A full list of Fast Units (Revised) with new comments!

Alvin

Warlord
Joined
Feb 25, 2003
Messages
136
I heard alot of dissucsion in my last thread, so I did another one. Although fast Units may play a really important row in your military, for me 75%, they are very good when used well. Here is a list of All the fast unit in the game with a score.

Sipha- Since many people talked about this in my last thread also because of their nice attack(with 2 attack increase) They're worthy of making for a lot of campigns. They can move three turns and is a oppenet all the way until tanks. They also have the highest attack before the tank which I find useful for Tanks.A+
Rider- The Blitzerg could be acomplished very earlier with this unit even if it's attack suck. Their 3 movement is very useful for people who are Democracy and Republic lovers. I can take 20 cities in 3-5 turns, which I find amusing.A+
Mordern Armors- The best of its kind, with 24 attack, it rules the game, anyone with 50 of them can take over the world, they alos can attack two times a turn with alot of momteum.
Samurais- They are very good attackers and defenders, they are better then a spearman and same thing as a knight execpt they have 2 movements. With the Miliarstic nature of the japeness peo0ple, I think they're good for making leaders.A
Gallic Swordsman- I find them extremely good from what I heard around the Civ forum. Since I never use them alot I give it a good grade. They alos upgrade all the way to Gurrleas!A
Anasar Warriors- Any unit with 3 movement is ones I comonly use, I pefer speed over defens, I am not sure all of you agree with my tatic of speed. Since I am a Deomcracy lover, I like speed.A-
Panzer- As a said with the Anasar Warrior, I find the German UU very useful, they can attack twice a turn and they have a good attack, I use them as MAs. They are not that good with the Infartry, which I hate, but with a system of railroads, they could be very useful for attacking enemy attacks or counter attacks.B+
Impis- I never like them, but they are very useful when you are attacking or scouting. The mass impi strategy is considered very useful to me, since cost so less.B
Knight- An average unit with poteniful speed and power, used in alot of my campaigns. I don't get why the koreans use knights?B
Keishkes- I didn't believe the mongols took over half of the world with this stupid thing, sure they can travel overmoutains very fast, it is very useful if there is alot of moutain, the trade 10 shields for a defense point? They are easier to beat by the longbowman.B-
War Chariot- They are good, but I never get the chance to use them, but they don't need upgrade!C+
Iroquious Mounted Horseman- They are alot worse then the Gallic Swords MAn, they do fine in combat, I didn't like the look of their trait......C
Horseman- Easy to beat fast unit, conidered in important. C-
Cossacks- Increase a defense? so what? the longbow man still could defeat it.D+
Conquidesters- With a low attack, they are almost useless in my campigns execpt for looting, which I don't use alot, since I want to keep all of the enemy resource after I conquer them. I never had alot of workers going around with my army, vecause my army are always of fast units.D
Indian War Elephant- No words that they're the worst, but if you don't the resources you need, tehy are pretty good. Since I always plays with 10 AIs, I always get resources.
 
Why isn't anyone posting again? Dunno
 
Pretty nice.... Alot of the units are special UU's.... which I would ever use... I normally use the immortal or the hoplite... both which have only a pitiful 1 movement point.
 
You forgot to mention Jaguar Warriors again :) one of the best and most powerful of all fast units. They cost just 10 shields remember? 10. You ranked Impi as a B based on their 'attacking and scouting'. Errmm...Jags can attack and scout just as well and are half the price! They are a truly awesome unit.

Gallic swordsman ranked far above Mounted Warriors. Huh? I'd much rather 5 mounted warriors than 3 gallic swordsmen!

-Sirp.
 
Well I can repeat myself here too, in case you forgot what I said last time. ;)

A comparison that covers all fast units is pointless.

A comparison between all the ancient/medieval UU's is much more worthwhile. If someone is going to use fast units they would(or *should*) use the whole upgrade chain. Therefore the *useful* camparison is between the early UU's that you get to choose between.

To be really useful it also has to encompass the traits you get with each, and therefore should actually be a comparison of the Civ's that have early fast UU's.

On a more specific note, you are wrong that militaristic civs have a higher chance of generating a leader from an elite unit. You always have a 1/16 chance (1/12 with Heroic Epic). You *do* get more elites (1/12 instead of 1/16 for normal promotions), but it is good to be clear about the facts.

Maybe if you do it a third time you will focus on the ancient UU civ's, then I would find it useful. :)
 
anarres: promotions aren't 1/12 vs 1/16 for militaristic vs non-militaristic.

The promotion chances are as follows:

1/2 for a winning conscript to promote to regular
1/4 for a winning regular
1/8 for a winning veteran

- chances are doubled for militaristic civs
- chances are halved if the victory is against a barbarian unit

You're right about it being 1/16 to get a great leader, and 1/12 if you have the heroic epic. This does follow the logical progression for non-militaristic civs (i.e. halving the promotion chance each time), except that there is no chance of getting a great leader from fighting barbarians.

Also you're right about cross-era comparisons being pointless. You can compare swordsmen vs horseman or mounted warrior vs gallic swordsmen, but not horseman vs cavalry.

-Sirp.
 
Originally posted by Sirp
anarres: promotions aren't 1/12 vs 1/16 for militaristic vs non-militaristic.

The promotion chances are as follows:

1/2 for a winning conscript to promote to regular
1/4 for a winning regular
1/8 for a winning veteran

- chances are doubled for militaristic civs
- chances are halved if the victory is against a barbarian unit
:eek:

lol, I stand corrected! Thanks Sirp, I was remembering what someone had posted to the newbie thread a long time ago. Has it always been this way?

(I must admit is makes much more sense this way than the way I thought...)
 
Yes it has always been this way afaik anarres.

Militaristic civs getting *double* the chance of advancing is a substantial advantage. With vets getting a 1/4 chance of promoting, you really get lots of elite units!

If the chances of promotion were 1/12 and 1/16, getting a great leader would be an exercise in frustration!

-Sirp.
 
Originally posted by Sirp
If the chances of promotion were 1/12 and 1/16, getting a great leader would be an exercise in frustration!
Well, with the odds of getting a leader from elite 1/16 before Heroic Epic it *is* an excercise in frustration sometimes. ;)
 
Originally posted by anarres
Well, with the odds of getting a leader from elite 1/16 before Heroic Epic it *is* an excercise in frustration sometimes. ;)

Yes precisely, and think what a double exercise in frustration it would be: just getting an elite unit would be as hard as getting a GL is now, and then once you got the elite unit you would have to protect this rarity while trying over and over to get a GL!

-Sirp.
 
Earlier thread on UU's with some excellent discussion.

Also, anyone else have the impression that you never get leaders when you really need them, but often enough when it's merely nice to get one ? It's a conspiracy I tell ya :) !
 
Originally posted by jack merchant
Earlier thread on UU's with some excellent discussion.

Also, anyone else have the impression that you never get leaders when you really need them, but often enough when it's merely nice to get one ? It's a conspiracy I tell ya :) !
Of course, it's a conspiracy... ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom