Key factors for UUs and UBs.

[pandamancer]

On the Info Screen, there is a "Power" chart. Power represents a civ's number of "Soldiers." Roughly, every max 1 is equivalent to 1000 Soldiers. So one Archer represents 3000 Soldiers. There are exceptions though; one 5 Axeman is actually worth 6000 Soldiers.

Skirmishers are worth 4000 Soldiers each, but cost the same 25 each as normal archers. So you get more Soldiers per .

Interestingly, purely in terms of Solders per , Axemen are still better than Skirmishers (171 vs. 160).

For more info on Soldiers, see here:
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/demographics.php

Thanks for explaining it for me.

OP, think of this advantage as "to be able to build a sizeable standing army to prevent DoW at the cost of fewer hammers". One should not only consider the savings in building the UU; but also, the hammer saved from not going to war.

I am just stating that the advantage is there. It's up to you if you want to scrutinize it for your analysis.

 

[elitetroops]

OP, think of this advantage as "to be able to build a sizeable standing army to prevent DoW at the cost of fewer hammers". One should not only consider the savings in building the UU; but also, the hammer saved from not going to war.

Unless you have a much bigger empire than your opponent, it's probably cheaper to go to war than to try to beat their soldier count. The AI doesn't whip enough but grows cities large, and builds lots of walls and barracks to further increase their soldier count. So to get above their power, you would need more military units than they have, assuming tech parity and similar size empire. With an army like that you can just as well conquer them. When going to war against the likes of Shaka and Ragnar, I often have way lower power than they have when I declare, but still end up victorious.

 

[Iwo Jima]

Thanks for explaining it for me.

OP, think of this advantage as "to be able to build a sizeable standing army to prevent DoW at the cost of fewer hammers". One should not only consider the savings in building the UU; but also, the hammer saved from not going to war.

I am just stating that the advantage is there. It's up to you if you want to scrutinize it for your analysis.

reasonable addition.

its not a key factor for unique units, but I'll check, maybe some of them have significant difference with their analogues.

 

[Pangaea]

The leaders are

Oromo, very strong and stable middle-game unit with fast access to most promotions and without notable disadvantages. Keeps half of his first strikes even after upgrade.
Quechua, the earliest unit, able to fight with archers, also without "minuses"
Fast Worker, all-time unit, with the only "minus" - he is a worker, and it's all that he can do. And he is real game-breaker due to additional speed.

The rest, "lucky seven", are

Numidian Cavalry, strong early half-cavalry/half-axeman with useful legacy. Just be lucky to find Horses early.
Praetorian, very strong and very straightforward early unit, that is strongly needed Iron.
Conquistador, middle game extreme cavalry with defense bonus. You have a several ages to find Horses.
Samurai, medieval game-breaker, which gain his experience very fast, just have some Iron.
Cho-Ko-nu, another medieval gamebreaker with collateral attack. Awesome in big stacks. Also needs Iron.
Impi, fast all-terrain early unit for different purposes, that keeps his Mobility after upgrade. Needs Copper or Iron
And Janissary, middle game winner, if you research them early or if you have a barbarian continent to conquer. The only unit in this "lucky seven", that does not need special resource.

After all the input from users much more knowledgeable and experienced than yourself, this is the the so-called final list. It beggars belief, and I can just reiterate that you don't appear to be very open to new input unless it already broadly conforms to who you think should be the top UUs.

Some of these are excellent of course, like the Quechua and Praetorian, but to write an article about the best Unique Units in the game and not even mention the War Chariot or the Immortal in the Top 10, makes the whole work all but useless for people who want to learn something.

 

[Iwo Jima]

After all the input from users much more knowledgeable and experienced than yourself, this is the the so-called final list. It beggars belief, and I can just reiterate that you don't appear to be very open to new input unless it already broadly conforms to who you think should be the top UUs.

Some of these are excellent of course, like the Quechua and Praetorian, but to write an article about the best Unique Units in the game and not even mention the War Chariot or the Immortal in the Top 10, makes the whole work all but useless for people who want to learn something.

Why didn't you read my comment about this list????? I hide it under the spoiler and wrote, that I will not edit it until all discussions finish and table will become more stable.

Stop flaming about units, after all. This article is not about ranking and what unit more cool.

 

[Triewd]

There are a couple of examples where you don't necessarily want to gain land quickly:

1 Island maps
2 Continents types maps that are long
3 Terra maps (distance tends to be longer)



Of course if you play Pangaea maps well there the rule is produce military as soon as possible and don't stop until everyone else is dead from what I gather, basically you methodically annihilate the AI.

I suspect one of the reasons for the difference of opinion is that the OP does not play Pangaea maps, and probably plays islands like maps with the Portregeise or some such - this is a situation when later UUs are more useful, and where this chart begins to make sense.

 

[FlyingSwan]

the impi does NOT keep its mobility until an upgrade to mech infantry(not tried it myself yet,but Id believe elitetroops if he says so).This to be honest,makes it pretty irrelevant in the vast majority of games.

 

[Iwo Jima]

There are a couple of examples where you don't necessarily want to gain land quickly:

1 Island maps
2 Continents types maps that are long
3 Terra maps (distance tends to be longer)



Of course if you play Pangaea maps well there the rule is produce military as soon as possible and don't stop until everyone else is dead from what I gather, basically you methodically annihilate the AI.

I suspect one of the reasons for the difference of opinion is that the OP does not play Pangaea maps, and probably plays islands like maps with the Portregeise or some such - this is a situation when later UUs are more useful, and where this chart begins to make sense.

Played Pangaea maps long ago. Now play almost only Terra maps. The reason - the game in Pangaea is very straightforward (rush, rush, rush), so you can't taste all CivIV flavor. Terra maps, imho, is the best type of maps, where all features of the game are shining, and you have a lot of flexibilities among strategies and victory types.

 

[Iwo Jima]

the impi does NOT keep its mobility until an upgrade to mech infantry(not tried it myself yet,but Id believe elitetroops if he says so).This to be honest,makes it pretty irrelevant in the vast majority of games.

True. It seems, even mech inf cant get Mobility, because Mobility is only for mounted and armored units.

 

[elitetroops]

True. It seems, even mech inf cant get Mobility, because Mobility is only for mounted and armored units.

The impi keeps the mobility promotion when upgraded, but the promotion does nothing for 1-move units. You need 2 movements to get any benefit from it.

 

[Pangaea]

Why didn't you read my comment about this list????? I hide it under the spoiler and wrote, that I will not edit it until all discussions finish and table will become more stable.

Stop flaming about units, after all. This article is not about ranking and what unit more cool.

Aah, so different opinions is flaming now. Got it. Just re-affirms the impression you're not interested in ideas that change your already set in stone opinions. It is therefore pointless to try to improve this article for outsiders.

Thankfully I know what units are the best ones. But the idea about such articles is that it is of help for newer players. Instead this one is more likely to confuse and give ill advice.

 

[Iwo Jima]

Aah, so different opinions is flaming now. Got it. Just re-affirms the impression you're not interested in ideas that change your already set in stone opinions. It is therefore pointless to try to improve this article for outsiders.

Thankfully I know what units are the best ones. But the idea about such articles is that it is of help for newer players. Instead this one is more likely to confuse and give ill advice.

I value some useful ideas and corrections. But you still give nothing helpful. So, please, leave this discussion, still you can't be polite and calm. I will not answer on your stupid provocations. Even when you know, that you are not right (I pointed out you my comment about the reason I hide the totals), you still argue instead of say "sorry".

What's wrong with some of you, guys? I meet such unfriendliness in the forum for the first time.

 

[Jastrow]

What is wrong with them is that they are speaking to someone who is missing the fondamental point that all these very experinenced players are tying to get accross... Your entire ranking system is so flawed that it cannot be rescued. They are pointing this out with examples, and trying to explain it to you, but you appear unable to see this.

Seraiel already suggested weights of something like:

Age of Origin: 40%
Strenght: 25%
Universality: 2%
Dependancy on resrouces: 5%
Mass production: 10% (factor especially for drafted Oromos / Jannisaries)
Life Span: 15%
Legacy: 3%

And even that is probably too high for "Universality", "resources" and "legacy"!

Unique unites value is dominated by:

1. How early the come.
2. How effective they are against the standard AI counter for their ERA compares to how effective the non-unique equivalent is against that same counter.
3. How long they remain impactful

Those are the only 3 criterion worth using the rank all the units. After ranking on those 3 criterions, one might adjust slightly upwards for Draftibility and slightly downwards for resource dependency.

Trying to include anything else in the system just adds noise, with no benifit, as other factors need to be weighted so low as to have negliageable impact, or they will skew the table.

 

[Pangaea]

I value some useful ideas and corrections. But you still give nothing helpful. So, please, leave this discussion, still you can't be polite and calm. I will not answer on your stupid provocations. Even when you know, that you are not right (I pointed out you my comment about the reason I hide the totals), you still argue instead of say "sorry".

What's wrong with some of you, guys? I meet such unfriendliness in the forum for the first time.

This is pretty darn precious coming from somebody who call people who offer different opinions to your pre-conceived erroneous ideas for "flaming". We've tried to set you straight, but it's like talking to a brick wall.

I and others have mentioned countless times that some of the UUs you think are great are nothing of the sort, and others like the War Chariot and Immortal are great UUs, but you think otherwise for some strange reason. But apparently this is "not helpful", because it doesn't correspond to your wrong ideas.

What is wrong with them is that they are speaking to someone who is missing the fondamental point that all these very experinenced players are tying to get accross... Your entire ranking system is so flawed that it cannot be rescued. They are pointing this out with examples, and trying to explain it to you, but you appear unable to see this.

Seraiel already suggested weights of something like:

Age of Origin: 40%
Strenght: 25%
Universality: 2%
Dependancy on resrouces: 5%
Mass production: 10% (factor especially for drafted Oromos / Jannisaries)
Life Span: 15%
Legacy: 3%

And even that is probably too high for "Universality", "resources" and "legacy"!

Unique unites value is dominated by:

1. How early the come.
2. How effective they are against the standard AI counter for their ERA compares to how effective the non-unique equivalent is against that same counter.
3. How long they remain impactful

Those are the only 3 criterion worth using the rank all the units. After ranking on those 3 criterions, one might adjust slightly upwards for Draftibility and slightly downwards for resource dependency.

Trying to include anything else in the system just adds noise, with no benifit, as other factors need to be weighted so low as to have negliageable impact, or they will skew the table.

So then, here is YET another attempt. Will you get it? Probably not, but thanks for the effort Jastrow.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Please stick to the arguments and stop discussing each other. Personal remarks only make it about the two of you instead of about what you are trying to discuss.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Moderator Action: Posted this warning a couple of pages ago. It still applies here, time to cool off and start focusing on the issues and not on each other. If you have a problem with a post from someone, please report it and let us handle it. This needs to stop or this thread will be locked.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Iwo Jima]

What is wrong with them is that they are speaking to someone who is missing the fondamental point that all these very experinenced players are tying to get accross... Your entire ranking system is so flawed that it cannot be rescued. They are pointing this out with examples, and trying to explain it to you, but you appear unable to see this.

Seraiel already suggested weights of something like:

Age of Origin: 40%
Strenght: 25%
Universality: 2%
Dependancy on resrouces: 5%
Mass production: 10% (factor especially for drafted Oromos / Jannisaries)
Life Span: 15%
Legacy: 3%

And even that is probably too high for "Universality", "resources" and "legacy"!

Unique unites value is dominated by:

1. How early the come.
2. How effective they are against the standard AI counter for their ERA compares to how effective the non-unique equivalent is against that same counter.
3. How long they remain impactful

Those are the only 3 criterion worth using the rank all the units. After ranking on those 3 criterions, one might adjust slightly upwards for Draftibility and slightly downwards for resource dependency.

Trying to include anything else in the system just adds noise, with no benifit, as other factors need to be weighted so low as to have negliageable impact, or they will skew the table.

Mostly agree with this, with exception of resource dependence. I would give it 10-15% because I often played without UUs due to lack of resources. Moreover, resource dependence is more important for early units, that are more impactful to the game. If Ramsess has no Horses near his capital at the very beginning, he could play without War Chariots at all.


My task was not to rank units, but to make a list of factors, which is important when you think about UUs. So, in all this discussion some new factors were suggested. Legacy factor was expanded, e.g. I also think about to split factor "strength" into several, and remove universality. So, this is my task now. Not the ranking system of units. I don't want to die proving that Oromo is better than Quechua. It could be fun, but it doesn't matter to me, finally. The reason, why I started this article, that I met always comparison of units only with their combat abilities, while I believe, that combat abilities are important, but not the only one you should consider. For example, the fact, that Oromo(or Samurai, or other infantry) could be drafted, makes him more appealed than cavalry, such as Cataphract, Camel Archer or even Conquistador. How many times Conquistador is better than Oromo? Twice? Tripple? Ok, I could draft/produce 4 times more Oromoes, than you produce Conquistadors for the same time. You don't like Oromo's slow speed? OK. Let's talk about Musketeers. Is this important? Do you need to consider this when you think about your Unique Unit? Another example. Bowman. Comes to play very early. So, by logic above, it should stands minimum in the middle of ranking, if the age is the highest factor. But I met the opinion, that Bowman the worst UUs ever. Why? (Btw, what UUs you could name the most useless)

So, once again, the idea is not to totally compare all units with each other. It's impossible. The idea to make such possiblity more clear, not flat. Sometimes one factor is the key, sometimes another. I just tried to list them all, and open to revise it, if I see rational approach.

 

[Iwo Jima]

I and others have mentioned countless times that some of the UUs you think are great are nothing of the sort, and others like the War Chariot and Immortal are great UUs, but you think otherwise for some strange reason. But apparently this is "not helpful", because it doesn't correspond to your wrong ideas.

Bravo! It seems you are not following the discussion, because I accepted some arguments about War Chariot and Immortal in comments, changed the original article and even wrote a log... attention, please... 2 days ago!

Finally, the matter is not what unit is greater, but why?! What factors makes one units better than others? Did you catch the idea? Or you'll start offence the third time?!
Moderator Action: Please follow moderator guidance provided above. This is trolling and needs to stop.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Iwo Jima]

Unless you have a much bigger empire than your opponent, it's probably cheaper to go to war than to try to beat their soldier count. The AI doesn't whip enough but grows cities large, and builds lots of walls and barracks to further increase their soldier count. So to get above their power, you would need more military units than they have, assuming tech parity and similar size empire. With an army like that you can just as well conquer them. When going to war against the likes of Shaka and Ragnar, I often have way lower power than they have when I declare, but still end up victorious.

QUESTION
to Elitetroops and other experts:

Do these numbers influnce only chance of DoW, or they influence other diplomatic ability, such as a chance to Capitulate, Give you present or demanding, etc?

Also, does this connect somehow with War Weariness?

If so, than the value of this factor could be rised.

 

[FlyingSwan]

Bowman. Comes to play very early. So, by logic above, it should stands minimum in the middle of ranking, if the age is the highest factor. But I met the opinion, that Bowman the worst UUs ever. Why? (Btw, what UUs you could name the most useless)

The bowman just doesnt synagise with Hammurabis AGG trait.A PRO archer is almost as good with city garrison II.There has been very niche circumstances when ive used them to great effect with catapults,but even then you can only attack a civ that has no horses,and then the only advantage realy is you can build more of them because they cost less hammers than axes and swords.Those are games I didnt have access to bronze or horses.

Another useless UU is the phalanx,If your facing chariots you just whip in a spear anyway,so that bonus agaisnt chariots isnt worth much.

The Landsneckt,having a bonus against melee units is of no use-not in any "gamebreaking" sense anyway.You,ve got iron,why not build PRO X-bows?

 

[Iwo Jima]

The bowman just doesnt synagise with Hammurabis AGG trait.A PRO archer is almost as good with city garrison II.There has been very niche circumstances when ive used them to great effect with catapults,but even then you can only attack a civ that has no horses,and then the only advantage realy is you can build more of them because they cost less hammers than axes and swords.Those are games I didnt have access to bronze or horses.

Another useless UU is the phalanx,If your facing chariots you just whip in a spear anyway,so that bonus agaisnt chariots isnt worth much.

The Landsneckt,having a bonus against melee units is of no use-not in any "gamebreaking" sense anyway.You,ve got iron,why not build PRO X-bows?

Mostly, I agree. So how would you name the factors, why this units are not so good?

And 2 cents for phalanx. Sometimes, I don't research Hunting for two reasons: 1) beeline to Writing, Religion or Metals 2) Keeping warriors on the scene, because they are cheap to make happy faces via Monarchy, and they are good for overflow-builds trick. Pericles usually beeline to writing, so it have a sense to use and research only one unit instead of 2.