Rating the Unique Units by Ision

I have to say one of my top rated UU's would have to be the Impi. It's cheap and compliments an expansionist civ well since you can send out defensive units to secure important areas rapidly. They also work extremely well for strangling AI cities and letting your more offensive oriented units take out any defense.
 
Andrewlt, the Hwach'a has lethal bombardment.
 
I'd say Panzers are an excellent unit that can make the difference when they come out, Hoplite is a cheap Pikeman(therefore, very good).
The problem with good UU's in the ancient ages is that, many of them depend on iron, and if you're unlucky not to have iron, you have a serious disantvantage, IMHO.
 
I want to add that the units that ancient UU's often replace usually rely on iron or horses, too.
 
@Aggie- Yes he did- First Tier, it's the second unit he mentions.

EDIT- No wait, that was Ision's list.
 
One of my favorite 3rd tier units is the conquistador.

Put several in an army and you get the "pillaging god" of civ. With its abiltiy to move and pillage 9 squares, a few of these can rip apart the AI lands and reduce them to mostly non-resource units. A movement of 9 also means it can end on a hill or mountain. This allows it to be used even in the age of cavalry (leaping from peak to peak) and is safe to tanks (or TOW if you can successfully deny resources).

This doesn't raise them out of the 3rd teir, but it does raise their rank within the third teir, IMHO. They are strongest in always war games where leaders are plentiful and conquest of enemy territory is slow.
 
yankees said:
i ask before but no one answered. maybe this time.

what do you guys think of the swiss merc? ision finds them good but in my games they have make very little difference.

Y

I think the Swiss merc is great! You get the same defense as a Musketman for half the cost! Not to mention, you get it at the beginning of the Middle Ages - 3 techs sooner then gunpowder - and uses a resource that you have probably had locked up for centuries by this point!

I skip right over the 'musketman' branch/upgrade and save my coins for when I get riflemen/infantry (nice bonus if you can snaggle Leo's Workshop). They completely dominate knights during that era and can spark a decently timed Golden Age if a war is running (or about to).

They provide the ultimate 'poor mans' war in conjunction with the longbowman (4 offense with 4 defense for the same cost as a knight). Sprinkle catapults or trebuchets to taste and serve. ;)

Of course, I am not a supreme warmonger, more of a balanced player - more apt to surgical strikes as opposed to world conquest so this unit works well with my 'base' approach allowing me thick defense. The validity of this unit lasts for an entire Age making it 1st Tier in my book!
 
While this is a pretty good ranking of the unique units, I'm a little disappointed by the lack of analysis provided. It would be nice if Ision could have told us some of the reasons WHY certain units are ranked as 1st tier, 2nd tier, etc. I'm sure that there was good reasoning behind the choices made, but all we have is the finished product and no evidence. It's like a murder mystery where we find out the butler did it, but where we're given no info as to how the detective reached that conclusion! :) Maybe Ision can shed some more light on this now that his list has been posted to the War Academy...?

Also, for those of you who enjoy these kind of listings, I have a similar ranking of unique units and civilizations on my website: http://www.kalikokottage.com/civ3/sullla/strategy.html

And another part updated for the Conquests expansion: http://www.kalikokottage.com/civ3/sullla/CQ_civs.html
 
Ision talked about some of the unique units in his Civ reviews (16 of them so 16 units discussed). I think that's why he didn't include the analysis in this article... :)
 
Ision said:
One problem with making references to '3-tiers' - is that players often confuse the tiers themselves. They tend to interpet 3-tiers to mean good - average- bad. This is not the case at all. Every UU is of benefit - and they all provide an upgrade over the units they replace and/or supplement. My intention with tiers is to break units or civs into catagories that reflect the degree to which they are an upgrade.

Ision
I disagree, because some units (like your second tier keshik) are usually worse than their orriginal.
 
Keshik can hardly 3rd tier.

It is still as good in attack as knight, but is cheaper.
And with clever tactics it can nagate its weaknes in defense.

So it is 2nd tier, it can hardly compare with 3rd tier UUs.

But, I must disagree about War Chariots.
They are at least 2nd tiers.
Horsemen for price or archer is very good.
And if you do apreciate early war and are not afraid of easy GA, then WarCs can be devastating.
 
yes because you know you can use clever tactics when defending cities. (I'll move my keshik from the city onto a mountain for better defence and oh wait I just lost the city...)

I would infinetly prefer the cossack (should be 1st tier. You guys are horribly underestimating the blitz ability) or Musketeer (should be 2nd tier).
 
Use pikemen for defending the cities.
Expensive mobile units are used for attack, not wasted for defense.

And keshik can be lifesaver if you don't gain access to iron in ancient age.
 
crazy list, as a matter of fact the "tier" system is oversimplistic and flawed.
Three man, War chariot, Conquistidors ect. are all fine uu's...... also relativity...a pretty big idea...plays a huge role...not to mention unseen factors related to coding/player temperment ect. My advice...try them out, and think of evaluating...not judgeing...one will get a more accurate view....
 
On archipelago maps it is simply deadly...it rules the sea with its doubled attack and can even raid coastal tiles with its bombardment.But maybe second tier would fit better to reflect its limited use on continent and pangea maps.
 
Top Bottom