How to FIX the most useless units

[weregamer]

Almost every "useless" unit has some value in the right circumstances, but the thread about them points out many that are a bit weak. I don't completely agree with all of the comments in that thread, but instead of complaining I'd like to suggest fixes.

To wit:

* Explorers are useless for exploration, because by the time you have them everything is explored already.

Ideas: Make them have a -2 terrain cost penalty modifier instead of the two promotions they currently have. Let them attack, so they can be used as guerillas in the pre-gunpowder era. Make them upgrade to riflemen so they wont' be dead ends.

* Guided missiles are awfully expensive for expendable units

Ideas: I"m not convinced they are useless in the modern era, because they have good interception evasion. But micromanaging them is too painful. Instead use the stats that Next War uses to give the endgame uber-units ranged bombardment to let Missile Cruisers do that. Perhaps create a Missile Submarine unit to upgrade regular subs, with the same ability.

* Grenadiers are useless in BtS because by the time you can build them you already have Infantry

Ideas:
(plan 1) Make them +25% on the attack and +50% vs Gunpowder units. This makes them at least somewhat useful against defending Infantry.
(plan 2) Give them +50% vs Gunpowder units and +50% vs Mounted units (animals don't like big explosions after all). This makes them really potent against lower-tech opponents and Cavalry.

* Carriers as-is just don't do what they ought. As a platform for a mere 3 fighters, they don't provide enough air defense for their task force and don't provide significant bombardment to support landings.

Ideas:
(plan 1, ambitious): Increase capacity to 5 or 6 planes. Introduce "light bombers" at the same time as carriers and "jet bombers" at the same time as jet fighters. Light bombers have only the range of Fighters and do less damage than land-based Bombers but do get collateral damage. Jet bombers have a similar relationship to Jet Fighters and Stealth Bombers, and a small evasion chance. If the game mechanics are there, reintroduce the "precision strike" ability from Civ3 for Jet Bombers.
(plan 2, simpler): Give Carriers some intrinsic abilities to model their air wings, and make the ability to carry 3 Fighters and Jet Fighters a bonus, or maybe reduce it to 1 unit or get rid of it. Specifically, give them ranged bombardment (like the endgame units in Next War) and an air interception chance (like mobile SAMs and Mech Inf).

 

[Underdawg]

Couldn't this have been included in the same thread as the "Useless Units thread?:

Not really about "fixing" the grenadier but related:

Solution to fix Grenadier/Riflemen Gap - Make Military Science required to build infantry and maybe railroads as well? NOTE: Just a requirement for Infantry unit, not Assembly line Tech.

 

[Yzman]

I don't understand how people can say the grenadier is useless. In my game currently, I got grenadiers, shortly after the horse before cavalry(can't remember name) and way before I even got calvary and riflemen. They are definitely good. I am not seeing how people get to infantry before they get to these when I didn't even have riflemen yet.

 

[weregamer]

I might be sensitized by experiences on the WoW forums, but the other thread seemed to be on the way to just being a complaint-fest. I wanted to start something a little more constructive.

I like your idea on the Infantry; making Grenadiers more powerful might be too good. But that said, even before BtS I never built Grenadiers - like Triremes, the single-unit-specific bonus just wasn't enough to make them worth the overall lower strength. OTOH I mostly play on Warlord to Noble, at higher difficulties maybe you see more defending Riflemen?

 

[Yzman]

If you tech the same way I tech up, grenadiers are the strongest unit at that time matched with the current horse unit.

 

[Underdawg]

Whether or not I go for Grenadiers really depends on the situation...

some games I don't get Military science until I have electricity (trade to a backwards civ for MS) and sometimes I shoot straight for it (Usually through Education --- Gunpowder --- Chemistry ---- MS) - but that is usually if a shoot for liberalism is not viable (AI is ahead) or if I am behind (which is most of the time) and I researched paper and education to trade to AI's and go straight to Gunpowder (Low Priority tech for AI, hard to trade because of cost ; most techs of the era are either 2000+ beakers less or 2000+ beakers more, usually have to make a bundle trade to make the beaker costs match up when trading for higher cost techs)

It's situational... I have had several games however where an early Military Science along with a well timed Merchant GP to mass upgrade my maces into Grenadiers has brought good dividends.

I don't really find that Grenadiers are useless (they are quite good IMO), it's just that I find the gap between Grenadiers/Riflemen and Infantry is too small which is why I advocate the Infantry unit requiring Military Science and at least Steel (or Railroad).

 

[PibbZ]

Explorer should upgrade to "Field Medic" or something imo, with Medic I & maybe Medic II promotion as well as Commando.
Should still not be able to attack, but would be vastly better in defense.

 

[King of Town]

The explorer already ignores terrain movement costs doesn't it? I don't know how anyone can ever say they are useful. Every time the thread comes up they are number one, even though they are really cheap medics who will never get killed in a stack because all of your other units will be chosen to defend first.

Any unit can be said to useless if you tech in a way to avoid getting the unit until after you have a better one.

 

[PibbZ]

Personally i must say the Ironclad is the most useless. I have NEVER found a good use for them, as they are way too slow and i can usually make destroyers a few turns later.

 

[kazapp]

I know that Grenadiers were overpowered pre-BtS.

If you didn't build them then, you probably weren't aware of the fact the AI defended its cities with almost nothing but Riflemen (which of course meant by using grenadiers your unit cost became way lower than the AI's). Also, by beelining to them you would often not even face Riflemen, but Longbowmen. Adding a few juicy AI cities simply was too easy. In summary, the pre-BtS Grenadier was probably the unit with the longest reign of power against AI defenders.

All of this has changed in BtS, however. Just the fact the AI now mixes in two or three Grenadiers and a Cavalry among the Riflemen is a big damper on the abuse potential of the Grenadier. And moving it later on the tech tree was a no-brainer too.

I haven't played BtS enough to say if the nerf went too far, though. For the purposes of this thread, I would think it would make more sense to move it a bit earlier again if a fix is needed. Messing with the Infantry unit seems unneccessarily messy to me.

 

[kazapp]

Personally i must say the Ironclad is the most useless. I have NEVER found a good use for them, as they are way too slow and i can usually make destroyers a few turns later.

I maintain that pre-BtS, the ironclads were indeed hopelessly impractical.

However, before you assume this is still the case, consider that they are now only one step slower than the invading ships, as any invader must now use ships-of-the-line.

Obviously, they still can't catch invaders before unloading, but saying they are useless is simply not true anylonger. At least, they're far less useless than pre-BtS.

Put them on sea resources. Guard straits and bays. They have a 50% Strength advantage over Frigates and SotLs, and any Frigate that dares to speed ahead of their SotLs you can simply take out with your own SotLs - the inability of the Ironclad to catch these isn't as devastating anylonger.

 

[FuRRie]

Why do so many people say the Explorer isn't good, learn to use it. It's the best Medic 3 / Woodsman 3 / M1 unit in the game.

 

[kazapp]

Make them upgrade to riflemen so they wont' be dead ends.

A good suggestion (if the upgrade cost would be comparable to upgrading a Warrior, it couldn't be unbalanced).

Gives a good reason to keep them around, as they can wander around in Barbland, amassing experience.

 

[kazapp]

Why do so many people say the Explorer isn't good, learn to use it. It's the best Medic 3 / Woodsman 3 / M1 unit in the game.

M1?

My objection to the "explorers are great medics" is that the unit isn't a medic, it is an explorer. Sure, rename the unit (and redo the graphics), restrict its move to a single step and I'm okay with that. I also realize Medics promos work best on units that's never called to defend, even if other units are at half strength.

That still leaves us with no Explorer unit though. So, how do you propose we improve on the Explorer unit. It's not utterly hopless, it just needs that extra little something that makes us build one once in a while.

To use as a Explorer, mind you! ;-)

 

[Soneji]

Sorry but I play huge maps, and explorers are not useless to me anyway. They cover ground quickly, especially if you start with them. You can also use them to run around and to update your map with enlarging enemy territories.

I tend to have one Woodsmen II, one Guerilla II.

I have very rarely based my army on Grenadiers.

Cruise missiles, I don't think they are too expensive to build. Most games by the time I can build them, my main cities can throw them out every couple of turns.

 

[kazapp]

Sorry but I play huge maps, and explorers are not useless to me anyway. They cover ground quickly, especially if you start with them. You can also use them to run around and to update your map with enlarging enemy territories.

I realize you get Explorers and not Scouts if you begin play in a later era. Sounds like you'd do equally well with Scouts. Noone has said Scouts are worthless.

We're discussing the lameness of the upgrade, the Explorer. We're not saying Explorers should be removed from the game - we're discussing ways to make them worthwhile on their own, not because of their inherited Scout abilities.

 

[Soneji]

Ah doh sorry should really have read that. I tend to agree with you lot then actually, I was talking about scouts not explorers. I have rarely built them, and would build a horse archer / knight / dragoon before building one. Just for the security of the unit.

 

[snipafist]

My solutions:

Explorers: they become available with paper (you know, when you can start trading maps) to make them more worthwhile. Still questionably worth it, but better than Compass.

Guided Missiles need to be more worth the cost, but most notably, the considerable (annoying degree of) management involved in using them. I think simply making them more powerful but limiting sub and missile carrier space for retaining them would do the trick (I'd rather have one awesome powerful missile than three "meh" missiles).

Grenadiers: they should get their bonus against both riflemen and musketmen (tightly packed gunpowder troops, basically). This, I think, would make them more worthwhile and would mean they would be exceptionally useful for someone fighting a less technologically savvy foe. This would make them more worth teching to, rather than just being an overlooked too-late unit.

Carriers: The problem isn't carriers, per se. The problem is fighters. They're simply not good enough against ships. Give them a 50-100% bonus against ships and we'll see carriers being taken. You'll have to, otherwise the enemy aircraft will tear up your fleet instead.

Submarines: Limit their carrying capacity to 1 or 2 (assuming missiles get a buff). Increase their attack against battleships by 50% (gives them a clear use against the strongest ships and the weakest ships, with destroyers and attack subs providing a vital defense against them).

Horse Archers: Increase the withdrawal rate to at least 30% base (I'd prefer 40%, myself). Horse archers were well-known for the difficulty of engaging them, and the current crop just drop like flies. Past that, I'd consider adding a first strike (they are archers, after all) or a bonus against melee infantry. They're just overall poor choices for when you get them. At least knights can handle most things in the field, horse archers can't even brag of that, going even against the earlier-obtained swordsmen and usually suffering against the contemporary and cheaper longbowmen and crossbowmen.

Chariots: Chariots are also a questionably good troop, really only made useful by their bonus against axemen. I'd rather see them with a 50% bonus when attacking melee infantry, which allows them to chase off most infantry in the field (including axes), but suffering against fortified defenders and spearmen.