Key factors for UUs and UBs.

Overpowered is a poor expression too. You list almost half the UUS in the game as gamebreaking. How can about half the units in the game be overpowered? Besides, many of those are FAR from overpowered. Some are directly weak, like the Navy SEAL because it comes so late it's irrelevant in 99% of games. The warrior is a better unit than the Navy SEAL. I'm not even kidding.

It's a nice idea to rank everything btw, but as you perhaps understand from the comments and feedback, it's a difficult task because the game is very complex. But what experienced players will know is that what happens in the early game, say the first 100 turns, is much, much, MUCH more important than what happens in the end game. Therefore early UUs, allowing you to get more land faster and cheaper, is much more powerful than a late era UU that will at best have negligible impact on wars.

Okay, if you start in the Modern era, those units will be good, but how many do that? Not many I would wager.

Seraiel said:

elitetroops already gave a lot examples, but in general, I don't find it good, that you let us do your work, like when you suggest that we should compare certain units in all categories you give. It's your wish to categorize UU in certain categories, not ours, and if your categories lead to severly flawed perceptions, you need to adjust the weight with which every factor gets rated. It totally doesn't matter what's in theory, in the real game, War Chariots and Immortals own they era hardcore. They have 2 moves (something that i. e. isn't even mentioned in your ratings, though it's a major factor) , so they can threaten 2 cities at once, making the AI sometimes move defenders from one city to the other which leaves them on the open field, where they're easy to slaughter. War Chariots and Immortals are definitely worthy of a +++ in STR.

Click to expand...

OK. You convinced me to rise them both )

Test those things out yourself, if you don't have the War Chariot and the Immortal right after the Quechua, and Praets on par with WCs / Immortals or slightly behind them, noone will take this guide serious. Go the way of "weighting the categories" is your best bet. It may be nice to judge UUs with more than 1 category, but if the date at which the unit comes has the same weight as it's dependancy on metal or it's combat str, something is completely wrong, because in 95% of the games which end with Cavalries and Airships, the Navy Seel doesn't even exist, therefore he must be rated below the worst UUs of the game.

Click to expand...

The weight of key factors clearly is not the same. But it's too hard, maybe impossible to weight them. The total sums of pluses and minuses is a very illusionary thing. So, I calculated this more for fun and simplicity. The same correct and about the 10 leaders.

Main subject of this article, that not only combat ability is important, but there are several thing you should take into consideration.

All Ranks for fun. Any. Even if we come to common decision, next day smbd comes, and he will be absolutely disagree.

Same with Oromo, when that guy enters the game, Egypt, Persia and Rome have already taken so many cities of the map, that they have several times the power of Oromos could ever bring. Most units won't even give a better ranking than the standard-non-UU War Elephant imo., because Elephants and Catapults own everything until including Pikes. Or for example, Praets + Cannons are way better than Oromo's + Cannons, because with Cannons, it doesn't matter if the clean-up-unit has a little extra STR, though the way cheaper Praets probably even are on par with the Oromos because they have CR.

Click to expand...

Still this polemic is not main theme, Oromo doesn't need CR promo if you have cannons that have CR. (even if have trebuchets) But Praets are bad defenders if we talk about late Medieval, and your cannons could be easily attacked on the way to city.

Regarding die argument that WM3 is better than Guerilla 3, it's not. WM3 has advantages when attacking units on Forest tiles, Guerilla 3 when attacking hills, how many cities do you know are on Forests and how many are on hills? Also, 50% retreat is much more than 2 additionial Firststrikes.

Click to expand...

"City argument" is strong. This is true. But in fact, to assault cities you should take CR, instead of Woodsman or Guerilla. My view, that Woodsman and Guerilla more for scouting, pillaging and fighting in difficult terrain.

And here is my main argument: attackin forest (+50% defence) is more difficult than attacking hills (+25% defence). Also, I totally disagree, 50% retreat is better than 2 firststrikes. At first, retreat never help in defence. At second, retreat is only useful, when you have low chance of victory, but FS works always.

And I don't want to come of as arrogant, but you said we have "different" CIV experience. It's also that we have more experience on difficulties higher than the one you play, so Immortal + Deity, so plz accept this critique, it's really with the best intentions which are, that your guide doesn't get 1 or 0 star ratings once it's finished.

Click to expand...

I had won on all difficulties and playing on Emperor, because it keeps fun and doesn't transform my game into permanent calculations and micromanagement. I play, for example, with automated workers and scouts, and this is a handicap that I give to AI.

What about critique, I listen carefully. When you show your own experience, it's not a critique, it's just experience. When you have some strong arguments, e.g. calculations (like elitetroops made), I always pay my attention to it and ready to change my point of view.

Iwo Jima said:

Anyway, I believe, that Numidian is very good unit, because of fast gaining exp. Also, numidians much better kills enemy stacks, 'cause they do not fear spearmen. This task is nearly impossible for pure HA.

Click to expand...

HAs can handle spearmen just fine. Numidians are not even that much stronger than HAs in those battles. Between HAs and Numidians, the difference in odds vs archers in cities is usually much greater than the difference vs spears in cities.

And I must ask, have you ever actually played a real HA rush? One where you take out several opponents, if not conquer the entire map with HAs? Here are the units killed in one of the best games ever played, WastinTime's 1100BC large marathon deity game, where he mostly used HAs to conquer the map.



Look at those numbers and tell me why you would prefer a unit that is marginally stronger vs melee units, but a lot weaker vs archers.

I agree with Seraiel that the versatility category is not very important. To decide if a unit is game breaking, all that really matters is if it can help you expand faster, which in practice mostly means "how good is the unit at taking cities". Quechuas, immortals and war chariots all excel at that task at the time when it matters the most. The fast worker is a special unit, because it can help you expand faster by other means.

No offense, but such a point system does not reflect how 'good' a unique unit really is, especially when it is this point system. Why does resource dependence only give 1+/-, while it is way more important than 'legacy' which gives up to 3? Your 'real game breaker' list suggests that you don't actually know this game really well. I mean out of your list I would only call Quechua, Immortal and Praetorian gamebreakers (why isn't War Chariot on this list?). But maybe you made this for lower levels, in that case any unit is OP in the hands of a human.

Iwo Jima said:

What about critique, I listen carefully. When you show your own experience, it's not a critique, it's just experience. When you have some strong arguments, e.g. calculations (like elitetroops made), I always pay my attention to it and ready to change my point of view.

Click to expand...

Sry bro, but my experience is a strong and heavy argument. I'm not sure that you're aware of it, but I have the Deity Elite Quattromaster HoF achievement as 1 of 8 players from these forums. To gain that, I needed to win at least one game with every leader, on every map, every possible victory, later era starts, on all speeds and have finished at least 1 Major and 1 Minor Gauntlet, and on top, I achieved all of this on Deity. I could bet, that you won't find more of a handful of players on these forums, that know civs from playing or from having been enemies equally good as me.

If you just listen to my experience but don't feel the need to change your view because of it, I'll stop giving any form of critique, because you're not worthy of it.

Seraiel said:

Sry bro, but my experience is a strong and heavy argument. I'm not sure that you're aware of it, but I have the Deity Elite Quattromaster HoF achievement as 1 of 8 players from these forums. To gain that, I needed to win at least one game with every leader, on every map, every possible victory, later era starts, on all speeds and have finished at least 1 Major and 1 Minor Gauntlet, and on top, I achieved all of this on Deity. I could bet, that you won't find more of a handful of players on these forums, that know civs from playing or from having been enemies equally good as me.

If you just listen to my experience but don't feel the need to change your view because of it, I'll stop giving any form of critique, because you're not worthy of it.

Click to expand...

It's up to you. I'm glad, that you are such a good player, but your argument is similar that professor is always right just because he is a professor. When I wad studying in University (+25% ), professors made mishaps very often. It doesn't tell that they know their subject too bad, but as soon the subject is very complicated, it's very easy to make a mistake. So, the status is not an argument, even if you are the best player on the forum (and I believe, you are one of them for sure), but only describing, analysis and calculations could be the real critique. Your critique doesn't help at all, if you only say: "You're wrong because my experience is more important". It will not be clear not to me, not to other readers. So, I always ask you to give true arguments.

Finally, I feel calm to change smth in my article. I don't look at it as a subject of my pride or smth that give me status. I dont collect stars here. I gave my own point of veiw on the very debatable (and I knew it in the beginning) question. Now, I collect points of veiw from other players. It would be strange, if we all have absolutely equal evaluations. So, took part in the discussion, if you feel interest.

And Seraiel, I don't like when we discuss each other personally instead of discussing the topic. It takes much time and energy, but brings nothing.

Pangaea said:

Overpowered is a poor expression too. You list almost half the UUS in the game as gamebreaking. How can about half the units in the game be overpowered? Besides, many of those are FAR from overpowered. Some are directly weak, like the Navy SEAL because it comes so late it's irrelevant in 99% of games. The warrior is a better unit than the Navy SEAL. I'm not even kidding.

Click to expand...

My list in the text needs to be corrected and described, as I wrote it before made a table. If "overpowered" is bad term too, suggest your own

About Navy SEAL pls read previous comments. I wrote, that I divide these factors - just imagine, if the game will be played 1000 turns after Navy SEAL is researched. Is it overpowered unit or not? So, just to be fair, Navy SEAL gets his pluses in "strength" column, and his minuses in "Age" and "Lifespan" columns.

I dont like Navy SEAL, just trying to be consequent.

Pangaea said:

It's a nice idea to rank everything btw, but as you perhaps understand from the comments and feedback, it's a difficult task because the game is very complex. But what experienced players will know is that what happens in the early game, say the first 100 turns, is much, much, MUCH more important than what happens in the end game. Therefore early UUs, allowing you to get more land faster and cheaper, is much more powerful than a late era UU that will at best have negligible impact on wars.

Okay, if you start in the Modern era, those units will be good, but how many do that? Not many I would wager.

Click to expand...

If you think, that Age of Origin is very important, you could suggest a high weight for this factor in overall sum. My idea was to denote some key factors. Evaluation and ranking much more complicated task that never could be accomplished.

oranje willem said:

No offense, but such a point system does not reflect how 'good' a unique unit really is, especially when it is this point system. Why does resource dependence only give 1+/-, while it is way more important than 'legacy' which gives up to 3? Your 'real game breaker' list suggests that you don't actually know this game really well. I mean out of your list I would only call Quechua, Immortal and Praetorian gamebreakers (why isn't War Chariot on this list?). But maybe you made this for lower levels, in that case any unit is OP in the hands of a human.

Click to expand...

I made this table with pluses and minuses just for greater visibility. At first, I had no idea to sum values from all columns and making total ranking. It was spontanous idea and I commented, that the result is very debatable.

MAIN ARTICLE IS UPDATED


Btw, guys! What do you think, if we really try to make weights for all factors?

For example, Strength could give 0-10 points, Legacy 0-2, Resource dep. 0-5. etc.

Just in very short, before I analyze the article again:

I'd call such units "game-changers" . That's more accurate and it's less powerful than game-breakers or overpowered, which are terms that suggest, that using the unit itself would be an exploit. "Game-changers" is very close to the truth, because if i. e. starting with Egypt, one will definitely think more than 1 time if one doesn't want to go for a Chariot-rush, given one revealed Horses in an acceptable range.

Iwo Jima said:

2. Strength

This topic could be discussed, but I write my own view. Some UUs are really overpowered in comparison with other units of their era, some have very slight influence on its time. Common veiw of some experienced players here, that the most notable units here are Quechua, War Chariot, Cataphract, Cho-Ko-Nu, Oromo Warrior, Samurai, Hwacha, Immortal, Praetorian, Conquistador. Special gamebreakers are Carrack and Fast Worker, they do not have special fighting abilities, but have significant influence to the game.

All other UUs a little bit stronger than common versions, but do not break the game. The most weak UUs are Bowman, East Indiaman, Holkan and Berserker.

Click to expand...

I wonder where you got that with the "of some experienced players" , because I wouldn't sign this list and I'm sure neither elitetroops nor Pangaea would do so too. Forget about Oromos, they come too late and it's too easy to simply draft additional Muskets that make up for the missing Firststrikes. Also forget the Cataphract, yes, it's +2 STR, but it's a Knight, and all Knights are weak because they have to fight city-defenses which not seldomly are 100% at that time. Also, the Cataphract has no FS-immunity like the other Knights at least have, so it's only slightly better than a normal Knight, and as written, Knights in general are weak with some very rare exceptions of i. e. a Knight-rush from a very high start.
Also the Samurai is never ever game-changing. He's stronger than a normal Mace, but only very slightly, and normal Maces don't have any problems killing units of their era anyhow.

On all others, I would agree that they're truely strong.

I'd weight the different categories like this:

Age of Origin: 40%
Strenght: 25%
Universality: 2%
Dependancy on resrouces: 5%
Mass production: 10% (factor especially for drafted Oromos / Jannisaries)
Life Span: 15%
Legacy: 3%

Seraiel said:

I wonder where you got that with the "of some experienced players" , because I wouldn't sign this list and I'm sure neither elitetroops nor Pangaea would do so too. Forget about Oromos, they come too late and it's too easy to simply draft additional Muskets that make up for the missing Firststrikes. Also forget the Cataphract, yes, it's +2 STR, but it's a Knight, and all Knights are weak because they have to fight city-defenses which not seldomly are 100% at that time. Also, the Cataphract has no FS-immunity like the other Knights at least have, so it's only slightly better than a normal Knight, and as written, Knights in general are weak with some very rare exceptions of i. e. a Knight-rush from a very high start.
Also the Samurai is never ever game-changing. He's stronger than a normal Mace, but only very slightly, and normal Maces don't have any problems killing units of their era anyhow.

On all others, I would agree that they're truely strong.

Click to expand...

About Oromos, once again you mix together Strength and Age of origin. "They come too late" it's not about their strength, it's about the time, they going to play. But if you start in Medieval or Renais. they realy tears apart all of their opponents. Usually, Muskets is a defending unit, but Oromo is perfect in offence. And you also can draft him, so its very cheap!

(Btw, it seems drafting of UUs is another key factor for UUs. Not the most important, but not negligeble.)

I've seen Cataphract rushes, and +2 strength could mean a lot, as we had seen in Elitetroops comments about War Chariots. I'm OK to remove Cataphract from the list, but only if you support your opinion with solid numbers.

And I absolutely can't understand why you devaluate Samurai, because its one of the very few units that is really city raider. And well promoted samurai could fight even against gonpowder units.

I notice, that you don't like firststrikers at all. This could be your "black spot". You can consider that every first strike virtually add hit points to your units, so while normal units has 100HP maximum, f/s units could have (virtually) even 300HP. As I remember, game interface doesn't show correct chances of battles, especially for f/strikers. And chances of firstrikers statistically better than probability shown in tooltip.

I also notice, that you try to remove all units(Samurai, Oromo, Cataphract) from the same era - Late Med./Early Ren. What's wrong with this era???

Sry, but your post makes me angry. I don't need to support the Cataphract by numbers, I've played with Cataphracts, and they're not much better than normal Knights against Longbows, which is the main-defending unit from that era.

I also got no idea how you come to the perception, that Muskets would be city-defenders, I've played various games with using Muskets offensviely, they're a cheap, good unit together with Cannons.

The point that the well promoted Samurai could fight Gunpowder units, you already got with Praets, but Praets are a lot cheaper. With Cannons, it doesn't matter which 2nd unit you got with you, as long as it's STR8, it'll clean up everything, even Rifles.

And don't write things like I were against FSs. I always have 6 Drill IV units in my SoD to suck up dmg when getting collateral. FS-units are also great because of their lower healing times.

Moderator Action: Please do not use symbols to swear and avoid the autocensor. It is against the rules. Changed the word to keep the family friendly spirit of the forums.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

The reason why I don't like certain units maybe is, that war in late medieval or early renaissance times sucks, because it's war against Castles. Cuirrassiers are a way better unit that can be reached in almost the same time as Knights, and Cuirrassiers ignore Castles and Walls.

Write your article alone, I'm not interested in spending any further time here, you try to talk down to me and you try to analyze me. Both are things I don't like, and they're completely inappropriate too, because my experience is 100 times larger than yours. You should develop the examples yourself to convince me, not the other way round. I know of what I'm talking, it's you who doesn't seem to know enough about CIV.

An issue is that almost everybody play Ancient starts, so therefore the earliest UU will be much more important and powerful than late era UUs. The War Chariot is almost like a HA that you can get very, very early, and you can practically clean the map with them. Immortals are also very powerful, and even get defensive bonus, so you can use them as city defenders, or park them in a forest and they're close to untouchable (apart from spears).

UUs like the Cossack or German Tanks are very nice units, they have clear advantages to their contemporary units, but they come so late that it won't matter much. Normal Cavalry are plenty good enough, as are Tanks. Oromos come at an awkward time. Sure, a pileup of first strikes are nice, but the musket in general isn't all that much to write home about. Usually maces will have better odds due to City Raider, which muskets cannot get out of the gates. Typically the alternative to muskets/Oromos is Cuirassiers, and the Cuir is better in every department (except as city defender, and even there, 12 isn't terrible).

Seraiel said:

Sry, but your post makes me angry. I don't need to support the Cataphract by numbers, I've played with Cataphracts, and they're not much better than normal Knights against Longbows, which is the main-defending unit from that era.

I also got no idea how you come to the perception, that Muskets would be city-defenders, I've played various games with using Muskets offensviely, they're a cheap, good unit together with Cannons.

The point that the well promoted Samurai could fight Gunpowder units, you already got with Praets, but Praets are a lot cheaper. With Cannons, it doesn't matter which 2nd unit you got with you, as long as it's STR8, it'll clean up everything, even Rifles.

And don't write $hit like I were against FSs. I always have 6 Drill IV units in my SoD to suck up dmg when getting collateral. FS-units are also great because of their lower healing times.

The reason why I don't like certain units maybe is, that war in late medieval or early renaissance times sucks, because it's war against Castles. Cuirrassiers are a way better unit that can be reached in almost the same time as Knights, and Cuirrassiers ignore Castles and Walls.

Write your article alone, I'm not interested in spending any further time here, you try to talk down to me and you try to analyze me. Both are things I don't like, and they're completely inappropriate too, because my experience is 100 times larger than yours. You should develop the examples yourself to convince me, not the other way round. I know of what I'm talking, it's you who doesn't seem to know enough about CIV.

Click to expand...

Absolutely no useful information, why all those UUs suck. The fact, that you have played with cataphracts unimpressively doesn't said much. I don't know how you played, how you promoted them, what is the tactic, etc. I even don't know, how many times you played with them.

What you are writing about, that Lifespan of this units(Oromo, Samurai, Cataphract) could be shot, due to cuirassir rush. But in a case of Oromo and Samurai you absolutely don't need Cuirassir rush, because they are enough to win battles and city assaults.

Moreover, if you play Tokugawa, cuirassier rush is very difficult (I think, nearly impossible), due to Toku's bad economical traits. It's also absolutely counter-intuitive, because Toku has AGG and PRO, that helps a lot to infantry and doesn't help to cuirassiers absolutely.

I also can't understand why you so angry. Perhaps, I noticed some things about your playing style. But this is neither good, nor bad. It's interesting. I didn't mean nothing offensive against you. You don't like war in late medieval, but I like it on contrary. Am I wrong? And could be personal preference wrong at all???

In fact, you even support the idea, that Samurai - uber-unit. Because a few medieval units indeed could storm castles and it's easier to wait until gunpowder units and cuirassiers, but Samurai realy do this.

Also, Oromo do. They do not have CR promo, but also as cuirassiers, negate Castles walls.

You also wrote, about how useful First Strikes. But you described only its defensive side. Why not add its offensive side?

Its a huge difference if you attack city with CRIII Maceman or with CRIII Samurai, that has 2-3 firststrikes. And even if they both win, Samurai will take less injures (you've noted this absolutely right!). And often enough Samurai wins battles without injuries at all.


PS: Feel free to leave this discussion or to stay here. But if you stay, please, take off your crown and say no more about how cool are you. Please, write clear and constructive critique. If you can't or don't want to discuss like an adult, I can't teach you morale. But I'm already tired of high words. I was writing this article a whole night on a language that not is my native not for the purpose to be abused. Hope, you understand

Moderator Action: Please address his points. Let us not make this personal between you.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Pangaea said:

An issue is that almost everybody play Ancient starts, so therefore the earliest UU will be much more important and powerful than late era UUs. The War Chariot is almost like a HA that you can get very, very early, and you can practically clean the map with them. Immortals are also very powerful, and even get defensive bonus, so you can use them as city defenders, or park them in a forest and they're close to untouchable (apart from spears).

Click to expand...

It seems, that I have to rise universality of Immortal, because I already forgot, how good they are in defence. In fact, it's a classic example of universility. Different bonuses, mobility, good in offence and defence. They deserve +++

UUs like the Cossack or German Tanks are very nice units, they have clear advantages to their contemporary units, but they come so late that it won't matter much. Normal Cavalry are plenty good enough, as are Tanks. Oromos come at an awkward time. Sure, a pileup of first strikes are nice, but the musket in general isn't all that much to write home about. Usually maces will have better odds due to City Raider, which muskets cannot get out of the gates. Typically the alternative to muskets/Oromos is Cuirassiers, and the Cuir is better in every department (except as city defender, and even there, 12 isn't terrible).

Click to expand...

I could say, that Oromo with single promotion is twice better (9+50%) than Cuir with single promotion (12+10%) if they meet each other in the clear field.

It seems, that UUs guide has absolutely no sense, because there is the only uber-unit for all times is Cuirassier )))

All that I understand, that the factor Strength should be devided into more simple and less debatable sub-factors - City Assault, City Defence, Attack/Deffence in clear field, Attack/Defence in hard terrain. But I'm afraid, such analisys could miss the wholeness.

Also, speed is a key factor too. So all speed 2 UUs should be rised for this.

Moderator Action: Please stick to the arguments and stop discussing each other. Personal remarks only make it about the two of you instead of about what you are trying to discuss.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

It seems, that UUs guide has absolutely no sense, because there is the only uber-unit for all times is Cuirassier )))

Click to expand...

It's not an über-unit for all times, but it is a popular choice because it is very good. It's a big upgrade on whatever was before it, and it ignores walls and castles, which quickly becomes a big issue on the higher levels as soon as the AIs get engineering.

One of the problems with writing such a guide and marking each unit, is that it's pretty clear from play which are the truly great ones, and that is the early units. This game is about gaining land, and the earlier you get more land, the sooner can you get the snowball rolling, and the sooner does the snowball become an avalanche.

This is why UUs like the Quecha, War Chariot and Immortal are so good. It's early, you can easily rush with them, and they are clear upgrades on their relevant unit. The Cuirassier is likewise very popular because it's a big upgrade, and you can get it fast by Libbing a good technology, and they therefore should last a long time. They are 2-movement units, so can grab many cities fast, before the AI is able to understand what is happening and organise a defence. Great fun!

The Cuir also comes at a good time, when you have typically built much-needed infrastructure, have the economy in order, and you are ready to grab more land.

The Oromo, for example, isn't a bad unit by any means, but it's not a big upgrade on vanilla muskets either, nor a significantly stronger unit than the alternative, which is usually maces+siege or even Cuirs. A benefit with them is that they are more versatile. CR Maces aren't great in the open field, but Oromos are strong there as well as decent when attacking cities.

Pangaea said:

It's not an über-unit for all times, but it is a popular choice because it is very good. It's a big upgrade on whatever was before it, and it ignores walls and castles, which quickly becomes a big issue on the higher levels as soon as the AIs get engineering.

One of the problems with writing such a guide and marking each unit, is that it's pretty clear from play which are the truly great ones, and that is the early units. This game is about gaining land, and the earlier you get more land, the sooner can you get the snowball rolling, and the sooner does the snowball become an avalanche.

This is why UUs like the Quecha, War Chariot and Immortal are so good. It's early, you can easily rush with them, and they are clear upgrades on their relevant unit. The Cuirassier is likewise very popular because it's a big upgrade, and you can get it fast by Libbing a good technology, and they therefore should last a long time. They are 2-movement units, so can grab many cities fast, before the AI is able to understand what is happening and organise a defence. Great fun!

The Cuir also comes at a good time, when you have typically built much-needed infrastructure, have the economy in order, and you are ready to grab more land.

Click to expand...

This game is NOT about gaining land. Not only. You could win with different ways, even without expansion or war. For example, founding early religions (most of players do not like it, but I like) has similar cumulative effect as grabbing lands. Or finding a strong and stable neighbor and playing his vassal, winning with the only three cities with culture victory. Or you could play Portugese style, be small and weak, until you colonize all continents, free you colonies, and win with AP or UN.

The Oromo, for example, isn't a bad unit by any means, but it's not a big upgrade on vanilla muskets either, nor a significantly stronger unit than the alternative, which is usually maces+siege or even Cuirs. A benefit with them is that they are more versatile. CR Maces aren't great in the open field, but Oromos are strong there as well as decent when attacking cities.

Click to expand...

While Knights are not very dangerous for cities, they still very strong in open field. So, they can real threat for your CR-stack on its way to the target city. And you need mix your maces with pikes to be effective against it. There is also catapults/cannons threat for your CR-stack, that could do a lot of collateral damage. So, you need additional units with drill, or very good medic. Otherwise you could achieve your target with very damaged units. You also should bring with CR-stack some bows, for guarding city when you take it. So, its a very complicated task to gather good CR-stack and moreover, to keep it effective for a long time. For, example, if you lose your pikes in enemy skirmishes, you need wait, until new pikes will join your stack...

Oromo solves all that threats. Now you just collect Oromos and Trebs and don't think about complicated production, logistic, lucky mix of different units... Easy game.
Ahhh... Did I say that Oromo ignores Castle walls?

---------------

Why we always talk about attacking cities with pure units? Its just unrealistic, because in real game most of us use siege weapons. And it's normal use.