Units you skip altogether...

[oldskald]

Although I think I'm just prejudiced against guided missiles.

I'm with you on this one! It's not that I don't see the advantages of esp. sub launched missiles, but for me it's the painful logistics of re-supply. If I have a fleet half way around the globe that needs replenishment it's just more than my poor brain can cope with.

I know that the arguments about bombers vs missiles have been done to death in this forum. Enough to say that I will stick with the bombers - re-usable, better range, bigger damage. For me missiles = one use, lower damage, re-supply nightmare, lost hammers. Now, of course, bombers sometimes get shot down. But mostly they don't. Every guided missile used is 60 hammers gone. Each bomber costs 140 hammers. Will my bombers fly more than 2 1/3 missions? On average, yes. Therefore, for me, they are the better investment. And I won't need to replace them all after a couple of turns.

That's not to say that I don't see their use as a adjunct to naval warfare/landing operations. So I will usually build a few to have them up my sleeve if needed. But I would never base my air bombardment on them.

As for SAMs on the other hand, I'm with TMIT. If the enemy has planes I want SAMs.

 

[r_rolo1]

Well, that is a unfair comparison, since guided missiles were not made as a alternative to bombers The ships where they can be docked, the disposability and the fact that they can kill point that they are a alternative to nukes, not to bombers ...

On SAM ... well, if the enemy has planes, i prefer to have planes

 

[AndiD]

Space-loving turtle here.

Often go entire games without mounted units, except for a token few to counter AI stacks full of siege. Chariots occasionally as barb police, HA, Knight, Cavalry at most 2-3 per game, Cuirassier usually 0. The exception being War Elephants for elepult wars, ofc.

Generally often get MilSc and MilTrad very late thrown-in via trades, that means I rarely build SotL or Grenadiers either. I sometimes (rarely) cover vulnerable coastal tiles in Ironclads, when I have the hammers to spare and fear overseas invasions from some backwards AI.

Muskets and longbows usually also only a few, if any, they may be nice defensively, but I prefer to destroy AI stacks with offensive force, which I spent building up to the renaissance anyway in order to keep my strength index high enough. Ideally, I replace the killed units with rifles right away. Since I hate medieval wars, I'd have to think long when I built my last Trebuchet.

Machine Guns basically never, same for Carriers, Attack Submarines, Paratroopers, SAM infantry, Gunships, AntiTank. Since Mobile SAM/Artillery and MechInf are not on the space race path, I often don't even have the respective techs until a few turns from victory. Same for Advanced Flight (Jet Fighter) and Stealth stuff.

I love Privateers mainly for time victories - take Astro from Lib and beeline Chemistry, and then choke your opposition to death, effectively freezing their research for a few centuries, and earning a few GG to boot. Use them occasionally when I discover another continent to be way backwards and hated so that they are worth the effort-

Built my first nukes ever in my last game, as a backup for a Time victory, but Sitting Bull didn't manage to get his third city over to Legendary culture in time, so I didn't need them.

Scouts and explorers also never, except for Terra games (with or without barbs). Got Astro from a new world hut once that way, playing as Joao.

I might not last long in MP games that way, but they aren't my cup of tea anyway...

 

[ShengWuLien]

I only moved from Warlords to BtS relatively recently and what they did to Grenadiers is just sad. On Warlords there was no Military Science tech and Grens became available with just Chemistry. Pretty often I would upgrade a stack of CR3 maces to Grens and walk all over everyone. Actually they were kinda OP because the only hard counter before Infantry was Cavs.

Now Grens are useless. But the AI loves them.

 

[Ataxerxes]

On SAM ... well, if the enemy has planes, i prefer to have planes

I've always preferred planes myself. I don't build SAM. I find aircraft very useful. The technique I learned from the WWII scenario was to attack with fighters first, then bombers. Since an intercept usually results in both planes being damaged but not destroyed your plane survives and is healed. But if the opponents plane is set to intercept, it'll keep intercepting until it's destroyed while you just rest yours until they're good to go again. And once the enemy's planes are shot down you can send in the bombers.

Off topic: I always found it odd that the "Ace" promotion is much more valuable on a bomber IMO. I don't want my fighters avoiding interception but I do want my bombers avoiding interception.

It's always interesting how many different takes on the game there are. Some players are for avoiding mounted units early. I usually go for Rifles later but the early Chariot and Keshik rush are how I often play.

 

[r_rolo1]

I only moved from Warlords to BtS relatively recently and what they did to Grenadiers is just sad. On Warlords there was no Military Science tech and Grens became available with just Chemistry. Pretty often I would upgrade a stack of CR3 maces to Grens and walk all over everyone. Actually they were kinda OP because the only hard counter before Infantry was Cavs.

Now Grens are useless. But the AI loves them.

Well, they are not useless ... they just became niche units ( as they probably were always intended to be ), suposed rifle killers and not much more ( the paper->rock>scissor of the era is suposedely Rifles->Cavs->Grens ( untily you notice that the MGs break the whole thing ) ).

The issue is that, given that the beaker count for rifles ( and cavs ) in BtS is less skewed towards Grens than it was in Warlords and Vanilla, the weaknesses of grens ( mainly the inferior str ( making them bad at defending vs rifles ) and their lack of resistance vs cavs ) added to the strenghts of the rifles/cavs ( rifles can be drafted and cavs are 100% faster ), makes them a really bad choice, except maybe as a upgrade choice for some CR3 maces. And you have far tastier techs than MS in reach by that time ...tasty enough for making you to not waste time in a tech for a couple of upgrades :/

 

[oldskald]

On SAM ... well, if the enemy has planes, i prefer to have planes

Having SAM doesn't mean not having planes

I'm pretty sure we all fight offensive wars in the late industrial/modern eras. And we have all found that irritating situation when as we go deeper into enemy territory we start to outrun our air cover. Hence having SAM with the SoD. For city defence, however, yeah - I'll take the planes.

On that note, does anyone else miss the old CIV 2 engineer ability to build airstrips?

 

[oldskald]

Off topic: I always found it odd that the "Ace" promotion is much more valuable on a bomber IMO. I don't want my fighters avoiding interception but I do want my bombers avoiding interception.

Definitely a niche promo for me - the only time I ever use it is on carrier based fighters that I want to use to support a major invasion force. Other than that... (and even then I usually prefer to take the increased range instead.)

It's one of those promotions that I just don't understand - what were they thinking sticking it on fighters?

 

[uat2d]

Carriers are another waste of shields, it's much easier to just capture a city and throw your bombers there than going around with fighters on a carrier.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Carriers are not a priority build, but they are useful.

First off, carriers increase the maximum effective range by being able to move. You can also stack a large number of fighters opposed to the 4 (or 8 if you rushbuy airports) aircraft. Plus if the enemy has their own aircraft it may be needed for air superiority.

 

[Tortfeasor]

Carriers fall into the same category as walls/castles for me. Most of the time you don't need them. You can just bombard and take a coastal city then rebase your bombers and go wild. Sometimes though the AI was unbelievably stupid and didn't settle a coastal city anywhere remotely useful. Then you need the fighters to help out. Likewise sometimes you plain need fighters somewhere. They get first chance to intercept the hordes of airships the AI builds and you don't risk your units getting damaged when they do.

Bottom line, most of the time you can get along just fine without carriers. But when they are useful...

 

[JoeyB98]

It depends on the game. If Shaka is my neighbor, I tend to skip Chariots, because he doesn't send Axemen, he sends those darned Impis. If Monty is my neighbor, bring on the chariots! The only unit I consistently skip is the Trireme. Upgraded Galleys do well enough.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Carriers are another waste of shields, it's much easier to just capture a city and throw your bombers there than going around with fighters on a carrier.

There is no cap to #carriers on a tile, and therefore no cap to #fighters on an ocean or coastal city tile.

It's actually possible to attack someone from carriers and have more air power than they can POSSIBLY have without their own carriers! Unlike airships, which are useful but not spectacular, fighters can strip SERIOUS hit points off units and can easily shield vs bombers.

In warlords they were less relevant since cities didn't have a cap on air units count.

 

[mitebe]

On that note, does anyone else miss the old CIV 2 engineer ability to build airstrips?

No, since workers can build forts and forts act as air/port/fort/canal depending.

 

[oldskald]

No, since workers can build forts and forts act as air/port/fort/canal depending.

Yep, but much slower, and with a cap on capacity.

 

[mitebe]

Yep, but much slower, and with a cap on capacity.

Yes, but didn't the engineer get used up to create the airport or radar station? Plus it is most likely had the option been included in Civ 4 it would have, by BTS, had the same cap on capacity.

 

[oldskald]

Yes, but didn't the engineer get used up to create the airport or radar station? Plus it is most likely had the option been included in Civ 4 it would have, by BTS, had the same cap on capacity.

The engineer didn't get used up, but yes, there would undoubtedly have been the same cap as in the rest of BtS.

 

[2metraninja]

Very interesting discussion.

Reading all this I strongly encourage you guys to try and play multiplayer Civ4. Not the chaotic and reflex-dependent online version, which rarely goes beyond chariot rushes, but a pitboss variant - 1 turn a day - where you have the best of both worlds - you play against thinking humans and yet you have time to plan tactics and strategies like in a single-player and the best part for me - make real diplomacy.

Now to the OP: I am not big fan of missiles too (I am rather land-trooper oriented - Artillery for me please) but they are whole different beer from Bombers. They make possible some tactics, which no other unit can give you a tool to execute.

 

[Ghpstage]

Carriers are another waste of shields, it's much easier to just capture a city and throw your bombers there than going around with fighters on a carrier.

And if your opponent has fighters in nearby cities what are your 4 bombers (or even fighters) going to achieve? Also when taking the city you are either going to lack any collateral, or are going to have to waste a turn by landing.
Carriers provide a method of gaining air superiority over anything, battering attacking or defending units or cities, providing useful recon, don't cost a great deal and allow you to instantly move fresh fighters to replace any lost (or rotate them for healing). Used well they are a powerful game ender.

 

[s.bernbaum]

And if your opponent has fighters in nearby cities what are your 4 bombers (or even fighters) going to achieve? Also when taking the city you are either going to lack any collateral, or are going to have to waste a turn by landing.
Carriers provide a method of gaining air superiority over anything, battering attacking or defending units or cities, providing useful recon, don't cost a great deal and allow you to instantly move fresh fighters to replace any lost (or rotate them for healing). Used well they are a powerful game ender.

I agree! My favorite way to take over port cities is with a fleet in the late game. I'll include a few battleships for fleet defense and to barrage away the cultural defenses of the port city; a destroyer or two to watch for subs; four to six carriers full of fighters to reduce the defenders to half strength ( with one carrier's worth of fighters to intercept any counter attack ); a half dozen or so transports full of marines with a variety of promotions to actually take the city; and a few transports of garrison troops. Take the city with the marines, drop off the garrison troops and move on to the next port city. Of course, this may be worthless if you always play pangea but I play mostly fractal with some archipelago thrown in.