carrier/fighter combination gets better when I can upgrade to jet fighters.

If the damn subs had another use besides scouting and sneaking missiles up to the coast, I'd be all over them. It's why I make the suggestion that they should first have a useful life as anti-ship weapons before they settle into their missile carrying role.



I'm not sure if muskets are the least important unit, especially since I normally build them, but I could certainly get by without them. They are the first unit that ignore walls, but there's no way to make them city raiders. I like them as CG units in that period of time before I can field rifles but am possibly waging a war with cannons. They do a better job of holding the new cities than would longbows/pikes/macemen, especially if I'm an aggressive or protective leader.

Put the OTHER kind of missile on the sub, and it's a lot more competitive w/ carriers.

Both have their uses though.

No offense meant but the one person who said MA is useless should get his head examined imho :lol:.
None taken. :) Can you recommend an examiner? :crazyeye:
I voted for them because I have never built them. As others have mentioned, the game is usually over before they are available. Maybe if I ever start winning domination on emperor I will need them. Agree with posts regarding explorers and ironclads among other.

I have actually used ironclads, though only twice in my memory. Once was in vanilla, on a snaky-fractal sort of map where I could access an enemy by coast that was a long distance away by land. I didn't have a lot of coastal production, though, and I had won circumnavigation. Ironclads were a better option for defense and bombardment than Frigates.

Another time, I was invaded by a fleet with a mixed stack of SoLs and Frigates, much larger than my own fleet. I think I also had won circumnavigation that game.

So, in general they've been a cost-effective way of dealing with an enemy with more coastal production, or a larger fleet, when they have the very valuable extra movement point from winning circumnavigation.

Cuirassier , by the time I can make them I can make infantry...

Ironclads make great defenders against frigates trying to raid your coast imo.
Also, I can't see why anyone would vote for paratroopers, they're invaluable to getting to small off shore islands without transports and also beat marines and infantry imo, as soon as I get them I spam them. Both anti tanks and sam infantry are handy for defending cities against an advanced opponent.

And muskets, definitely not least important, I have muskets much sooner than I have medieval units usually due to my tech path ( liberalism race) thus it's usually muskets vs weak units like longbows and crossbows on my games) or even vs early units.

Have used carriers a lot and can't see why they're on the list.
Also, subs are handy to bomb coastal cities with cruise missiles.

Cuirasseirs have their uses, especially n a heavy lib beeline, as you can take MT from lib, getting them very early, giving them a huge window to quickly remove a rival or two. Afterward, their prerequisite tech has good trade value. They are definitely not a unit that's useless or unimportant, especially on monarch+ levels.

cuirassieers are actually very powerful. in combination with spies they just shred LB-defended cities, and they are available from a very convenient and fast beeline. you just need to get gunpowder somewhere and gogogo. prebuilding knights helps too, afair upgrade is cheap.
Even if not from beeline, they are not well countered untill rifles, and fast-teching AI's (except ZY) seem to delay rifles.

Put the OTHER kind of missile on the sub, and it's a lot more competitive w/ carriers.
Agreed, but since I've played this game for like two years and only been involved in one that saw nuclear weapons, I have almost no use for a unit that is basically a transport for cruise missiles. Do you actually use a lot of Nukes? I don't remember seeing you do it in any of the many games I've seen you post here.

Of course, I suppose I could have just voted for the nukes, but they're so important that I frequently find myself building the expensive UN wonder just to keep them out of play. Therefore, I can't really call them unimportant, since they very much change the way I play the game.


On the topic of the cuirassiers, I'm actually impressed that the mounted units get so much respect in this poll. To me, horse archers are specialty units that see very little action in my games. (Unless, of course, I'm Khaaaaaaaan!) If I build them, it's either as part of a combined arms strategy, (and even then I'd either have had to pop HBR from a Hut or be on my way to war elephants) or as part of a barbarian busting force. Given that it is hardly unusual to be without horses, I can't really say that I don't get by without mounted units just fine.

I'd say that knights and cavalry (which I left off the poll) are extremely important for the game, but not necessarily for me as the human player. If it weren't for the nasty stacks of those two units frequently existing in the AI civs, my life would be a lot easier.

I voted for Carriers just to be contrarian. By the time you can build them, and if you're interested in naval warfare that late in the game, you've like got a great army and transport system that's allowing you to take cities in enemy territory-- and defend them against counterattacks. Even with the "no artillery from the sea" change, that little bit of damage before an attack just isn't worth the hassle of building and equipping one, at least in my games.

Useless? There's an argument against that, I guess. Used least? I suspect that will get a lot more agreement.

Do you actually use a lot of Nukes? I don't remember seeing you do it in any of the many games I've seen you post here.

You can say I've taken a liking to them as of late:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=323602

When you have > 50 diplo hits with someone for nuking them, you know it's been a fun game :).

Horse units have a lot of potential for the human on all difficulties...

I voted for Musketmen, though my views are (as usual) skewed quite a bit by the fact that all I ever play on is the Earth map.

When the continents are basically misshapen potatoes floating in the ocean, yeah, your Ironclads are going to get outmaneuvered quickly, and they're basically relegated to garrisoning the fishnets. On Earth, though? You plop one or two of those in the Strait of Gibraltar and you've basically claimed the Mediterranean. Similar bottlenecks can be exploited in Scandinavia and southeast Asia. It's the same with Paratroopers. Yeah, the ability to "hop" a few squares from a city is normally nigh-useless. But when you can jump back and forth between Spain and North Africa? Or hop the channel from London to Paris? It's pretty freakin' cool.

So I went with the Musketman. He's not completely unimportant. He's just less important than he probably should be. Normally, when I get Gunpowder I'm already planning the quickest path to Rifling. That, or my military is, for whatever reason, not a priority. Now, of course, certain Musketman UU's are really, really powerful (Oromo, Janissary, I'm looking at you; Musketeer, not so much), but that doesn't really make the vanilla Musketman worth building 99 times out of 100.

You play those games on immortal Neal so you don't have that much time? I'ts often a choice, either drafted rifles and spies or cannons but in that case rifling is rather far off and backing up with drafted muskets works fine.

If the damn subs had another use besides scouting and sneaking missiles up to the coast, I'd be all over them. It's why I make the suggestion that they should first have a useful life as anti-ship weapons before they settle into their missile carrying role.


Subs do have an anti-ship role, you just aren't using them correctly. Put a few subs with tactics 2 (total of +30% withdraw to their already high 50% base) in your stack with destroyers and/or battleships, and use them like water-based horse archers. Attack with the subs first, then follow with the main ships. If you did any damage in the sub attack, the main ship can have a much better chance of success.

The chances are at least 4 to 5 that the sub will live to fight another day, and there is a slim chance that the sub could win the battle outright. When that happens, the sub can get 6 or more experience and all of that adds up to more generals.

NPM

I voted for the anti-tank because the only "role" that it has is to upgrade to mechanized infantry with a free ambush promo. They suck at killing tanks because their strength is so low that with the inherent bonus the AT and Tank are only on even ground. With a properly promoted tank, enemy AT is not usually a problem. I find that my AT's in my city either die to enemy infantry or die to the enemy tanks!

NPM

Explorers.

Oh, they're not on the poll ... ironclads then.

Or I'll just select nukes for fun. :)

i guess from the replies the most utter useless unit would be a submersible ironclad carrying anti-tank explorers. :)

ironclads have some use, sort of. just not past the age of sail. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_sail)

paratroopers are the worst, because once you drop them behind enemy lines they are cannon-fodder. and not even inexpensive cannon-fodder.

i use paratroopers to heal tanks stacks in captured cities.
i have usually some GII, some WII, and some Medic II paratroopers.
i drop the later into captured city, and the former two before attack directly on tank stack if it is on hills/forests.
i understand i could do without them, still they seem to accelerate healing a bit and they get damaged on the defence instad of tanks. they shred antitanks, too.

Are you kidding, paratroopers are fantastic units! Just like other specialist units, they're not gonna do well if you use them without thought, just dropping them behind enemy lines for the hell of it.

Drop them in newly captured cities so you don't have to walk through 4 tiles of enemy territory. Use them as medics. Use them as instant city garrisons, especially for PRO leaders. Drop them in enemy territory to help your advancing mech infantries capture cities, because they can't keep up with mech infantries normally. Use them to pillage critical enemy resources.

At the very least, paratroopers are a unit that is interesting enough in its unique abilities that it's hardly worth calling the most useless unit.

Attacko visited me in a dream last night and suggested explorers could be improved if they could also perform espionage missions against civs you have open borders with.

you know, on second thought, great spies really are useless. Useless in the sense that they are the most useless GPs, they can't bulb any techs, (they can build scotland yard though or some kind of spy academy?) and you can settle them in cities (which is only really good if its either early game or you're running representation.

cant they like... do useful spy missions like city revolt? If you could do such things with 100% odds then they'd be nice in my opinion. Infiltration mission helps jack . .. .. .. ., why would I want to view an enemy city's production queue if I can't do anything about it, I can't do DAMAGE.

so considering that they are "great" persons, they are essentially just expensive land scouts.

^you are either laughing or mistaking gravely.

additional EP's from infiltration really help you do damage: it's easier to incite city revolts when you have a lead in EP's, and you can incite much more of these revolts. You can steal techs massively, which requires crazy amount of EP which is long and hard to accumulate in cinventional way. And of top of that, you see his production queue. I'd say it's at least more useful than an artist in most cases.

Hmmm...

Well, I never build Explorers - so I'd call them pointless rather than useless. It's just a scout in a fancy hat isn't it? :p

I've certainly found a use for ironclads before now (esp. popping one out to own all those annoying AI frigates which have been ruining my sea improvements!)

So my vote has to go to...the musketman, with special mention to the machine gunner.

Machine gunners...well, they just die. That's what they seem to do which is pretty useless. Can't attack with them, only defend (but NO defensive bonuses available?!) And when they defend...they die. :confused:

As for my 'winner', the Musketman - :lol: No thanks (waits for rifles...) :D

It very possable you have them when your oppoment only has rifiles and grenders... which they slaughter. Infortry doesn't do too well against them either. Plus the immunity to collatral damage is rather handy when the AI swarms you.

+ you can upgrade guns from grens, in this case they can have CG promotions. They're very useful then. Entrenched CG3 guns are almost invincible.

In MP, a great spy is a spy that cannot be caught. Only problem is it doesn't get the normal road movement bonus, which sucks if the enemy empire is very spread out.

Ironclads are useful. If you are playing Ragnar and get circumnavigation.

Otherwise they are just too slow. I rarely build Ship of Line because of the speed issues too. Yay, it beats frigates. Except it can never catch them.

I actually do build an explorer or 3 fairly often. Since by that time you should be building 5xp units somewhere, a move2 unit with W2/G2 can be stuck on auto and cover a huge amount of ground to clean up those dark corners on your map.

It very possable you have them when your oppoment only has rifiles and grenders... which they slaughter. Infortry doesn't do too well against them either. Plus the immunity to collatral damage is rather handy when the AI swarms you.

+ you can upgrade guns from grens, in this case they can have CG promotions. They're very useful then. Entrenched CG3 guns are almost invincible.

Cheers, that's given me some food for thought re: gunners...perhaps I'll give 'em another go... :)

I'm going to go with stealth destroyer.

Ironclads make for good point defense and work well as stack protectors. One or two navigation ironclads make it much easier to run an amphib assault on an AI with SoL. Also you can get insane mileage out of parking a few and blockading the AI; if you can stop him from making frigates via resource denial you can start to get some insane kill counts when his armada of useless ships suicides into your ironclad.

Stealth destroyers are not so limited, but let's be honest even for a late game guy like me, stealth is way down the tech tree. I have no real need for a new stealth unit, subs work fine and the whole doesn't provide stack defense sucks just a bit. I rarely go to stealth, I rarely need stealth naval units, and even then subs are more cost effective IMO.

I find myself building more ironclads (though even that is rare) than stealth destroyers.

@ston, i really learned about this recently and applied the technique to duckweeds deity warmonger game that was played with Tokugawa. Since there had been a lot of fighting already i got insanely strong gunners from the gren updates. The only thing a a gunner'll always miss is the inherent bonus gunpowder units get. But a mix of a infantry/guns in a hill city is probably more or less unbeatable, i think MP players have known about this all along btw, SP, defense is a bit underrated.

Massed CR arty can beat MG's but they're definitely a useful unit when used properly. Can't say I've tried the ironclad brigade/lockdown but on many maps they can't even get over there :(.

The stealth destroyer is a good point though. I don't think I've ever actually built one of them.

@ston, i really learned about this recently and applied the technique to duckweeds deity warmonger game that was played with Tokugawa. Since there had been a lot of fighting already i got insanely strong gunners from the gren updates. The only thing a a gunner'll always miss is the inherent bonus gunpowder units get. But a mix of a infantry/guns in a hill city is probably more or less unbeatable, i think MP players have known about this all along btw, SP, defense is a bit underrated.

Marines and CR arty can take them down relatively cheap.

In terms of period counters, though the only decent shot is flanking cav in quantity, though a few charge grenadiers or rifles (promoted) can sometimes be had to deliver the final punch. Infantry and MGs means you pretty much have to hit them with arty, though again arty and flanking cavs work great.

I've had CGIII/DIV mgs wipe out >50 cav from shaka though.

Let's see...

TMIT: I see. If you use Sixty-Eight tactical Nukes in a single turn, I see how they could be extremely useful. Heh.

NPM: But what you are describing is the ideal use for the Attack Submarine, and not the 24 strength ordinary sub. To me, what you are describing is like using flanking horse archers to attempt to damage longbows fortified in cities when the real weapon for that job is a knight.

By the way, the guide I'm looking at says that the requirements for an ordinary sub are Radio and either Oil or Uranium. Question: does that mean I could beeline Physics, then research radio and fission (which I assume I need to actually gain access to the uranium) and have submarines before I double back and pick up combustion? It would be unusual, but I suppose it could happen.

At least then I could get my dream of destroying wooden navies with subs.


Lastly, this thread has given me a couple good ideas. I really need to remember to build some CGII grens with the specific intent of turning them into Machine Guns. You know when this strategy would really work? If I'm a protective civ. That's potentially a CGIII Drill I machine gun out of the gate, and then the next three promotions bring it up to Drill IV. Heh. Bring it on Shaka!

ETA: WHOA! Talk about great minds thinking alike. I even got the Shaka thing.

@mirthadir, A Human maybe, AI noway. And i don't think human players will be very happy to see a hill city with a mix of CG3 infantry/guns. Invincible is an exaggeration on my part but it is a strong mix.

But i get the idea, artillery attacks and collats the infantry, marines get 50% against guns and have 24 base against 18 for guns. Flanking cavs might work but you need a lot since the first 2 will probably lose the fight. Admittedly i'd have to test it, using guns is rather new for me. Ai can't handle them i saw but that might also have had something to do with me having more than 20 units minimum/city in 2 cities in the game i mentioned, more than 100 later :lol:.

NPM: But what you are describing is the ideal use for the Attack Submarine, and not the 24 strength ordinary sub. To me, what you are describing is like using flanking horse archers to attempt to damage longbows fortified in cities when the real weapon for that job is a knight.

Oh, I will admit that the 30 str attack sub is better than the 24 str regular sub, but the attack sub requires an additional tech and an additional resource, and one that I find myself (I don't like using nukes) not going for very often. There is usually more important stuff to go for at that time, like industrialism, flight, and mass media.

Yes, the knight is better than the horse archer at damaging LBs in a city but the curassier is better than the knight, and the cavalry is better than the curassier. The point is that you will use the best available unit for the job. If you don't have guilds (or iron for that matter), then you only have horse archers to perform that task.

The regular submarine is the first unit that you can use to reliably pre-damage enemy ships before your destroyers and/or battleships attack the stack, unless you have air units available.

NPM

Oh, I will admit that the 30 str attack sub is better than the 24 str regular sub, but the attack sub requires an additional tech and an additional resource, and one that I find myself (I don't like using nukes) not going for very often. There is usually more important stuff to go for at that time, like industrialism, flight, and mass media.

Yes, the knight is better than the horse archer at damaging LBs in a city but the cuirassier is better than the knight, and the cavalry is better than the cuirassier. The point is that you will use the best available unit for the job. If you don't have guilds (or iron for that matter), then you only have horse archers to perform that task.

The regular submarine is the first unit that you can use to reliably pre-damage enemy ships before your destroyers and/or battleships attack the stack, unless you have air units available.

NPM
Makes sense to me, but I will argue that using a sub to try to make a dent in enemy destroyers is a really lame use for a moderately expensive unit. If I've got radio for subs, then it's highly unlikely that I wouldn't have some sort of air units. While air units can fail in their attacks, they won't actually die in their first attempts to damage a destroyer. Plus, air units can be moved to the front in a single move.

Anyway, even if my idea for the regular subs will never actually be put into play, I did take something out of this discussion. I am absolutely going to use attack subs more frequently in exactly the way you've described using them as part of stacks.

I question everyone ganging up on the Ironclad. I admit, it's not amazing but here are the following reasons I use it:

It's a great seafood defender. I very rarely go on much of an offensive with naval units before oil naval units.. Therefore , I'm rarely building frigates. I very rarely self-research military science so SoLs aren't a priority. So to defend my seafood tiles, the most efficient way to do this is with ironclads.

I don't care about spending precious hammers defending my seafood resources before this. Right around Steel (when you get ironclads), is when health is becoming a big issue. Before that, my cities will most likely be limited by happiness opposed to health. So when I can build ironclads I usually build a few and put them on my seafood. Building extra workboats annoys me.

The other thing that makes ironclads appealing is that with the same tech you discover steel, you can build drydocks. This gives synergy with ironclads and assuming you were going to build a drydock in the city anyways, it saves hammers on the ironclad.


The unit I chose as the weakest unit is the Crossbowman. I rarely go for medeival war, I find it tedious and not worth the time. Since most of the time I'm on may to liberalism, I will have CoS before machinery 99% of the time. So by the time I can build crossbowman I have macemen, which is my opinion, are almost always better. For defense I would normally have longbowmen hopefully. If I can't trade for feudalism for whatever reason, then I might build a few crossbowmen, but it most games I never touch them.

If you're at war, the ironclad is a lot of hammers just for seafood defense. If you aren't at war, you only need to defend your seafood against privateers, and frigs do a fine job of that unless your opponent actually bothers to stack the privs.

I am totally willing to re-evaluate ironclads for purposes of the earth map or other similar maps with coastal choke points, though. :)

Ironclads may have gotten a slight boost with the new patch, where units on sea patrol can now no longer attack if their odds are less than 50%. Ironclads, especially with 10% coastal defense boost, should be able to get at least 50% odds against all units earlier than destroyers, making them perfect for seafood defense.

But if they're used for defense, and the patch said that units on sea patrol were affected, then why would sea patrol units be doing the attacking?

But if they're used for defense, and the patch said that units on sea patrol were affected, then why would sea patrol units be doing the attacking?

I'm a victim of terminology.

Yes they're technically defending, but in one sense they are attacking the pillager as well. I'm not completely sure about who, if anyone, can withdraw.

I have to admit i did vote for ironclads, but my respect for them did go up when this happened (see picture). That's ten wins in a row from that ironclad. Superclad to the rescue! They may not be great, but given the AI's (especially Ragnar) tendency to spam out naval units and then unleash them on your fishing boats, this shows that at least it does its job. So to all of you out there saying "you would make a ship sail by lighting a bonfire under its deck? I have no time for such nonsense!" Give the ironclad a break!

If you can get the ironclad there, you can get extremely good mileage out of parking it off the AI's coast and denying him sea tiles. Yes the whole can't cross deep water thing makes them suck, but being slow does not make them useless nor cost ineffective.

Dirk:

CG III DI-IV MGs are the bane of the AI (Toku, Churchill, Brennus, and especially Boody can make some mean Grenadiers to upgrade into MGs); regular CGIII MGS the AI can take down with enough units. If you have a cav spamming AI, you eventually reach the point where drill MGs are more cost effective than CG.

Yes, you have to have numeric superiority against the MGs to take them down with cav; but it is more cost effective than using cannons and flanking means you should get some highly promoted units out of the deal. Also, flanking cav are great at killing siege protected by MGs in the field.

Personally I find it hilarious that cavalry are the best counter to MGs (until the marines or arty come into play) in game given the historical results of that match up. Riflemen, grenadiers, and infantry, at least, could opt for infiltration at least.

I had a game recently where Ironclads were very useful. If you have Steam Power but not Astronomy, you can still build Ironclads. And if Sitting Bull left you four settled GGs in his capitol, you can Nav II Ironclads right away to chase away pesky Privateers.

As for why I didn't have Astronomy, it's because playing as the Ottomans I took Nationalism with Liberalism for drafting Jannisaries, and I had my vassal Lincoln was researching it for me while I was heading up the tree towards Assembly Line. So it was a pretty narrow window of usefulness, to be sure. I still think Mobile Artillery is less important - Bombers and coastal bombardment can do the same job, faster, and Ironclads at least are the strongest naval unit pre-Combustion, even if they are slow and have a specialized role.

Airship, just what were they thinking?!?
AIRSHIP?!?
It failed even in the real life.
FAILED!
Ironclad is cool, airship isn't, both are 100% useless.

Airship, just what were they thinking?!?
AIRSHIP?!?
It failed even in the real life.
FAILED!
Ironclad is cool, airship isn't, both are 100% useless.

Acturly airship are quiet handy for defence and scouting, - 10 percent health units are much easier to fight off.

I'm suprised at so much hate against ironclad. I have certanly made them useful in archipelago maps if I'm going to war with grenadiers or rifles. By then I usually have a bunch of fregates but they are vunerable to ships of the line. Whipping ironclads in conquered cities to reduce population that is anyway going to starve is a good tactic. They serve as galleon and frigate defenders and to bombard city defenses. There is no great need for speed since most turns is spent loading and unloading units onto ships. Destroyers are not that close to ironclad. A fine unit in my opionion. Ship of the line I never built so far in my games.

I voted anti-tank.

I have to say, I find it amusing that cuirassers and muskets have votes while knights have 0. How many people actively use knights a lot? I noticed that they're not too bad if you can get some spy support (pinch and longbows chasing takes care of most serious counters), but they still feel markedly behind cuirassers as attack units, although admittedly they can be started 20 turns or so sooner even with just plain trading lib techs so possibly you could hit in time to avoid rifle defenders...

I'm surprised about the knights as well. Even when I'm KHAAAAAAAAAN! I don't have a lot of use for them. It is just too likely that they will either run into Pikemen or CG longbows (probably on a hill) at some point in their useful lives. Guilds is an unlikely tech for me to beeline, so it is rare that I would have knights on the battlefield way ahead when the AI can counter it. Also, they require both Iron and Horses, which makes them not exactly the easiest unit to build. Like you said, at least the Cuirassiers stand up much better against the knight killers, plus they are easier to upgrade to cavalry.

Devil's advocate alert

I built a few ironclads in a multi-player game and was happy to. If one is playing an opponent who might be able to actually pull off a half decent intra-continental invasion then they seem OK.

In this same MP game I had Mehmed as a neihgbor. I made a point to build many pinch musketeers. It was clutch against janisaries and nothing else of tech parity is.

Airships? Great for recon. These things aren't expensive, why not have 1 or 2 around to know what's going on with your neihbors?

I haven't voted in this poll. My vote would probably go to stealth destroyer though. It's hard to imagine them making a big difference.

I pick stealth destroyer. It can only defend against other stealth destroyers so it is useless as an escort.

I rarely build ironclads but they can be OK for static defense of sea resources when your opponents don't have destroyers. Plus ironclads can be parked in the areas most likely to see an AI invasion to kill their frigates/galleons (unfortunately the galleons will likely have unloaded first).

i voted ironclads and would've closely followed with grenadiers.
ironclads have a very short life in the game, and often cant travel very well. the only perk of it is its strength, and that is only good when most rivals have wooden navies.
grenadiers would be my second choice for similar reasons. it has a very short life, as i always get to riflemen first, and then grenadiers a bit later and often infantry right after that. therefore, i cant build many grenadiers, and often dont want to put all my funds into creating my melee units grenadiers, as i prefer the rifleman. also, i believe it is more expensive to go from grenadier to infantry than it is for rifleman to infantry, and therefore i rarely have grenadier

I built a few ironclads in a multi-player game and was happy to. If one is playing an opponent who might be able to actually pull off a half decent intra-continental invasion then they seem OK.
:confused:
While I accept it may be able to do *something* in defense against AI idiocy (though I've never bothered), but in MP!? Its time to blow this 'Ironclads are good for defense' myth out of the water...

*Big disproof of Ironclads worth as defense specifically in MP, but also shows why they do so poorly against AI invasions. With pictures!*
These pics are from an obviously WBd game with the +1 move from circumnavigation. Ragnars culture marks the area his Ironclads would be able to travel in. All pics are from the same turn.
http://i591.photobucket.com/albums/ss352/ghpstage/Blockadeexample.jpg?t=1245441610 First blockade by a privateer, notice it is close enough to gain gold from blockading, yet it can't possibly be attacked by an Ironclad. This applies to Frigates, SoLs, and Galleons too, even Galleys in some, occasional cases :eek:...
Also remember that blockade prevents use of fishing boat resources entirely, I really can't see the point of putting an expensive Ironclad out to guard a fishing boat that contributes nothing, better to buy a frigate to try and keep it and lots of other tiles useable. Heck even a caravel has better odds of being useful in these circumstances
http://i591.photobucket.com/albums/ss352/ghpstage/Galleonexample.jpg?t=1245441611 Next is the galleon, it has moved in, dropped off 3 cavalry and got back out. The 1 move left shows it doesn't even need circumnav or nav 1! Even the AI will get units off a Galleon to invade as it waits outside borders before declaring though it will probably leave its ships up close due to being the AI :cringe:
Defense against invasions? Don't make me laugh! :rolleyes:
http://i591.photobucket.com/albums/ss352/ghpstage/Frigateexample.jpg?t=1245441610 Now we have a frigate which has moved in, bombarded and retreated in to a safe distance. This does however rely on Nav 1 or circumnav. Though Nav 1 really isn't difficult to get with Steel
http://i591.photobucket.com/albums/ss352/ghpstage/SoLexample.jpg?t=1245441612 Just to take the mick, we have a Ship of the Line bombarding on the 'blind' corner of the city, not even requiring circumnav or nav 1 and still retreating safely :lol:. Even slow SoLs can completely ignore Ironclads every time in certain (though adittedly rare) circumstances :p
http://i591.photobucket.com/albums/ss352/ghpstage/speed.jpg?t=1245443052 And the final picture shows the movement range of a circumnav (or nav 1) Ironclad against a Sentry ship's (Privateer) sight range.... there are a few ways you can increase your intel around an area such as zig zagging your ships or placing ships further along the coast.
The only ones that may prove an annoyance are Viking cirumnav nav 1+2 Ironclads. Of course this is all assuming the player actually leaves ships in an attackable tile, else they're still worthless!
How exactly can it defend if it can be avoided in just about every circumstance? :lol:


In short they cannot stop blockades, invasions or even decently planned bombardments! Do you intend to block invasions by placing an Ironclad in every coast tile!? :lol:
So please explain how exactly Ironclads can defend against someone capable of decent intercontinental invasions, because I really fail to see any way they can :crazyeye:

They are too slow to reliably attack things, so the only feature Ironclads have that is better than wooden ships is that it is very difficult to kill, the lack of a need for Astronomy may also give it a little weight on Pangea. This however, is only useful in blocking chokepoints and naval ones are very rare OR on offense, which is strictly limited to short distances due to speed and either on the same continent, or an island reachable by coast hopping.

Makes sense to me, but I will argue that using a sub to try to make a dent in enemy destroyers is a really lame use for a moderately expensive unit. If I've got radio for subs, then it's highly unlikely that I wouldn't have some sort of air units. While air units can fail in their attacks, they won't actually die in their first attempts to damage a destroyer. Plus, air units can be moved to the front in a single move.

Anyway, even if my idea for the regular subs will never actually be put into play, I did take something out of this discussion. I am absolutely going to use attack subs more frequently in exactly the way you've described using them as part of stacks.

I think that he's referring to using missiles to do the pre damage. I've started stockpiling these in one fort to be ready to send to the nearest friendly port to a sub. Gotta love those missiles...even if they fly sideways and don't make an explosion...

:confused:
While I accept it may be able to do *something* in defense against AI idiocy (though I've never bothered), but in MP!? Its time to blow this 'Ironclads are good for defense' myth out of the water...

*Big disproof of Ironclads worth as defense specifically in MP, but also shows why they do so poorly against AI invasions. With pictures!*


In my MP game I used them as stationary units next to particularly important coastal cities that only have 1 or 2 tiles of naval entry points. You can park them on the same tile as frigates and whatever other naval units. I used them to defend against the possibility of an opponent invading a city in one turn. If my oponent landed units a couple of tiles away from my city then I could scramble some units from within my empire to defend the city.

The only thing you proved was that on the map you showed irconclads are useless.

On the map I played on, they were not.

They are not meant to be mobile or counter-attack units. They are meant to be tough sitting ducks that hang out (along with some frigates etc.) on water tiles next to important cities (such as a shrine, HE, wonder, GP Farm, culture race city etc.)

OK, it has been “proven” that ironclads are useless against blockades. And that is all that has been “proven.”

On a coastal city with 1 or 2 adjacent water tiles with ironclads defending them, the invasion and bombard scenarios that Ghpstage showed would not have been possible.

Ghpstage goes on to show or "prove" that the ironclad’s slow movement makes it a useless defender because it can not chase down weaker but faster units. This is tantamount to saying the longbowmen is a useless defender because it cannot chase down a chariot. Mobility is important, but mobility does not = defense.

If I were to say “pikemen can be helpful” and then someone made a world builder scenario of a city defended only by pikemen being attacked by a stack of macemen where the city obviously gets taken over, would I have been proven wrong? Think again. ;)

Ironclads should not be the only unit in a player’s navy. They have a certain, small but useful role to fill. They are not necessary every game by any means, but can be helpful.

Indeed I never know why people never look for obvious unit synergies. Take a simple defensive scenario. A very simple way to greatly enhance the mobility of a frigate picket is to station the ironclad offshore as a floating base. You can now place the picket 2 moves offshore which prevents a galleon sprint in for the finish, even with major mobility bonus.

This is exactly like using a cav/MG mix to allow you to forward deploy the cav to harass reinforcements and force the other player to send in reinforcements only in escorted batches.

I mean seriously an Ironclad can't attack and kill ships annoying you, it must be useless for defending territory ... much like a MG.

On another note, you can get ironclads overseas reasonably easily once you hold a bridgehead. Whipping down a newly taken city can easily give you enough ironclads on a new land mass to give you local naval supremacy in the enemy's home waters. Even more powerfully Rushbuying them allows you to build ironclads in mass wherever you can set down a settler or take a city (and this is right about when a Rushbuy CE/MGB strat handily beats out anything else for production).

I'm not saying ironclads are good units, just that their limited mobility is not the end all be all of their usefulness. Certainly I build more of them to blockade the AI, hold chokepoints, and give me floating naval forts than I've used stealth destroyers for anything.

Probably Pikemans.
They come rather late and with my regular tech path I usually build Maces before them.

Probably Pikemans.
They come rather late and with my regular tech path I usually build Maces before them.

Pikemen are anti mounted units. Their main use is to kill off knights/leftover horse archers. War elephants are better or equal as anti mounted units, if I remember correctly, and have a higher base strength.

EDIT: Yeah, elephants cost the same, have the same strength against mounted units(unpromoted), and have 2 higher against everything else, and come earlier. So pikeman are completely useless unless your cities are being attacked by mounted nits and you need fortification.

Like a lot of the units on my list, certain specialty units won't get my consideration because I've found situations where they are VERY important. Most of my games require very few Pikemen, but in the occasional game where I'm about to face down a serious stack of knights, I LOVE the pikeman. Same idea for X-bows and anti-tank. When you need them, YOU NEED THEM. It's why I voted Submarine, although I now know about a situation where I could see NEEDING them. It's also why I'd consider Cuirassiers or Knights for my vote. I find it pretty rare for me to actually NEED either of those two units to accomplish a goal. I generally build more of them than either pikes or x-bows, but that doesn't make them more important.


I think that he's referring to using missiles to do the pre damage. I've started stockpiling these in one fort to be ready to send to the nearest friendly port to a sub. Gotta love those missiles...even if they fly sideways and don't make an explosion...

I don't think so. If I remember correctly, the original post was about the 80% withdraw chance as a useful way to make a dent in destroyers. For this to work, you need to then hide the severely damaged subs under unharmed surface ships, which one would assume are also destroyers. So the strategy is to build 24 strength subs, give them flanking II, sail them in packs with destroyers (therefore slowing down the destroyers to Sub speed), attack the enemy destroyers with the flanking subs and then finish them off with your own destroyers. I guess the next move would be to sail all of your terribly damaged subs back to a port for repairs and then do it again. Like I was trying to say, it sure seems like you'd be a lot better off building a couple aircraft carriers and attacking with fighters. Give one ship in the stack the medic promotion and you'll be able to repair your fighters out at sea, or you can even send the damaged ones back to shore and deploy fresh ones while only losing a single turn.

You can't do that with subs, and you can't reload your subs with missiles in the middle of the ocean.

As far as I'm concerned, the ordinary sub is almost worthless as a ship versus ship* weapon, and there's really no reason why that should be the case.




* I have been schooled on what they are good for, so until I start fighting wars with tactical nukes, I will continue to think the sub is just about the least important unit for me.

That many players think Musketmen are useless? As a gunpowder unit they can't be countered without promotions, unlike the macemen and knights on the field. They also aren't affected by walls and castles, so it's not always necessary to bombard a city with a castle down to 0% which takes forever. Draftable, I heard that macemen are also draftable if for some reason you got nationalism before gunpowder although I haven't done that ever.

I picked swordsmen, since they cost more than axemen and the 10% city attack bonus isn't all that much, and you lose the 50% versus melee.

Ironclads are another terrible unit most of the time, Ship of the Line is a lot more mobile.

From the list I simply picked the one unit that I hardly have ever build and that is the submarine. Battleships and destroyers are simply better if you ask me. I have build my share of ironclads to protect sea food. They are only defensive units if you ask me. Machine guns are units I really love. Great city defenders, good against airships (another unit I love) and incredible stack defenders.

From the list I simply picked the one unit that I hardly have ever build and that is the submarine. Battleships and destroyers are simply better if you ask me. I have build my share of ironclads to protect sea food. They are only defensive units if you ask me. Machine guns are units I really love. Great city defenders, good against airships (another unit I love) and incredible stack defenders.

I think, if I survive long enough, in the Open Roll Play Challenge Atlantis game, I am going to build a bunch of submarines. Given that the other civs won't be able to build steel ships due to a lack of oil and uranium, it might be really useful to have a bunch of submarines firing torpedoes into the wooden ships shortly after they left the safety of their own cities.

Submarines also carry missile units. All kinds of missile units. Even the kind that completely eradicate stacks.

Submarines also carry missile units. All kinds of missile units. Even the kind that completely eradicate stacks.I remember you explaining this to me. Especially the part with the 64 tactical nukes/navy seals/mass capitulation demonstration.

Airship, what good do you think you do? :)
But I keep on building them, just because they are the first air units in the game!! :)

Airship, what good do you think you do? :)
But I keep on building them, just because they are the first air units in the game!! :)

They're great for spotting subs - something no other air unit does.

Air ships are just wonderfull support units. As soon as I can build them I will build at least 8-12 of them and start harassing and bombing with them. You can even take cities with just cavalries since the top defenders are all hurt.

Ironclad

:(

I would like to build one but what use would I have for it?

I think that he's referring to using missiles to do the pre damage. I've started stockpiling these in one fort to be ready to send to the nearest friendly port to a sub. Gotta love those missiles...even if they fly sideways and don't make an explosion...

No, I'm referring to attacking with the sub itself. I have rarely ever built missles, let alone put them on subs.

NPM

But, what's up with the Ironclad?
Is it that bad?

Ironclad

:(

I would like to build one but what use would I have for it?


Coastal resources defender.

Coastal resources defender.

Are you going to build one for every coastal resource?

I'd rather use ships of the line, or ideally frigates + airships if I can trade for physics w/o major concessions. I guess an iron clad could serve in that role if truly needed though.

Are you going to build one for every coastal resource?

I'd rather use ships of the line, or ideally frigates + airships if I can trade for physics w/o major concessions. I guess an iron clad could serve in that role if truly needed though.


I do that often for resources that are most likely to be pillaged in a case of war (and war is somewhat likely). If resources are close together I use patrol command instead of building separate stacks of ironclads for each resource, obviously.

Maybe its not the best way to protect resources, maybe there are alternate (better!) ways, but still, Ironclad has its uses, performs its duty fairly well and is certinly far from "most useless" unit in the game. In my opinion, explorer is like hundred times worse than Ironclad. I bet people dont vote for it only because they forget it exists at all (never been built in past 5 years) :D

I do that often for resources that are most likely to be pillaged in a case of war (and war is somewhat likely). If resources are close together I use patrol command instead of building separate stacks of ironclads for each resource, obviously.

Maybe its not the best way to protect resources, maybe there are alternate (better!) ways, but still, Ironclad has its uses, performs its duty fairly well and is certinly far from "most useless" unit in the game. In my opinion, explorer is like hundred times worse than Ironclad. I bet people dont vote for it only because they forget it exists at all (never been built in past 5 years) :D

Make no mistake, had explorer been an option, it'd have gotten my vote. It's garbage for sure. They should at least let it attack, it's not like it would do especially well anyway being 4 str...but at least it would have SOME use.

Yeah I just checked first post to see why on Earth explorer is not here. Well it makes sense to exclude it as obviously no. 1 useless :) we need some discussion after all.

So you voted for Ironclad? What about Carrier then, does it have more uses? So far I used it only for flavor purposes (really like carriers and all things military aviation ;) ).

Yeah I just checked first post to see why on Earth explorer is not here. Well it makes sense to exclude it as obviously no. 1 useless :) we need some discussion after all.

So you voted for Ironclad? What about Carrier then, does it have more uses? So far I used it only for flavor purposes (really like carriers and all things military aviation ;) ).

Carriers + fighters can be used to cost-effectively overwhelm anything basically, since they're not capped like cities. At tech parity or better they're absolutely dominating. I've used them + cavalry to beat industrial AI armies with ease.

A built explorer can be useless, I agree.
But if you have a lucky scout, the warlord explorer can be the top medic.
Best regards,

Why would you want to upgrade the medic scout? :confused: To make him more susceptible of being the best defender ? ;)

OK from the given list, Ironclad probably is the most useless... meaning not that it cannot be usefull, but that every other unit in the list is more usefull/versatile.

I still fail to see how a stealth destroyer is more useful than an ironclad.
Both suck and we agree, but at least I can see some options for the ironclad.

But a stealth destroyer?

I still fail to see how a stealth destroyer is more useful than an ironclad.
Both suck and we agree, but at least I can see some options for the ironclad.

But a stealth destroyer?

With a bit of a tech lead (and the AIs never prioritize Stealth in my games), Stealth Destroyers can operate in enemy territory with impunity, picking off damaged units, scouting, and intercepting weaker units (the native first strikes give them a small advantage against regular Destroyers). I have trouble operating conventional warships in AI territory unless I have an overwhelming superiority - simply because chasing down damaged (or healthy) AI ships often means than my own ship will be damaged in turn and probably lost if the AI has other healthy ships nearby.

I grant you that it is a niche unit, but being wholly invulnerable to counterattack until the AI has Stealth has its uses. But obviously, it comes too late in the tech tree to be useful in most games.

Ironclads are a 1-use unit (defense) and are too slow to react well to an enemy incursion. And they have a fairly short window before Combustion/Destroyers makes them obsolete.

In terms of specific units, I agree that Ironclads are probably the least useful for the least amount of time; however, the least useful UU is the one that you can't build. Phalanxes and Vultures without bronze are completely useless, as are War Chariots, Immortals, Keshiks and Numidians without horses, or Praetorians without Iron. Early UU can be completely useless due to lack of the proper resource.

Rolo: it depends on the epoch/turn and civ/traits; if the explorer is still the weaker, as the others are rifles,grenadiers, cannons, then it moves faster on safer tiles and can always be on time.
Best regards,

Hi

I used to rate ironclads as most useless but I think the sea patrol mission gives em new life. Now you can just park one in middle of your capitols big seafood group and they will attack and usually kill any all frigates or SoL's that try to pillage. And if there is no group of seafood putting them on top of it is even better.

ANd yeah I know you can make your own firgates and SoL's but sometimes ironclads are better. Its been more than a few games were I have been isolated cuz either its a LHC game or I cleared off my land mass or osmething so havent warred all that much but meanwhile some AI whose been at war and generateing GG's since the BC's will just put 4 or 5 or more in ONE city and then pump out combat 3 and even 4 frigates right out the box like there no tomorrow and meanwhile Im LUCKY if I have maybe a cpl of combat 2 ones that used to be triemes. So Ironclads keep the seafood safe and let you save your wooden ship for offense. (plus ironclads are a cheaper upgrade to destroyers)

Now I would have to say its the aircraft carrier. Just seems like max of 3 fighters is just meh. Especially since I still remember civ2 days where a carrier could carry like 8 bomber or cruise missles or nukes. Now THOSE carriers packed a punch.

I admit just seeing the limit stops me from using them but I DID try one time when having to attack an ai civ who was keeping up in tech with me and had infantry and sams and fighters of their own so just droppping off a stack of infantry and marines and artillery and waiting a turn would have HURT so I buile like 5 carriers loaded with fighters to go with my attack stack. Between being intercpeted/shot down a grand total of ONE figher actually did damage to the garrison and I think all but like 3 of my figheters got shot down and those that lived through being intercepted were so shot up they would be useless for several turns while they heal. And since you cant rebase fighters to carriers that was pretty much IT for that airgroup's contribution to my invasion. I think I would have just been better off using the hammers that went into them to making a bigger landing stack to abosrb more of the collateral damage when they land and wait for a turn.

Kaytie

You can rebase fighters to carries, no?

Carriers are one of the easiest ways to concentrate air power in any one spot on the map, whether it be in enemy territory or at home.

I would find it very rare to consider them one of the least useful units. I'd probably even build them on pangaea maps if the need was there.

You can rebase fighters to carries, no?

Carriers are one of the easiest ways to concentrate air power in any one spot on the map, whether it be in enemy territory or at home.

I would find it very rare to consider them one of the least useful units. I'd probably even build them on pangaea maps if the need was there.

Yes, you can rebase to carriers regardless of carrier location. 50+ planes on one tile is lights out for almost anything (nukes would do them in, but that'd be the day where the AI uses those properly...), but usually far less is plenty. Tank coming in? Bam...14 str and now it can't attack your cavalry effectively, or even your rifles. Infantry gunpowder bonus? Ha! It couldn't even beat cuirassers now!

I used to rate flight lower but lately I've been putting it up on my priority list for some game types (when I'm not trying to brute force a victory while backwards ---> I just learned that musket + cannon can in fact take down an equal-sized AI that starts with machine guns and flight and gets infantry halfway through, and with better than 1:1 kills/death.). Fighters on carriers are good for pillaging certain resources, too...If they don't have oil hooked up yet there's no reason to let them do so ;). Watch uranium too though, once the AI gets fission it can use its metal navy if you let it keep the uranium.

Hi

I guess thats why I find carriers so "meh" yeah maybe getting like 50 or so planes going might do the job but then so would 50 marines or 50 paratroopers or 50 tanks especially if that in ADDITION to the stacks you are gonna be making even if you do build 50 planes and the carriers to hold em and unlike those 50 planes those other units can actually capture a city if and then help hold it. Heck I would even find more use out of 50 extra cannon or arties than 50 planes. Maybe it wouldnt be so bad if I would just need 10 or less carriers to move em around. thats my BIGGEST gripe with em they just have way too low crago capacity and SHOULD be able to carry bombers and even being able to ship paratroopers and let em do drops from em would be fun too. that and fact that 80% of em get shot down or intercepted without doing ANY damage. At least when a cannon dies trying to attack its still done some damage to SOMETHING.

Like I said maybe it my play style or just being spoiled by memoreies of carriers in civ2 that could carry 8 bombers or 8 missles (and even then I kind kept asking why cant they carry paratroopers?) But I had the same problem with civ3 carriers they just dont pack anywhere near the punch of the ones in civ2.

Yeah if you mass like 50 of em they can be doing some damage but like I said if I have to mass THAT much of anything in a stack to get job done carriers and fighters waaaay down on list of what I would rather have 50 of.

Kaytie

Hi

I guess thats why I find carriers so "meh" yeah maybe getting like 50 or so planes going might do the job but then so would 50 marines or 50 paratroopers or 50 tanks especially if that in ADDITION to the stacks you are gonna be making even if you do build 50 planes and the carriers to hold em and unlike those 50 planes those other units can actually capture a city if and then help hold it. Heck I would even find more use out of 50 extra cannon or arties than 50 planes. Maybe it wouldnt be so bad if I would just need 10 or less carriers to move em around. thats my BIGGEST gripe with em they just have way too low crago capacity and SHOULD be able to carry bombers and even being able to ship paratroopers and let em do drops from em would be fun too. that and fact that 80% of em get shot down or intercepted without doing ANY damage. At least when a cannon dies trying to attack its still done some damage to SOMETHING.

Like I said maybe it my play style or just being spoiled by memoreies of carriers in civ2 that could carry 8 bombers or 8 missles (and even then I kind kept asking why cant they carry paratroopers?) But I had the same problem with civ3 carriers they just dont pack anywhere near the punch of the ones in civ2.

Yeah if you mass like 50 of em they can be doing some damage but like I said if I have to mass THAT much of anything in a stack to get job done carriers and fighters waaaay down on list of what I would rather have 50 of.

Kaytie

Except that they're essentially highly mobile siege that can both bombard and strike pretty deep inland. Usually 12 are enough with a tech lead to mess the AI up pretty nicely. You only need 30+ fighters once the AI starts using air-based interceptions. I used 50 as an example because THAT will work against ANY AI setup, even stealth...

Don't forget they allow naval initiative to win easily and are the only way to damage defenders (short of nukes) when attacking amphibiously. If damaged they swap out almost instantly ----> unlike conventional siege you can rebase them from anywhere in the world. You say the cargo is an issue, but frequently you get to economize on transports by subbing in air power...so it's not as bad as implied.

As I said they're pretty good even at tech parity but they're especially ridiculous when the AI target doesn't have flight. SAMs, ATs, and MG's in AI hands are unimpressive - there's very little to check your fighters and unless the AI city has a huge amount of defenders the fighters will hurt them so badly that you can fight with ground troops a full era behind with minimal losses.

That one emperor island crap start map I did recently was a good example ---> I'd land a stack of cavalry, then just maul everything with fighters. I'd cut resources/roads, lower infantry to 10 str where pinch cavalry beat them easily, and even beat down tanks using combat II/III cavalry vs 14 str (and injured units don't do as well as full strength ones given a str value) tanks. Nothing held up...cavalry losses post-flight were very minimal despite going up against troops available along the assembly line/industrialism path...and they double plenty well for beating on the AI navy.

Finally, you can hit with them FAST. A set of 4 airships upgrades to fighters for 320 gold on normal speed. Upgrading a good 12 airships to fighters straight away can make invasions go lightning fast...

Hi

Oh I love using fighters to weaken stuff and do know they are earliest option to damage defenders for an amphib attack without landing troops by the city first. Now when I am a little ahead of the ai techwise it not usually a problem. Land the stack next to the city-on a hill if I can. let it absorb the counter attack. Then use siege to do some damage to the defenders.

But that strat can be a PAIN if ai same tech as you and is just as stronger or tronger than you. Wave after wave of arty coming from ALL over thanks to RR's then tons of other units can really mess up an even largish stack.

So that why that one time I tried the carrier route. 5 carriers 15 fighters against a city with full garrison of fighters on intercept plus a few sams and mg's. And one after the other--your fighetr was intercepted, your fighter was shot down, I did get a few your fighter shot down and enemy fighter trying to intercept or something like that. But when it was all said and done. ONE fighter managed to actually damage ONE single unit. And I only had 3 fighters left at the end and all badly wounded. And whole time I was thinking sheesh if that had been 15 cannon and even if ALL of them died there at least there would be TONS of woulnded defenders and they city would be LOTS easier to take. So I would have been better off just putting the hammers into a making a BIGGER landing stack to handle counter attacks for that one turn since I had to land seige anyways thanks to that fiasco the fighters turned out to be.

I still like to use fighters to attack stuff out in the open until I get bombers and they DO help speed things up if you have em and the ai doesnt but if you ahead in tech they not necessary and if the ai has em too they not THAT helpful. Well they ARE helpful and I do love airlifting em over once I start conquering cities and rebase em into the captured cities and do LOVE having them attack income stacks and fleet but again out of cities.

In actually taking a city on a forreign landmass to get that initial first city the one time I tried fighters they werent impressive so for now at least when I invade overseas Ill just take TONS of siege and other units and then rebase fighters to help out later as I gather cities and since doing that makes carriers unnecessary for me at least the one of the most useless units. Maybe I didnt build enough and try a game where I build a TON of carriers.

As for rebasing them him I guess I not doing it right. Obviously I havent messed with carriers THAT much but few times I have I always remember TRYING to get a fighter onto an empty carrier thats out to say but always having to make that carrier go into a city then send the fighter to the city and then have it "load" onto the carrier. Maybe if I figure out what I am messing up there carriers might sseem more attractive.

but I dont know I still love my big land stacks hehe :P Plus it is IS hard to get over how they just NOT what they were in civ2.

Kaytie

Due to the combat mechanics for air units, most battles will see the attacker or defending fighter killed. If you are attacking a city defended by 8 fighters you will need an overwhelming numbers advantage. I think losing as many fighters as you did was on the unlucky side. Usually fighters will not be shot down by intercepting land/sea units unless the fighter is damaged.

I'm not 100% sure about this but combat promos on fighters seem to make a big difference to the odds of surviving dogfights. Also, never try to use regular fighters against an opponent with jet fighters. It will end in tears.

But, what's up with the Ironclad?
Is it that bad?

It's not bad but it's kinda like a one trick pony. If you're teching up quickly enough by the stage you get ironclads you'll eventually get destroyers.

Ironclads and Machine Guns are by far the worst.

Due to the combat mechanics for air units, most battles will see the attacker or defending fighter killed. If you are attacking a city defended by 8 fighters you will need an overwhelming numbers advantage. I think losing as many fighters as you did was on the unlucky side. Usually fighters will not be shot down by intercepting land/sea units unless the fighter is damaged.

I'm not 100% sure about this but combat promos on fighters seem to make a big difference to the odds of surviving dogfights. Also, never try to use regular fighters against an opponent with jet fighters. It will end in tears.

Fighters vs Jets depends upon the number of promos. CIV fighters (Cha with some crap or a long air war prior) can do reasonably well against jets. Just send in a few suicide units and the high promo fighters will down the jets.

Argh, I broke the golden rule, never say never in Civ. :lol:

You guys will have to remember my opinion is from someone who hasnt played Civ4 as much as the experts here so i may not understand the full potential of a unit.

I know the ironclad has been mention and i would too but historically the game may be correct. How long did the ironclads really last in the American Civil War? Im not sure if they lasted very long afterwards or if they did.

Maybe it depends on the settings you start with but for me the Warrior has been pretty much useless. I hardly get attacked before archers come along and id rather have a scout doing his job than a warrior exploring. Oh sure a warrior is nice if you need something cheap and quick but i rarely see that.

Now if i played on the highest level it might be different but im not interested in learning to win at all costs but stay at a level to where it is fun and i am being challenged though not overwelmed.

Well, the fact is that the ironclad , in terms of gameplay, is a very bad unit for direct naval engagement , because they can be dodged by the wooden ships and are eaten alive by the oil navy. That is why people don't like them ( that and the coastal + civ's waters restriction ). The only hting that they are good at is at killing wooden ships that were stupid enough of not running away in time and in blockading, and that is in average less useful than any other ship in game.

Oh and about historicity ( @ averagejoe ):

True and false. Yes, ironclads were a short-lived form of ship. But the fact is that the ironclad in game represents all of the coal-powered ships and in that regard it is a absurdely bad unit. A 1900 state of the art coal-powered battleship ( using steam turbines ) would probably give a lot more of fight against a WW II destroyer than a Civ IV ironclad vs a destroyer :p

A late era coal powered dreadnought would decimate any destroyers up until they started loading them out with missiles and long range torps. 13.5' guns (like on the Iron Duke, the last class of coal powered dreadnoughts) will shread the armor on any destroyer ever built (including modern destroyers). Depending upon escorts and armaments a late era coal ship might have been able to beat (or at least to withdraw) an oil destroyer up until the Korea/Vietnam era.

I'm still trying to figure out what a stealth destroyer is actually for. At that point in the game naval combat is decided by missiles/nukes/carriers. If you need a naval picket just to go bombard the coast, you know have the refrig bonus and quite likely can swing navigation anything else; which makes city to city hopping quite easy. If I do want something to kill weak ships and hide, subs are sooner and easier to come by.

As rare as it is for me to have a use for an ironclad, I still find myself in a position to build them FAR more often than stealth destroyers. Naval choke points, using them for bombardment duty/stack protection as I don't want to dick around with SoL, and blockading a wooden navy are rare, but much less rare than needy yet another late game sneaky ship.

I'd consider dreadnought battleships like the Iron Duke class to be Battleships in the Civ4 context. Rename the ironclad "Pre-dreadnought", boost it to STR 20 (and maybe increase the hammer cost), and eliminate the coastal restriction and you have a semi-useful ship.

Real world pre-dreadnoughts would have a hard time with WWII era destroyers simply because their guns didn't have an effective range long enough to hit destroyers before the latter got within torpedo range. Compound that with being very slow and not being well compartmentalized against underwater damage, and it's not a pretty picture.

Pikemen are anti mounted units. Their main use is to kill off knights/leftover horse archers. War elephants are better or equal as anti mounted units, if I remember correctly, and have a higher base strength.

EDIT: Yeah, elephants cost the same, have the same strength against mounted units(unpromoted), and have 2 higher against everything else, and come earlier. So pikeman are completely useless unless your cities are being attacked by mounted nits and you need fortification.

Pikemen are the counter for a mounted unit that can't be countered by War Elephants -- the War Elephant. And the AI's build lots of Elephants if they have Ivory. (I assume humans in MP do so as well.)

I'd consider dreadnought battleships like the Iron Duke class to be Battleships in the Civ4 context. Rename the ironclad "Pre-dreadnought", boost it to STR 20 (and maybe increase the hammer cost), and eliminate the coastal restriction and you have a semi-useful ship.

Real world pre-dreadnoughts would have a hard time with WWII era destroyers simply because their guns didn't have an effective range long enough to hit destroyers before the latter got within torpedo range. Compound that with being very slow and not being well compartmentalized against underwater damage, and it's not a pretty picture.

Meh I view civ battleships as Queen Elizabeth and afterwards, afterall they require oil or uranium. Really what you need is Monitor style "ironclad" at steam power which is coastal restricted and gets a bonus vs wooden ships. Have either railroad or steam power + assembly line open up armoured and protected cruisers which require coal and iron; the former are higher strength, the later much more mobile. This increases the strategic options a navy has in the event it lacks oil (like oh say the British navy of the early 20th century).

I don't care what people say. Ironclads, at times, have their usefulness.

Stealth destroyers, on the other hand, come way too late. And, no, the two first strikes don't make up for their inability to intercept air units.

Why would a bomber do intercept job? :confused: That is the same as asking to use axes to guard seafood vs barb galleys....

And please do not bring the "too late" argument. That only means that the person that says it is playing a ancient start and/or playing in a level to low for their skill in 90% of the cases.....

rolo: I'm not one to normally give credence to the "too late" arguement but this IS stealth we're talking about, one of the terminal techs in the game.

For culture victories, its useless. Long before you get that far up you've turned off science (or EP) and it simply isn't worth teching.

For diplomatic victories it is only useful for diplomation type tactics. It is not even good trade/extortion bait given AI tech preferences.

For warfare, it is the last military tech in the game. While stealth bombers are powerful, they are also expensive. By that time you've already had the chance to play with nukes, jets, and most likely MArty.

Aside from that, you have the problem that a single plane + a normal destroyer beat them. That they suck at defense. At that their slight offensive advantage is meaningless as by this point in time you fight naval action at a range first.

I'm a late game guy and I certainly don't build stealth destroyers. What is their actual use?