Greek Hoplite

[Sailorstick]

Just discovered how good the greek Hoplite unit is. It is still useful right up until gunpowder is discovered and you get it right from the beginning. Unfortunately I was attacked about 10 turns into the game and entered a golden age. Doh!

 

[Inter4]

And what are we supposed to say about this?

 

[Sailorstick]

You are supposed to either agree with me or disagree and give me reasons why either way. Or you could say "Wow, I never realised they were so good!" Really the choice is up to you. Being intelligent people on this forum I didn't think I had to tell you what to say.

 

[superslug]

Defensively, the Hoplite is better than Spearmen only on paper. In reality, it's advantages are overrated, especially on lower levels and larger maps and for players who sedentarize their barbs.

Whether or not an early GA is a good vs bad thing is between the player and the game. Every UU in Civ3 is good in some context.

Since it is contextual usefulness, there's no point in agreeing or disagreeing...just thought I'd chip in my two cents worth of supposedly obviousness.

 

[Sailorstick]

But they are as good as a pikeman and they are nice and cheap. It is definitely good for people that have early wars as you have a nice defensive adavantage over everyone else.

 

[Bouchehog]

I tend to shy away from defensive units anyway. Think of it like this. Your spearman (hoplite) is a 20 shield investment that will sit there and do nothing but consume resources. It will only be needed when you're attacked. An offensive unit on the other hand can be used to obtain wealth.

Defensive units certainly have their place, but if you've built with a nice tight grouping and good communications then you can get away with very few defenders just as long as you have a good offensive force. To quote the over-used phrase "a good offence is the best form of defence."

 

[Sirp]

The hoplites are indeed good units. They become obsolete only with the advent of rifles. (Anyone who would prefer to pay 60 shields for muskets when you can get hoplites at 20 shields is insane).

I think that the power of defense is underestimated by many. Having such cheap, great defensive units gives a substantial advantage.

However, I do prefer impi to hoplites. Their movement is more valuable than better defense, and if a town on your road network is threatened, you can move a swarm of impi to defend it in a flash. Impi can also be used offensively: stack them with horses for a 'virtual' 2/2/2 unit. If an attack against a city is close, the impi can themselves attack if necessary.

Also, the pillaging power of both the hoplite and the impi is awesome. The impi are great for trying to reach resources and snip the roads to them, as well as just leaving a general path of devestation.

-Sirp.

 

[wilbill]

Originally posted by Sailorstick
Unfortunately I was attacked about 10 turns into the game and entered a golden age. Doh!

Which is why I think the Hoplite is a good, but not great, unit. Same thing happened to me this evening playing Carthage. Numidian Mercs have the same problem, although the GA won't come 10 turns into the game, it can still come far earlier than I prefer.

 

[Sirp]

Well if you're attacked 10 turns into the game, it's far better to have a hoplite triggering a golden age than your enemies trampling all over your capital...

Numids are a poor unique unit because they cost too much, and their extra attack has little value.

-Sirp.

 

[wilbill]

I agree, Sirp. I really don't enjoy playing the Carthagenians for that reason. I do think the cost is somewhat offset by the fact that the NM's are useful for an extended period of time (as are Hoplites). And certainly when the Babs came at me this evening with a rush of Bowmen, I was glad to have Mercs instead of spearmen. Generally, I just prefer the offensive UU's as I feel I have a little more control over my Golden Age with them.

 

[Sirp]

Well, Carthage is still a decent civ because they have good traits. Perfect for a builder game. I'm still not sure if the numids are worse than musketeers or not. Certainly the choice between France and Carthage is deciding which unique unit is worse.

-Sirp.

 

[Brewster]

I happen to like the Hoplites. Just try to think of them as cheap pikemen that do not require any resources. The defensive power of this unit may actually prevent the AI from attacking you at the start of the game. Although the early GA can be a pain in the butt, it is much better than having the AI go rampaging through your cities. Since it is upgadeable all the way to MI, this unit is well worth every bit of the cost and upkeep.

 

[Darkness]

Hoplites are great units! That's the main reason why it's very bad luck to have the Greeks as your nearest neighbours. The hoplites defensive value of 3 will bleed your horsemen and swordsmen dry if you go for an early war, which is very difficult against the Greeks. You'll need very large numbers of ancient age units to knock Alexander down...

 

[Sukenis]

Hoplites as ok, but you have to look at other issues with the greeks. They start close to the persians and the romans!!! They each have a UU that can cause major problems for the hoplite defense. Immprtals can kill the, and Rome can attack you with a offensive unit that has the same defense as a hoplite. Unless you turn off CLSP, the power of the hoplite deminishes a bit.

On a side note, the Numidian Mercs are under rated by many of the above posters. All you have to do is treat them as archers when it comes to offense. They are great for parking in hills & Mountains in the enemy territory and watching units implale themselves on them. The 2 offense can then be used to kill a unit that either a)one the attack and now has few HP left or b) pick off archers that are getting ready to attack. This is not to mention that they have a much better upgrade path than most all of the other early UU.

 

[Akula]

I like the hoplite partially since it suits my playing style partially since i like playing the greeks, it's not as good as the numidian mercenary but but it's a bit cheaper

 

[Sirp]

Treat them as archers? Archers die easily enough, but when you have one that loses you 30 shields of production rather than just 20 when it dies, that's really bad...

-Sirp.

 

[Louis XXIV]

They won't die, though (They have 3 defense)

They still aren't worth the cost (you'll still be using Swordsmen for attack, what's the extra cost for?)

 

[Sirp]

No, I mean they'll die easily enough if you use them to attack. So as soon as you actually want to use the extra advantage they have over hoplites, you have to expose them to substantial risk.

Indeed, if you want to attack your 30 shields are far better spent on a swordsman.

Roman legionaries are clearly better than numids. They come just a little later, require iron, cost the same amount, have an extra attack, and can be upgraded to from warriors. The only reason you'd want numids over legionaries is if you had a pathological shortage of iron...

-Sirp.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Well, I'm not going to claim that Numidians are great units, but I find the counterattack potential useful. It's an added option, which can only be a good thing*. I'd still rather have 20 shield Hoplites any day of the week.

I think the Musketeer trumps the Numidians; the Musketeer's extra attack is a pure bonus, altho' a slight one, whereas the Numidians can actually hurt you - you might not be able to build/rush one in a situation you could a Spearman.

* Unless you're an AI, in which case it only allows you to suicide in new ways!

 

[earendil 1]

What perplexes me is why people like numidian mercenries a little bit but they say that the bowman is "some crappy archer dude." They have the same stats. And yes the hoplite is great especially on multiplayer and ever better on elimination games.