Are Immortals totally over-rated?

[Chingis Khan]

Am I the only one here who thinks Immortals get WAY too much credit? Sure, a 4 attack is nice in the old days, but they are so slow. It takes forever to build a massive army of 3-4 Immortals and move them into position. And the worst thing about them is their inability to upgrade. I guess I have the same problems with them as I do swordsmen. Give me horsemen any day. That's why I don't understand everybody raving about how great the Persians are because of their UU, Persians are good, but because of their science and Industrius combo - not their UU. If you want an early UU to rave about, try the Iroquios once or twice...
I'm not attacking the Persians or their UU, but I just think their heads are getting way too big with all this praise.
Am I alone in this viewpoint?

 

[WarlordMatt]

Actually, although the Persians are my fave civ, Immortals have been very ineffective every time I've used them. I once attacked a Zulu city defended by a veteran warrior with two Immortals, one regular one elite, and the warrior killed them both with 0 hp losses. Their "4" attack rating is ineffective.

 

[Grawss]

I hate the immortals but I do totally like swordsman. They have been very good to me. But most of all I like how the swordsman celebrate when they get upgraded a level like to elite. Or when they take a barbarian camp and get the gold. I don't see how you cannot like swordsman¿?

×Immortals× »Swordsman«

 

[Sullla]

Immortals are not overrated at all. Sure they don't upgrade, but they don't really need to upgrade. They become available as soon as iron working is researched, which is only 1 tech away from the scientific Persians, and remain viable as attackers into the industrial age. Remember, NO other ancient age unit has an attack as high, and except for the Greek Hoplite, the best defender against the Immortal has only 2 defense unit Pikemen come around. There is no other time in the game where you have an attacker that is twice as strong as the defender. Immortals can be used as cheap attackers right up until rifles are developed; at only 30 shields I would much rather have two 4/2/1 immortals than one 4/3/2 knight. Anyone who thinks Immortals are overrated has never seen the devastating power of converting 10 warriors into immortals by connecting an iron source and then obliterating another civ off the map. Trust me - they have a fearsome reputation for a reason.

 

[Sanaz]

Originally posted by Sullla
Anyone who thinks Immortals are overrated has never seen the devastating power of converting 10 warriors into immortals by connecting an iron source and then obliterating another civ off the map.

This is the best part - build all of your early warriors to start exploring, then upgrade to a huge army (for the time). You can really stake out your territory and early resources/luxuries, getting off to a great start. I think the downside is the early Golden Age, but I know some prefer that. I just prefer a GA when there are more cities producing to get great wonders.

 

[WarlordMatt]

Sullla said:
Anyone who thinks Immortals are overrated has never seen the devastating power of converting 10 warriors into immortals by connecting an iron source and then obliterating another civ off the map. Trust me - they have a fearsome reputation for a reason.

Uhhhh, one thing........warriors can't upgrade to immortals.

 

[No.Dice]

I prefer the Iroquois' mounted Warrior for obvious reasons, but theres really no arguing with..

Originally posted by Sullla


Anyone who thinks Immortals are overrated has never seen the devastating power of converting 10 warriors into immortals by connecting an iron source and then obliterating another civ off the map. Trust me - they have a fearsome reputation for a reason.

I much prefer fighting with horsemen, but on higher difficulties it has a smaller window of success, and requires at least a decent start position, with room to build out.

You can pull a swordsman conquest off if you started in the gutter, and even end up crippling multiple civs before the ancient age is up.

Immortals are also cheaper than, and have better stats than longbowmen, so they don't become obsolete when you hit the middle ages.

Their low cost allows those corrupt cities on the fringe to build a useful offensive unit, instead of churning out endless chains of pikemen, and can even fill the same role as a knight for a brief period (enough to secure a horse icon) should you be in a resource bind.

 

[MuddyOne]

I think some of the preference/dislike of it depends mostly on whether you prefer combined arms or not. If you use combined arms alot, the faster movement rate of the horse units isn't that much a benefit. You just have to use the spacebar a lot when advancing to the enemy city

 

[Chingis Khan]

Originally posted by MuddyOne
I think some of the preference/dislike of it depends mostly on whether you prefer combined arms or not. If you use combined arms alot, the faster movement rate of the horse units isn't that much a benefit.

Combined arms help defend your units from enemy attack, but don't help at all when you attack. Have you ever seen a stack of swordsmen fall to 2-3 stupid spearmen? I have also seen a stack of horsemen fail to take such a city, but they will mostly still live to fight another day (although your combined arms will keep them alive for the AI counterattack).

 

[Moss]

Well all I can say is in my current game I have destroyed three civs with the Persians, with a great deal of help from immortals. Although the last civ I destroyed was mostly with the help of calvary.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Chingis Khan

Combined arms help defend your units from enemy attack, but don't help at all when you attack. Have you ever seen a stack of swordsmen fall to 2-3 stupid spearmen? I have also seen a stack of horsemen fail to take such a city, but they will mostly still live to fight another day (although your combined arms will keep them alive for the AI counterattack).

Horses are definitely fast, especially once you break through, though many times the attack will grind to a halt. But combined-arms are sure and steady. Ultimately, combined-arms can defeat much tougher opponents; who may have substantial production advantages, for instance. A stack of sword with a few spearmen, catapults and horsemen is virtually unstoppable.

If the sword are replaced with immortals, the only reasonable defense would be an active combined-arms defense, rarely seen in the AI.

 

[Sullla]

Originally posted by WarlordMatt
Uhhhh, one thing........warriors can't upgrade to immortals.

That was not the case in previous patches, but as far as I know it is allowed in the current version. I have not actually played Persia of late, but I can't imagine there being a special exemption for the Immortal that would not allow them to be upgraded to while all other UUs can be done so. I seem to recall the players in the Democracy game upgrading warriors to immortals and then attacking, but I can't be sure on that. Are you sure that this upgrade doesn't work? Maybe someone who plays Persia frequently can clear this up for me?

 

[No.Dice]

Last time random gave me the persians, i was able to upgrade my warriors to immortals. I believe it was shortly after 1.21 was released.

In that game i had managed to cripple so many civs in ancient-middle age wars, that i ended up quitting the game at around 500 AD, bored. A testament to the power of immortals. I had randomed all of the settings, i believe the map turned out a large % archipelago. All the isles were connected because of this, thus there was little room to build out and the AI expansion was severely checked, hampering it quite a bit.

 

[smallstepforman]

I've never lost as Persia (always play Emperor). Scientific is great, Industrial is even better. Immortals with 4/2/1 32 turns into the game is like playing with a cheat.

These days I dont play Persians since there's no challenge.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

I love Immortals! They are so cheap, come so early and have a decent chance on defense (like a Spearman!!!!!), especially after they wipe up a few Archers and Warriors and are elite.......

They are indeed too strong for the time, even if the tech goes fast, because whenever I play Persia I can eliminate at least 1 civ, usually 2 with them. After a while, I have sufficient numbers to even go after walled towns with a pikeman (that`s what my 3-elite-Immo army is for).

So I start to wonder why I enver see the persians rush to that kind of victory. They usually seem slow in irrigating and mining (because they build few workers), also they are so often behind in tech because they build no Lobraries - is this because the AI can't use Immos sensibly and thus looses to many, or is the Persia AI handicapped by the programers?