the worst unit's.

[luke2345]

I got to tell you if you put a fortress on a mountain and put about 10 or 20 warriors in it i will almost be inpossible to atttack and kill em

here are some problems with what you said
(a) where are you going get all of that. (b) you could go around the mountain.
(c) or you could use a veteran catapult to kill them.

 

[Ace]

1: You should have more than one city so you can build lots of warriors

2: Usually putting a fort on a mountain is done at a chokepoint where the AI cannot move arround you

3: The warriors will kill the catapult. The cat will get one warrior, but with a fort, only the defending unit dies..., than the other 8 or 19 take turns attacking the cat at even odds....bye bye catapult.

 

[luke2345]

unless you put a archer in the same place as the catapult or
use a boat to get around it
and what if the catapult and the archer are on a mountain too

 

[Ace]

If you want to keep changing the conditions, there is no point in pursueing this thread.

 

[Catfish]

You're wasting your time here, Ace.

 

[Ace]

Catfish, Your absolutely right! Time would be better spent actually playing Civ.

 

[BaronVonHungste]

The Warrior is one of the most useful units in the game! It is the only 10 shield cost unit. When you want to partially rush buy or incrementally partial rush buy a unit, the warrior is the ONLY unit you can use to buy just one row of shields. In addition, it is a cheap unit to use for early exploration and martial law in cities. With the acquisition of Leo's, warriors can be upgraded to riflemen giving one a 40 shield unit for the original 10 shield cost.

The Legion is the worst unit for its cost on your list. Its expensive, can't move any faster than a warrior and has the same defense factor as a phanlax for twice the cost.

One of my most favorite plans is to build a warrior and a horseman in each city and expand like crazy. Then I do everything I can to get both Leo's and Sun Tzu's so that all the 10 shield warriors upgrade to 40 shield riflemen and all the 20 shield horsemen upgrade to 60 shield cavalry. Of course, I'm still playing at Chieftain...

I've seen some amazingly fast conquest games based on popping huts with a few fast explorers. With decent luck, you get tons of gold and advances and advanced tribes, before you pop barbs. And even then, the barbs may actually help you against the AIs. Explorers are one of my faves on a large land mass.

They are also great for "diplo-guiding" and for entering empty AI cities.

Seeing as how they only require Seafaring, it's not bad as an early tech goal. However at 30 shields, I'd rather have a horseman and a warrior going in different directions. I will give it a try next time I play on a map conducive to using it though.

I agree with Ace, but go a step further vs legions. When I get them from huts, I usually disband them for 20 shields towards a more useful unit, such as a Settler. Since they can't move very fast, they are only useful in defending a small area, and as Ace said, you really don't want to defend anyway. The only reason I can think of to keep them is that they can help you get tribute from the AI (who consider them to be as scary as elephants and knights).

Never thought about disbanding them much, as I usually "re-home" the supported ones to defend a new city or keep them if they are non-supported. Actually, I keep everything that's non-supported... even going so far as to keep the non-supported equivalents at home while sending off the supported troops on riskier missions.

 

[Terrapin]

Warriors are useful for lots of things, just not war! Yumm...tasty irony!

mpescatori, you really edited rules.txt to avoid wasting shields? You know you are allowed to move your workers around, right? What I do is this: When my cities are too small to have at least ten production, I try to get them to 5 or 6. That means lowering my production in favor of more food or trade in some cases. Then I use partial rush buys to finish each row. Then, I modify my production again to make it exactly five. That way, each unit in each city is produced in cost/10+1 turns with zero shields wasted. It also keeps my gold per shield cost down between 2 and 2.2 g/s. Early in the game, I found that it is the most efficient way to churn out the settlers and caravans needed to set the stage for power democracy down the road. Of course once you get a proper trading network built, wasting shields is irrelevant. Just buy everything you need after one turn of production.

 

[luke2345]

captureing ai city's with warrior's is easy just get an archer and attack then fortify until he has all his health than repeat and you will capture the city

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Have you tried that? I can think of at least a couple of problems with that strategy. First, the AI may be inept, but I don't think it is that inept; it is too much to hope that it will never build a better unit or city walls. In the second case, it takes so long for units to heal in the field that you will be sitting outside the city forever.

The difference between building a warrior and building a "better" unit is like the difference between buying a minivan and buying a transport truck. Sure, the transport truck can carry more stuff, but if all you want to do is bring home the groceries, the transport truck is a waste of money, because the extra capacity is worthless.

 

[timtofly]

Why not bring two archers though? It should not take as long. If you are attacking just warriors and the city is probably not larger than 3 or 4, it will probably not have walls. When you destroy a warrior, you drop the population. If you keep attacking each turn there may not be a city left. If you want the city to grow, you will have to wait while you heal before attacking again. If you want to get rid of the city, have enough troops to do it in 1 or 2 turns. That way it does not have time to gain population or build warriors. It also would be unwise to sit there and heal if the city is empty. Moving the unit into the city will automatically restore all of it's health. An archer should be able to take out two warriors in two turns without becoming too vulnerable. Or the Ai will try to weaken the archer and suicide all of its warriors leaving it empty next turn. In either case sitting there healing next to an empty city is a waste of time.

 

[luke2345]

Have you tried that? I can think of at least a couple of problems with that strategy. First, the AI may be inept, but I don't think it is that inept; it is too much to hope that it will never build a better unit or city walls. In the second case, it takes so long for units to heal in the field that you will be sitting outside the city forever.

The difference between building a warrior and building a "better" unit is like the difference between buying a minivan and buying a transport truck. Sure, the transport truck can carry more stuff, but if all you want to do is bring home the groceries, the transport truck is a waste of money, because the extra capacity is worthless.

yes I tryed and it worked

 

[pabs]

At the risk of raising the ire of some here, I vote for one not on the list.

CRUSADERS.

I never build them, I just wait a few turns and build knights and dragoons, though I have been told by my wife I have too much patience in this game.

I just never have really succeeded using them.

 

[Peaster]

Seeing as how they [explorers] only require Seafaring, it's not bad as an early tech goal. However at 30 shields, I'd rather have a horseman and a warrior going in different directions. I will give it a try next time I play on a map conducive to using it though.

It is a valid comparison in terms of shield costs and total movement. But for hut-popping, the explorer has the edge. It ignores rough terrain and ZOC. It also requires less support.

Never thought about disbanding them much, as I usually "re-home" the supported ones to defend a new city or keep them if they are non-supported. Actually, I keep everything that's non-supported... even going so far as to keep the non-supported equivalents at home while sending off the supported troops on riskier missions.

Suggestion: keep track of your legions in your next game, and count how many times you use them to defend your cities. In my games, it would likely be zero; I prefer to attack than to defend. Maybe your style is different. If your games are like mine, you'd do better to disband them for shields, even if they are non-supported.

To the other guy: Crusaders rule in the early game. If you wait to build dragoons/etc, your opponents are likely to be upgrading from phalanxes to pikemen, musketeers / etc, and to build city walls. You lose a great window of opportunity. You should still win - just not as easily.

 

[Krunchyman]

Let's all just move on and play Civ 4 and 5.

 

[luke2345]

Let's all just move on and play Civ 4 and 5.

I just did 2 months ago

but civ2 is still kind of fun

 

[Quisani]

I have too agree with the crusaders. I find them utterly useless

 

[Magic_gorter]

Crusaders are one of the best units in the game when going for an early conquest or trying to conquer some cities / killing a civ. They are strong and can move 2 tiles/turn. It's one of the earliest attacking units you can get and are a lot stronger then horsemen and elephants.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I prefer elephants... because they're cute, and I love the sound they make when they attack.

 

[Blasph23]

I always thought that players should be able to parachute spies - an obvious thought after all those James Bond movies and such, so I changed the proper spy flag one time and had some fun until the enemy used their spies in much the same fashion, albeit they decided to capture one of my cities that somehow did not have any defending units at that time. Result? A spy with 0 attack and 0 def taking over a city from an island 7 squares away. Not fair.

Aside from that I absolutely agree with warrior being one of the best units. IRB works nicely, especially with phalanx or any other unit costing 2 rows of shields, then diplo with 3, settler 4 and camel with 5 shield rows. A city with production of 5 can provide me with a camel in 6 turns at the cost of 55 gold. Can't complain, especially if that camel brings 300 gp and science in return, not to mention extra trade in home town.