About some unique units

[ZeAvIs]

I don't know what you guys think but some unique units are stupid. The war chariot is pointless because its exactly like a horsemen. The war elephant is exactly the same as a knight, the unit it replaces. What is the point of that? Nobody would want to be India because their unique unit is only unique in animation. Although I have not bought PTW yet I was looking at the new unique units when I noticed the Numidian Mercenary, the Carthaginian unique unit. This unit seems to be a little overpowered, and also the fact that it is like the Greek Hoplite except that it has 1 more attack point. If you used to pick Greek because of the hoplite and then got PTW, you would never want to be them again because you could just be Carthage and get the same unit only better. I don't really know why they did this because it makes the hoplite useless. I would like to see what you guys think.

 

[Sim_One]

You forget that a War Chariot cost 10 less shields than a horseman, that a Hoplite cost 10 less shields than a Numidian Infantry, and that War Elephants do not require Iron and Horses.

 

[warpstorm]

You can get 3 hoplites for the price of 2 Numidean Mercs. Hardly useless.

 

[Silverflame]

Right now, I think you are being blinded by their uses only in a/d/m ratings. A lot of the new UUs are unique in either cost or resources.

 

[Magus Maximus]

Yeah when I first saw the new UU I also thought they were overpowered but after seeing their cost in shields i realized that they did a pretty good job balancing them

As for the indian UU its good when u lack of the resources u would need to build knights.

And the mongol UU its not overpowered at all
BTW, I read soe posts saying that the mongol UU should b an archer horseman instead of the keshik. I havent played with them yet but for what i saw on the flicster, thats what the keshik is: i guy riding a horse firing arrows. duh!

As for no one choosing the greeks just because of their untis (if they were useless compared to the numidian mercenary), i dont know about everyone else but i dont pick a civ just because of its UU

 

[ZeAvIs]

what about the viking berserk? I nean i has 6 attack and can do amphibious assaults. Vikings have a serious offensive advantage in the second age because for other civs only cavs have 6 attack and that is a lot later in the age.

 

[Gen]

Originally posted by ZeAvIs
what about the viking berserk? I nean i has 6 attack and can do amphibious assaults. Vikings have a serious offensive advantage in the second age because for other civs only cavs have 6 attack and that is a lot later in the age.

Sure he's awesome, but look at the cost! Also, archers do not upgrade to berserkers so you have to build them rather than simply upgrading horde of archers after getting Invention.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

I tried Vikings yesterday and was shocked. A=6 and naval attack

There is NO defence against 3 Galleys full of them - period.

A=5 would be OK, but 6?????

 

[TheNiceOne]

I haven't got PTW yet (live in Norway) so can't comment the effect of the berserk, but I do have some comments regarding the Indian war elephant.

The war elephant has a great advantage in not requiring horses or iron. It is unvaluable if you lack on/both of these, but can be very useful even if you have both. In my only game as India I could happily trade away my horses for quite a lot gold per turn to another civ that wasn't even my neighbour (so I didn't need to fear a knight attack from them). I don't remember the sum, but it was more than 10 gold per turn, which is quite a lot of money in the early mediaval age.

 

[cromagnon]

TheNiceOne, I'm a little fuzzy about this, but I thought you could only trade away surplus goods. In the trade screen under resources, it says, for example, Horses (1 extra). I always assumed the game would force you to keep one for yourself, and any additional ones you have are up for trade.

 

[TheNiceOne]

cromagnon: No, you are free to trade away your last resource of a type. If you have only one left, the trade screen will show "Horses (0 extra)", but it is still tradeable, and after you have sold it, you can trade for it from another civ if you want to.

The latter tactic is very useful in games where you are smaller than other civs, especially in OCC (one city contest) games. In one such game I had saltpeter and gems within may city radius. I could then sell the saltpeter for lots of money to one of the really big civs that lacked it, for 20-30 gpt, and at the same time buy it from another civ for less than 5 gpt. The price is affected by the size of the civ (as a big civ can build many more musketeers/cavalry per turn than the small one).

 

[zenga]

TheNiceOne, after just playing my first few OCC's recently I can vouch for what you say. As a small civ it is nearly always better to trade all your homeland resources and then buy the one's back that you need at a cheaper level. It is fairly easy to get a 2-for1 deal, or better, using this method.

In most games, where the player is one of the largest civs in land and population, it is better to keep your resources. India, like you say ( I never considered it before), with the War Elephant, gives you a good option to trade resources and generate a lot of income ( or other resources/luxuries) in the Middle Ages.

 

[cromagnon]

The only problem with that strategy is that a larger Civ is statistically more likely to have iron and horses somewhere in its borders, making it unnecessary for them to buy from you.

But your original assertion remains: you can build War Elephants without a large empire.

Edit: Although, in my current game, I have 1/4 the landmass and have NO coal!

 

[warpstorm]

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
There is NO defence against 3 Galleys full of them - period.

How about 4 galleys?

 

[Gothmog]

IMO the Hoplite is better than the Numidian Infantry, they cost 2/3 as much and what do you need the 2 attack for anyway when it's the best defensive unit around. Buld a couple archers (also 2/3 the cost) or horses with their movement bonus and you are all set.

I've played one game with the celts and their swords are awesome in the ancient age. The retreat option makes them almost unstopable. I do wonder about the vikings unit too, I may try them next.

 

[Catt]

On Topic: I've played with the Bezerks. A powerful unit indeed, but very expensive. Without the Great Lighthouse everyone will see them coming from a mile away and get defense in order (i.e., as Warpstorm points out, hit them when they're vulnerable and at sea). I think they're effective against the AI (perhaps to the point of being unbalancing, though I'm not convinced of that), but much less so in MP (though I admit I haven't played MP).

Off Topic: The "trading your last resource" gambit is also very useful with luxuries, especially when you're the smaller civ, and the luxury trade means that you very rarely give anything away in the end. Trading your only wine for some furs and gold (or a tech, an additional luxury, etc.) means you still have one luxury, but now you've got some extras too. It also means that if the trade deal is broken (by a war, for example), at least you get your luxury back (losing the furs but getting back your wine) -- you've only lost the extra goodies. Finally, trading a luxury often avoids the statisical challenges that might crop up when trading with a larger neighbor (i.e., horses distributed all over the world, but wines may be on only one continent).

 

[WillJ]

However, one thing to remember with the "trading your last resource and then buying some from somewhere else" idea is that the other civ is getting a deal too. For example, if you have a much smaller land area than one of your opponents, and you give them one luxury for two luxuries, it will probably equal out, or come fairly close, because they have more cities (and same with strategic resources; the larger civ will be able to build more units with that resource than you can, so the extra stuff that you get equals it out), and that is the whole reason why the deal works out like it does.

But if you know you won't feel the effects of the civ getting the resource, such as if you're far away from them like TheNiceOne said, then of course it would be a good strategy.

 

[oliver088]

I'm playing the vikings now and kind of annoyed at the berserk. At 70 shields you just cant afford to lose them, plus you gotta pay for the galleys which the damn barbarians attack and sink. You also have only 2 guys per galley so you need a lot, and, you need musketmen if you ever want to hold the city you take (and as an escort as you go across the land), which increases costs more. Cavalry are just so more effective for 3 more advances, plus you get the retreat...

 

[Gothmog]

Yes, I forgot they replace longbows. That does give you a pretty small window before cavalry. I don't think it will be unbalancing overall.

So far (I haven't played all the civs yet) I think hoplites are my favorites as they always come in handy (like starting with pikers), and my personal preference because I won my first Diety game as the Greeks.

 

[sabo]

Originally posted by ZeAvIs
what about the viking berserk? I nean i has 6 attack and can do amphibious assaults. Vikings have a serious offensive advantage in the second age because for other civs only cavs have 6 attack and that is a lot later in the age.

I don't think the beserk makes them to powerful. I played Vikings in my last game and I forget when you get them but it seems pretty late in the game. I was producing calvary by the time I was ready to use them.