Favorite early unit

VanillaCube

VanillaCube

Your local Schizophrenic
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
678
Location
Half a mile from the Spruce Goose.
I dont know about anyone else but my favorite early unit is the explorer because
he can move really fast and you can even use him in war by out running the enemy and serving as a decoy to send behind the enemy line and getting them to move there units to the back just to kill one really fast son of a $*/@$# while your fastest units attack the citys with little resistase
cool.gif
and during peace time you can you can explore the enemys land by running them in as far as they can go before they ask you to leave.I want to hear what are some of your fav. early units in civ 2.


------------------
VANILLA CUBE
the great
 
Originally posted by vanillacube:
I dont know about anyone else but my favorite early unit is the explorer because
he can move really fast and you
Click to expand...

I rarely build explorers.
 
. My favorite very early unit is the MERCENARY elephant, since polytheism is never a reshearch priority for me, these mercs "ancient tanks" show up many turns before I can build them.

------------------
Gauis Mucius Scaevola
Older, richer, and wiser than you.
 
I'm usually focussed on city-building and defense in the early part of the game; for this a combination of a phalanx plus a catapult is very nice-- it can destroy amazing numbers of the AI's suicide squads.
 
Ancient Times-Legion
Medival Times-Dragoon
Modern Era-Armor
All Around coolest and best unit- Fanatics!
smile.gif
No support cost

------------------
A.K.A Gregorius_Luxius
http://civfanatics.com Staff and forum moderator

"Do you worry that you're not liked
How long till you break
You're happy cause you smile
But how much can you fake"

"My mother's always tried to change herself
She never learned to let things be
She doesn't know how bad she messed me up
Cause now she seems so fake to me
But I love her"

"When shadows paint the scenes
Where spotlights used to fall
And I'm left wondering
Is it really worth it all?"
 
Civ1: militia (There are militia in civ2 as well, aren't there?)

Militia are indispensible, unless you are in one of those governments where military units cause unhappiness because you can build hordes and hordes of militia. For the cost of 3 chariots and 2 catapults you can build 20 militia, a force capable of covering over every single square within a city radius, starving the city and destroying even the most impenetrable of forces. I love to send them ahead of my ancient forces along with cavalry because they are dispensible, strong enough when fortified on good terrain, and able to kill legions, cavalry, chariots, and catapults on fairly good ods. If on flat terrain, a militia attacking a chariot can win 50% of the time... pretty good for a unit that costs 25% as much.
smile.gif
I don't build _only_ militia, but in ancient combat they are essential to out-fighting an opponent who has equal or greater production levels.

I think there should be militia available at all levels. For example, when you develop musketeers, there should be an equivalent militia unit, perhaps 2/2/1 (like a phalanx, only cheaper) that you cannot get until you discover gunpowder. And the same goes for riflemen. There should be a 3/3/1 unit that you can build once you have conscription that would cost the same as a militia to build. They would essentially be civilians that have been given a few weapons and some of whom have armed themselves, that would enable you to produce huge quantities of continent-controlling infantry. Tanks could tear through them like a hot knife through butter, but considering the relative costs, a success 1 out of 4 times against a tank would be an economic success.

Militia for everyone!

------------------
militia.gif
phalanx.gif

Civilization I Master of masters
Webmaster of Civilization I Fanatics Center
 
Civ1: militia (There are militia in civ2 as well, aren't there?)

They are called warriors in civ2.

For the cost of 3 chariots and 2 catapults you can build 20 militia,

be careful.... you will need lots of shields to support that many militia.
smile.gif
can your new cities afford that?


[This message has been edited by Thunderfall (edited November 13, 2000).]
 
caravans and warriors. thats all you need to win. the WHOLE game. diplomats are nice also
wink.gif


oh yeah,.. explorers suck

[This message has been edited by stellar converter (edited November 13, 2000).]
 
Well I usually play Despotism for most of the game... until I conquer the world that is. Using militia, chariots, etc, I have managed to defeat civs that have had bombers & tanks. It's simply a matter of volume.

In despotism, you get free support for a number of units equal to the number of the city. In Emperor, a city with two defense units can grow up to 4 without needing a temple. This is ideal; I just build lots of these small cities... decentralization! So each of these cities can support its two phalanxes plus 2 more units for free. If the city has a production, say, of 6 (which is typical in such small cities of mine where the growth has been stunted intentionally @ 4), then that city can support its own defense plus 8 units. This is plenty. I go into war with at least 6 of these cities, which means I can support 48 units max. Sometimes, when using 15+ cities, I have had over 200 units (not including defense in my cities). That is an unstoppable force. Sure, half of them are militia, but they just don't stop coming. I've had a line of units leading all the way around the world, following the path of my conquest. They just walked single file down this road that lead to the battles, taking triremes (ferries) accross small gulfs and destroying everything in their path. On one game, I was delayed getting a trireme to the final spot to launch an attack on the last civ. By the time the trireme got there, the pile of units had built up 150-160. The strait was very narrow, and I was able to land all the units in one turn. The civ I was attacking had 3 cities, none of which were larger than 6. Needless to say, they didn't last long. I had enough units to cover the continent, twice, plus a steady resupply flow on the way.

My point? Support is not a problem. I always have the resources to support militia. IMO, when at war, 20-30% of a city's production should be devoted to unit upkeep. If it is less, you are building units that are too expensive. If it is more, then you are either building units that are too cheap or you are not using your units aggresively enough.

------------------
militia.gif
phalanx.gif

Civilization I Master of masters
Webmaster of Civilization I Fanatics Center
 
Explorers are great for really opening up your map. You can cover more ground with these guys than any other unit until modern times. Barring barbarian attacks, you can often scoop up all the loose huts scattered throughout the wilderness and you can get a great read of your enemies terrain. This is always a strategy of mine.

Explorers are a favorite of mine too because I find the most exciting part of the game to be exploration and discovery.

This leads to my favorite, unit in ancient times- the Trireme. I hate to be confined to small spaces. The more islands and continents that I can occupy and grow on, the more elusive and hard to defeat my civ will be. (I'm not talking about just randomly settling a city in the middle of nowhere, I'm talking strategic locations).
On a large map, this is the only way to fight a really big war. If you don't get there first (wherever that may be), you're losing out. Losing out on resources, huts and strategic positioning.

(Of course if I was playing a game in which i was landlocked for miles around, this wouldn't be the case.....)

------------------
Have you ever thought about your soul and can it be saved?
Or perhaps you think that when you're dead you just stay in your grave.
 
Originally posted by drake:
Explorers are great for really opening up your map. You can cover more ground with these guys than any other unit until modern times.
Click to expand...

vanillacube will be glad to hear that.
smile.gif
 
Originally posted by vanillacube:
you suck

Click to expand...

hmm. i take it im not on your good side. thought of putting
originally twisted from vanillacube's words:
i suck
Click to expand...
(
smile.gif
im just kidding ok no hard feelings
smile.gif
)

but i thought better of it
wink.gif

i also base my whole gmae on getting my enemies info. by trading maps and technology. i happen to think explorers are a waste of time, as do others, and you think they are useful, as do others. were all entitled to our own opinion, right? why do you need your opponents map though?

one thing ive noticed is that civ does not take a great deal of planning to carry out a campaign. just throw a bunch of elephants/catapults/phalanxes at your enemy and they cant hold up under the pressure. this does not require their map. does it?


[This message has been edited by stellar converter (edited November 14, 2000).]
 
Yea you dont need to know the enemys map to kill them But it sure helps
------------------
VANILLA CUBE
the great

[This message has been edited by vanillacube (edited November 15, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Amphibious war & advanced flight
Replies
5
Views
3K
Blake00
Blake00
K
Bombards "Can only defend" - but also attack?!
Replies
1
Views
153
Walter Hawkwood
Walter Hawkwood
D
New Unit Function - autofire
Replies
0
Views
248
DeckerdJames
D
Y
Taking Out Enemy Airfield?
Replies
9
Views
1K
cbum
C
planetfall
What is the advantage, if any, of enabling barbs?
Replies
5
Views
450
planetfall
planetfall
Back
Top Bottom