So, the Worst UU was decided to be...
- Thread starter plasmacannon
- Start date
plasmacannon
Emperor
Because, it requires a rare resourse to build it.
Every other UU requires Copper, Iron, Horse, or none at all.
It is more likely that, you can play Khmer on a continents map, and Not have the Ivory resourse on your continent, than, to play Carthrage, and Not have a Horse resourse on your continent.
Numidian Calvary are like fast axemen sentrys, that can usually defeat the unit designed to defeat them.
Ballista Elephants are slow and have no benefits vs non-mounted stacks, and no benefits vs units in a city.
obsolete
Deity
Mmmm, you didn't realize yet that a UU is NOT SUPPOSED to be worse than the unit it replaces?
Understand more now?
Eerdna
Chieftain
i guess a little exeption of that is the aztec jag...
obsolete
Deity
It is not an exception, the Jag comes with elements that no other sword has. It even has a reduced cost on top of this.
Fleme
Obey the Kitty!
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 1,205
Jaguar is also the easiest supermedic to achieve and very convenient due to its low base strength to keep alive throughout the entire game.
Considering a WM3/M3 combo, a Jaguar (that comes with Combat 1 as well as WM1) only needs 5 promotions to achieve the necessary experience and actually needs to fight only a few battles to have a great general fill in the rest.
I don't give a lot of merit to Jags as regular offensive units but then again I'm not much of a sword user anyhow, I prefer axing if rushing.
Considering a WM3/M3 combo, a Jaguar (that comes with Combat 1 as well as WM1) only needs 5 promotions to achieve the necessary experience and actually needs to fight only a few battles to have a great general fill in the rest.
I don't give a lot of merit to Jags as regular offensive units but then again I'm not much of a sword user anyhow, I prefer axing if rushing.
Crighton
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2006
- Messages
- 1,136
I voted for the East Indiaman, I find it underwhelming as a UU. A bit surprised to see the dog soldier got four votes at this time, I've used it successfully many times. The jaguar, should be in the same camp for me but it isn't, I always get hosed by it but it is far from being the "worst." IMO.
As far as the resources requirements go, that true for just about every unit. If you don't have Iron and can't make swordsmen or horses for the cavalry, you've got some large problems to deal with.
As far as the resources requirements go, that true for just about every unit. If you don't have Iron and can't make swordsmen or horses for the cavalry, you've got some large problems to deal with.
I hate the dog soldier. It might be more useful if it wasn't attached to a Civ that has among the best archers in the game. I do consider it worse than the base unit. It's slightly better than the axe against melee and worse against everything else.
A lot of the UU"s really do very little.
This is a consistent thread - worst UU. I think I've seen about 4 polls on this. It always sparks debate, however, so it must be a good subject.
A lot of the UU"s really do very little.
This is a consistent thread - worst UU. I think I've seen about 4 polls on this. It always sparks debate, however, so it must be a good subject.
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,873
Jaguars are pretty darned good.
What would be their downside? 5 base str rather than 6. That makes them somewhat worse at attacking into cities than an(other) aggressive leader's swordsmen. It makes them barely worse at attacking into cities than a non-aggressive leader's swords.
Why only barely? Since City Raider promotions subtract from the defenders' bonus, those promos are going to be factoring as a percentage of 3 base strength(archers) the vast percentage of the time rather than 5 or 6(jag/sword) anyhow. Monty is aggressive, so his jags have Combat 1. The Combat line does not function by comparing against the defenders' bonuses, it applies directly to the unit itself. 5.5 effective base strength vs 6 is starting to look better.
Ok ok. All that jazz aside. What do jags have going on for them to make up for the base str difference? Well, the resourceless difference is pretty dang good. They are cheaper to build. Meaning - even if you do have iron you don't need to have it hooked up to start cranking them out, meaning you have more faster. Plus, they can have woodsman II out of the gate, meaning at a time when forests/jungles are common, they are to the action faster.
Perhaps the easiest benefit to garner is supermedic capabilities. With just the 10xp you can get off barbs you can have a medic I/Woodsman III medic, which rocks. Attach a great general and you have a medic III/woodsman III super-duper mega general. Not hard to get. Those are classical-era built units that make winning modern wars easier, or at the least faster.
They are cheap. They are great in a tight spot. They are barb-busting nuts. They are superhealers. They are AI-abusing worker farmers. Give me jags, give me gallic warriors, just don't give me stinkin' dogs.
What would be their downside? 5 base str rather than 6. That makes them somewhat worse at attacking into cities than an(other) aggressive leader's swordsmen. It makes them barely worse at attacking into cities than a non-aggressive leader's swords.
Why only barely? Since City Raider promotions subtract from the defenders' bonus, those promos are going to be factoring as a percentage of 3 base strength(archers) the vast percentage of the time rather than 5 or 6(jag/sword) anyhow. Monty is aggressive, so his jags have Combat 1. The Combat line does not function by comparing against the defenders' bonuses, it applies directly to the unit itself. 5.5 effective base strength vs 6 is starting to look better.
Ok ok. All that jazz aside. What do jags have going on for them to make up for the base str difference? Well, the resourceless difference is pretty dang good. They are cheaper to build. Meaning - even if you do have iron you don't need to have it hooked up to start cranking them out, meaning you have more faster. Plus, they can have woodsman II out of the gate, meaning at a time when forests/jungles are common, they are to the action faster.
Perhaps the easiest benefit to garner is supermedic capabilities. With just the 10xp you can get off barbs you can have a medic I/Woodsman III medic, which rocks. Attach a great general and you have a medic III/woodsman III super-duper mega general. Not hard to get. Those are classical-era built units that make winning modern wars easier, or at the least faster.
They are cheap. They are great in a tight spot. They are barb-busting nuts. They are superhealers. They are AI-abusing worker farmers. Give me jags, give me gallic warriors, just don't give me stinkin' dogs.
I voted pour les mousquetaires. It just seems so... meh. With the other UUs I can see the point of developing a strategy to use them, even if some are situational (and even if they are a naval transport). But the ability to move some average defensive units around a bit faster? And the sheer nerve of calling them Musketeers?!?! Dumas must be on a spin cycle! Q - Whither D'Artagnan, Athos and the rest? A - They're wandering along ready to form a garrison... meh. I mean, they could at least have given them +25 against Melee to reflect their skill with a flashing blade...
strangestranger
Chieftain
Musketeers are goods for pillaging stacks.
The ability to hit-and-run is nice as well.
But they're a sub-par UU.
And, you know, the Musketeer, is just a man who use a Musket. Dumas' book is about the "Mousquetaires de la Garde" (Musketeers of the guard), the elite of the French military at the time. (Which is what Firaxis wanted to represent, methinks.)
As for the worst UU, for me it's the Navy SEAL. It's bonuses are so underwhelming for such a late-game UU...
Though the Ballista Elephant is good competition.
The ability to hit-and-run is nice as well.
But they're a sub-par UU.
And, you know, the Musketeer, is just a man who use a Musket. Dumas' book is about the "Mousquetaires de la Garde" (Musketeers of the guard), the elite of the French military at the time. (Which is what Firaxis wanted to represent, methinks.)
As for the worst UU, for me it's the Navy SEAL. It's bonuses are so underwhelming for such a late-game UU...
Though the Ballista Elephant is good competition.
I propose that the goodness of a UU be defined by:
G = (F x Nu) x Sum(B x Nb)
Where
, so they score non-zero, and I'd change my vote if I could.
Niche units like musketeers and east indiamen score a modest G, because they do get built sometimes, and have quite decent advantages over the base. The fast worker has a small B, but the other three factors are all huge - built in 100% of games for example, probably only quechuas and the axe UUs are anywhere near that.
The people knocking the Jaguar, Numidian etc. I guess feel that the lower base strength outweighs the other factors so that Sum(B Nb) is negative - effectively they'd rather have the base unit. Personally I don't feel that's the case for any of them, although I admit there are times I wish I could build say real axemen instead of dogs once I've revealed copper and know I have it. By the percentages though, a resourceless axe or sword is such a big advantage in the significant number of cases you don't have the resource, that for me it outweighs any minor weakness when you do. The reduced strength is a kind of insurance, which is a good thing when you consider the human in a single player game is basically at war with the RNG.
G = (F x Nu) x Sum(B x Nb)
Where
- G is the goodness
- F is the fraction of games where the UU is used (taking into account beelining the UU deliberately)
- Nu is the number of units of that type built on average, when used
- B are the different bonuses over the base unit (might be negative, e.g. lower strength)
- Nb is the number of times each unit exercises each bonus
, so they score non-zero, and I'd change my vote if I could. Niche units like musketeers and east indiamen score a modest G, because they do get built sometimes, and have quite decent advantages over the base. The fast worker has a small B, but the other three factors are all huge - built in 100% of games for example, probably only quechuas and the axe UUs are anywhere near that.
The people knocking the Jaguar, Numidian etc. I guess feel that the lower base strength outweighs the other factors so that Sum(B Nb) is negative - effectively they'd rather have the base unit. Personally I don't feel that's the case for any of them, although I admit there are times I wish I could build say real axemen instead of dogs once I've revealed copper and know I have it. By the percentages though, a resourceless axe or sword is such a big advantage in the significant number of cases you don't have the resource, that for me it outweighs any minor weakness when you do. The reduced strength is a kind of insurance, which is a good thing when you consider the human in a single player game is basically at war with the RNG.
I am fairly certain that Firaxis wanted to associate the UU with the famous musketeers. All the other UUs are known as special units from a period in the history of a civilisation (Fast Worker excepted).
When I think of the famous French military types that have existed (Chevaliers, Gendarmes, Napoleon's Old Guard, the Foreign Legion), it just depresses me that they (Firaxis) were so lazy in developing this particular UU. I can't help feeling the French have been short-changed (and this from an Englishman!).
strangestranger
Chieftain
Well, it's rather true. I can't say that they couldn't have done a better choice. But France is not the worst in this. Look at Carthage. Their UU is a Numidian Cavalry. That's just ridiculous!
me too- the numidian cav is the only one that seems significantly worse than the base unit. Other UUs also have lower strength (the jaguar and dog soldier) but at least they have useful bonuses to make up for it.
The Numidian Cavalry does start with a free promo to the useful FlankingII. The 50% bonus can help as well. I think it's about the same as base.
Ballista, SEAL, Panzer are usually worthless. On some maps the Carrack and East Indiaman are, but can help on other maps.
I don't use the Jaguar to its full effectiveness, but I understand it can be useful.
I dislike the lower base strength units in general. And contrarily, any unit with higher base strength or free promos is usually very good.
Of course a free promo and 50% bonus are helpful, just not enough to make up for the lower base strength. It's much worse against archers, and only marginally better against spears. In some cases it might actually be worse against spears than the regular horse archer. Not to mention dying against the horse archers themselves.
Is that possible? Seems to me the strength against spears is the biggest attraction.
I like the musketeers and would never vote them worst. But aren't you forgetting the Oromos?
By the way, thanks for the vassal article you wrote long ago. Still a good read.
Kid R: I think pi-r8 is referring to some unusual promo mixes.
Similar threads
