1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Least Important Unit?

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Strategy & Tips' started by JTMacc99, Jun 9, 2009.

?

Least Important Unit?

  1. Airship

    24 vote(s)
    7.1%
  2. Anti-Tank

    25 vote(s)
    7.4%
  3. Knight

    1 vote(s)
    0.3%
  4. Artillery

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Attack Submarine

    9 vote(s)
    2.7%
  6. Machine Gun

    4 vote(s)
    1.2%
  7. Stealth Destroyer

    28 vote(s)
    8.3%
  8. Mobile SAM

    11 vote(s)
    3.3%
  9. Spearman

    2 vote(s)
    0.6%
  10. Ironclad

    134 vote(s)
    39.6%
  11. Carrier

    5 vote(s)
    1.5%
  12. Submarine

    12 vote(s)
    3.6%
  13. Nukes

    8 vote(s)
    2.4%
  14. Chariot

    4 vote(s)
    1.2%
  15. Crossbowman

    2 vote(s)
    0.6%
  16. Cuirassier

    6 vote(s)
    1.8%
  17. Swordsman

    3 vote(s)
    0.9%
  18. Privateer

    12 vote(s)
    3.6%
  19. Grenadier

    3 vote(s)
    0.9%
  20. Gunship

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  21. Horse Archer

    4 vote(s)
    1.2%
  22. Pikeman

    5 vote(s)
    1.5%
  23. Paratrooper

    12 vote(s)
    3.6%
  24. Musketmen

    18 vote(s)
    5.3%
  25. Mobile Artillery

    6 vote(s)
    1.8%
  1. Single Malt

    Single Malt Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    349
    Location:
    Ireland
    explorers and scouts cannot go medic or guerilla III as they are attacking promos (at least in BTS) I went ironclads
     
  2. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,128
    Location:
    Sydney
    Well, I think the second least important unit is Musketman (no prizes for guessing what I thought the least important unit was- although I didn't bother voting for it). Sure, the Musketeer can be useful, with double movement, but I always find Musketmen to be outdated by the time I attempt to use them, or am forced into using them.
     
  3. Single Malt

    Single Malt Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    349
    Location:
    Ireland
    Subs can be spotted with physics using airships, well before they can be built. If a sup is spotted, it can be attacked by a destroyer, regardless of having radio or not. Airships are rather useful all round, as they make excellent recon units. The recon mission can be used in peacetime, to find the enemy SoD (provided you or vassal border enemy), and plan your attack accordingly.
     
  4. JTMacc99

    JTMacc99 That's a paddlin'

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    Messages:
    892
    I was actually trying to make a suggestion that ordinary subs would be more useful if they came into play at combustion and were invisible (to all units, air or sea) until radio.

    What that would mean is that ordinary subs would have a useful life as really dangerous attackers. Even if they'd still be 24 versus 30 when hitting destroyers, the high chance of withdrawal combined with the fact that they could actually HIDE from the destroyers after attacking would be great. I would be much more likely to build a bunch of them in this scenario. Not only that, but once radio is out there, I would be much more likely to actually build a bunch of cruise missiles and load them on my subs for invasion support. As it is right now, I'm just not motivated to build subs for the specific ability to carry cruise missiles.

    If I had a bunch of subs on hand however...
     
  5. Kwibuss

    Kwibuss Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    209
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Not as a joke as I allready mentioned before, but simply because I refuse to use them. I just dont like it. I've never ever used one in the previous civ series too :D
    Ofcourse i'm aware that it by far ain't the worsest unit, far from even, but it's the only unit i've never used so to me it's the crappiest unit.
    p.s. I've never build an ironclad too, but I didnt doubt that it would get most votes ;)
     
  6. nanomage

    nanomage Longbowman

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2008
    Messages:
    710
    Location:
    msk, rf
    ironclads are cheaper to upgrade into destroyers than frigates )
     
  7. Snovvdog

    Snovvdog Warlord

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    199
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Cuirassier , by the time I can make them I can make infantry...

    Ironclads make great defenders against frigates trying to raid your coast imo.
    Also, I can't see why anyone would vote for paratroopers, they're invaluable to getting to small off shore islands without transports and also beat marines and infantry imo, as soon as I get them I spam them. Both anti tanks and sam infantry are handy for defending cities against an advanced opponent.

    And muskets, definitely not least important, I have muskets much sooner than I have medieval units usually due to my tech path ( liberalism race) thus it's usually muskets vs weak units like longbows and crossbows on my games) or even vs early units.

    Have used carriers a lot and can't see why they're on the list.
    Also, subs are handy to bomb coastal cities with cruise missiles.
     
  8. ston

    ston Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    201
    Location:
    Westbury, UK
    Hmmm...

    Well, I never build Explorers - so I'd call them pointless rather than useless. It's just a scout in a fancy hat isn't it? :p

    I've certainly found a use for ironclads before now (esp. popping one out to own all those annoying AI frigates which have been ruining my sea improvements!)

    So my vote has to go to...the musketman, with special mention to the machine gunner.

    Machine gunners...well, they just die. That's what they seem to do which is pretty useless. Can't attack with them, only defend (but NO defensive bonuses available?!) And when they defend...they die. :confused:

    As for my 'winner', the Musketman - :lol: No thanks (waits for rifles...) :D
     
  9. JTMacc99

    JTMacc99 That's a paddlin'

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    Messages:
    892
    Carriers were one of those things that I left on, but didn't expect more than one or two people to even consider. I actually don't use them that often, but in games where I need them, they are very important.

    I think that if I ever played a game with Nukes, subs would be extremely useful. The thing is, subs come into play around the same time I can put all of those hammers into carriers and fighters rather than subs and missiles. Maybe I'm missing something, but it sure seems like I get better value with the carriers and fighters for my air support. Not only that, but the carrier/fighter combination gets better when I can upgrade to jet fighters.

    If the damn subs had another use besides scouting and sneaking missiles up to the coast, I'd be all over them. It's why I make the suggestion that they should first have a useful life as anti-ship weapons before they settle into their missile carrying role.



    I'm not sure if muskets are the least important unit, especially since I normally build them, but I could certainly get by without them. They are the first unit that ignore walls, but there's no way to make them city raiders. I like them as CG units in that period of time before I can field rifles but am possibly waging a war with cannons. They do a better job of holding the new cities than would longbows/pikes/macemen, especially if I'm an aggressive or protective leader.
     
  10. azzaman333

    azzaman333 meh

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    22,877
    Location:
    Melbourne, AUS Reputation:131^(9/2)
    Since explorers aren't an option, (pfft)

    Definately Ironclads.
     
  11. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,297
    Put the OTHER kind of missile on the sub, and it's a lot more competitive w/ carriers.

    Both have their uses though.
     
  12. Deckhand

    Deckhand Procrastination at its finest GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,415
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    None taken. :) Can you recommend an examiner? :crazyeye:
    I voted for them because I have never built them. As others have mentioned, the game is usually over before they are available. Maybe if I ever start winning domination on emperor I will need them. Agree with posts regarding explorers and ironclads among other.
     
  13. Ultimocrat

    Ultimocrat Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    Messages:
    274
    I have actually used ironclads, though only twice in my memory. Once was in vanilla, on a snaky-fractal sort of map where I could access an enemy by coast that was a long distance away by land. I didn't have a lot of coastal production, though, and I had won circumnavigation. Ironclads were a better option for defense and bombardment than Frigates.

    Another time, I was invaded by a fleet with a mixed stack of SoLs and Frigates, much larger than my own fleet. I think I also had won circumnavigation that game.

    So, in general they've been a cost-effective way of dealing with an enemy with more coastal production, or a larger fleet, when they have the very valuable extra movement point from winning circumnavigation.
     
  14. Single Malt

    Single Malt Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    349
    Location:
    Ireland
    Cuirasseirs have their uses, especially n a heavy lib beeline, as you can take MT from lib, getting them very early, giving them a huge window to quickly remove a rival or two. Afterward, their prerequisite tech has good trade value. They are definitely not a unit that's useless or unimportant, especially on monarch+ levels.
     
  15. nanomage

    nanomage Longbowman

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2008
    Messages:
    710
    Location:
    msk, rf
    cuirassieers are actually very powerful. in combination with spies they just shred LB-defended cities, and they are available from a very convenient and fast beeline. you just need to get gunpowder somewhere and gogogo. prebuilding knights helps too, afair upgrade is cheap.
    Even if not from beeline, they are not well countered untill rifles, and fast-teching AI's (except ZY) seem to delay rifles.
     
  16. JTMacc99

    JTMacc99 That's a paddlin'

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    Messages:
    892
    Agreed, but since I've played this game for like two years and only been involved in one that saw nuclear weapons, I have almost no use for a unit that is basically a transport for cruise missiles. Do you actually use a lot of Nukes? I don't remember seeing you do it in any of the many games I've seen you post here.

    Of course, I suppose I could have just voted for the nukes, but they're so important that I frequently find myself building the expensive UN wonder just to keep them out of play. Therefore, I can't really call them unimportant, since they very much change the way I play the game.


    On the topic of the cuirassiers, I'm actually impressed that the mounted units get so much respect in this poll. To me, horse archers are specialty units that see very little action in my games. (Unless, of course, I'm Khaaaaaaaan!) If I build them, it's either as part of a combined arms strategy, (and even then I'd either have had to pop HBR from a Hut or be on my way to war elephants) or as part of a barbarian busting force. Given that it is hardly unusual to be without horses, I can't really say that I don't get by without mounted units just fine.

    I'd say that knights and cavalry (which I left off the poll) are extremely important for the game, but not necessarily for me as the human player. If it weren't for the nasty stacks of those two units frequently existing in the AI civs, my life would be a lot easier.
     
  17. uncarved block

    uncarved block Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    I voted for Carriers just to be contrarian. By the time you can build them, and if you're interested in naval warfare that late in the game, you've like got a great army and transport system that's allowing you to take cities in enemy territory-- and defend them against counterattacks. Even with the "no artillery from the sea" change, that little bit of damage before an attack just isn't worth the hassle of building and equipping one, at least in my games.

    Useless? There's an argument against that, I guess. Used least? I suspect that will get a lot more agreement.
     
  18. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,297
    You can say I've taken a liking to them as of late:

    http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=323602

    When you have > 50 diplo hits with someone for nuking them, you know it's been a fun game :).

    Horse units have a lot of potential for the human on all difficulties...
     
  19. Neal

    Neal King of the World

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    976
    I voted for Musketmen, though my views are (as usual) skewed quite a bit by the fact that all I ever play on is the Earth map.

    When the continents are basically misshapen potatoes floating in the ocean, yeah, your Ironclads are going to get outmaneuvered quickly, and they're basically relegated to garrisoning the fishnets. On Earth, though? You plop one or two of those in the Strait of Gibraltar and you've basically claimed the Mediterranean. Similar bottlenecks can be exploited in Scandinavia and southeast Asia. It's the same with Paratroopers. Yeah, the ability to "hop" a few squares from a city is normally nigh-useless. But when you can jump back and forth between Spain and North Africa? Or hop the channel from London to Paris? It's pretty freakin' cool.

    So I went with the Musketman. He's not completely unimportant. He's just less important than he probably should be. Normally, when I get Gunpowder I'm already planning the quickest path to Rifling. That, or my military is, for whatever reason, not a priority. Now, of course, certain Musketman UU's are really, really powerful (Oromo, Janissary, I'm looking at you; Musketeer, not so much), but that doesn't really make the vanilla Musketman worth building 99 times out of 100.
     
  20. Dirk1302

    Dirk1302 Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    3,578
    Location:
    Netherlands
    You play those games on immortal Neal so you don't have that much time? I'ts often a choice, either drafted rifles and spies or cannons but in that case rifling is rather far off and backing up with drafted muskets works fine.
     

Share This Page