Least Important Unit?

[Dirk1302]

@mirthadir, A Human maybe, AI noway. And i don't think human players will be very happy to see a hill city with a mix of CG3 infantry/guns. Invincible is an exaggeration on my part but it is a strong mix.

But i get the idea, artillery attacks and collats the infantry, marines get 50% against guns and have 24 base against 18 for guns. Flanking cavs might work but you need a lot since the first 2 will probably lose the fight. Admittedly i'd have to test it, using guns is rather new for me. Ai can't handle them i saw but that might also have had something to do with me having more than 20 units minimum/city in 2 cities in the game i mentioned, more than 100 later .

 

[NonPrayinMantis]

NPM: But what you are describing is the ideal use for the Attack Submarine, and not the 24 strength ordinary sub. To me, what you are describing is like using flanking horse archers to attempt to damage longbows fortified in cities when the real weapon for that job is a knight.

Oh, I will admit that the 30 str attack sub is better than the 24 str regular sub, but the attack sub requires an additional tech and an additional resource, and one that I find myself (I don't like using nukes) not going for very often. There is usually more important stuff to go for at that time, like industrialism, flight, and mass media.

Yes, the knight is better than the horse archer at damaging LBs in a city but the curassier is better than the knight, and the cavalry is better than the curassier. The point is that you will use the best available unit for the job. If you don't have guilds (or iron for that matter), then you only have horse archers to perform that task.

The regular submarine is the first unit that you can use to reliably pre-damage enemy ships before your destroyers and/or battleships attack the stack, unless you have air units available.

NPM

 

[JTMacc99]

Oh, I will admit that the 30 str attack sub is better than the 24 str regular sub, but the attack sub requires an additional tech and an additional resource, and one that I find myself (I don't like using nukes) not going for very often. There is usually more important stuff to go for at that time, like industrialism, flight, and mass media.

Yes, the knight is better than the horse archer at damaging LBs in a city but the cuirassier is better than the knight, and the cavalry is better than the cuirassier. The point is that you will use the best available unit for the job. If you don't have guilds (or iron for that matter), then you only have horse archers to perform that task.

The regular submarine is the first unit that you can use to reliably pre-damage enemy ships before your destroyers and/or battleships attack the stack, unless you have air units available.

NPM

Makes sense to me, but I will argue that using a sub to try to make a dent in enemy destroyers is a really lame use for a moderately expensive unit. If I've got radio for subs, then it's highly unlikely that I wouldn't have some sort of air units. While air units can fail in their attacks, they won't actually die in their first attempts to damage a destroyer. Plus, air units can be moved to the front in a single move.

Anyway, even if my idea for the regular subs will never actually be put into play, I did take something out of this discussion. I am absolutely going to use attack subs more frequently in exactly the way you've described using them as part of stacks.

 

[Johnpecan]

I question everyone ganging up on the Ironclad. I admit, it's not amazing but here are the following reasons I use it:

It's a great seafood defender. I very rarely go on much of an offensive with naval units before oil naval units.. Therefore , I'm rarely building frigates. I very rarely self-research military science so SoLs aren't a priority. So to defend my seafood tiles, the most efficient way to do this is with ironclads.

I don't care about spending precious hammers defending my seafood resources before this. Right around Steel (when you get ironclads), is when health is becoming a big issue. Before that, my cities will most likely be limited by happiness opposed to health. So when I can build ironclads I usually build a few and put them on my seafood. Building extra workboats annoys me.

The other thing that makes ironclads appealing is that with the same tech you discover steel, you can build drydocks. This gives synergy with ironclads and assuming you were going to build a drydock in the city anyways, it saves hammers on the ironclad.


The unit I chose as the weakest unit is the Crossbowman. I rarely go for medeival war, I find it tedious and not worth the time. Since most of the time I'm on may to liberalism, I will have CoS before machinery 99% of the time. So by the time I can build crossbowman I have macemen, which is my opinion, are almost always better. For defense I would normally have longbowmen hopefully. If I can't trade for feudalism for whatever reason, then I might build a few crossbowmen, but it most games I never touch them.

 

[MadmanAtW]

If you're at war, the ironclad is a lot of hammers just for seafood defense. If you aren't at war, you only need to defend your seafood against privateers, and frigs do a fine job of that unless your opponent actually bothers to stack the privs.

I am totally willing to re-evaluate ironclads for purposes of the earth map or other similar maps with coastal choke points, though.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Ironclads may have gotten a slight boost with the new patch, where units on sea patrol can now no longer attack if their odds are less than 50%. Ironclads, especially with 10% coastal defense boost, should be able to get at least 50% odds against all units earlier than destroyers, making them perfect for seafood defense.

 

[DMOC]

But if they're used for defense, and the patch said that units on sea patrol were affected, then why would sea patrol units be doing the attacking?

 

[PieceOfMind]

But if they're used for defense, and the patch said that units on sea patrol were affected, then why would sea patrol units be doing the attacking?

I'm a victim of terminology.

Yes they're technically defending, but in one sense they are attacking the pillager as well. I'm not completely sure about who, if anyone, can withdraw.

 

[bobbyboy29]

I have to admit i did vote for ironclads, but my respect for them did go up when this happened (see picture). That's ten wins in a row from that ironclad. Superclad to the rescue! They may not be great, but given the AI's (especially Ragnar) tendency to spam out naval units and then unleash them on your fishing boats, this shows that at least it does its job. So to all of you out there saying "you would make a ship sail by lighting a bonfire under its deck? I have no time for such nonsense!" Give the ironclad a break!

 

[mirthadir]

If you can get the ironclad there, you can get extremely good mileage out of parking it off the AI's coast and denying him sea tiles. Yes the whole can't cross deep water thing makes them suck, but being slow does not make them useless nor cost ineffective.

Dirk:

CG III DI-IV MGs are the bane of the AI (Toku, Churchill, Brennus, and especially Boody can make some mean Grenadiers to upgrade into MGs); regular CGIII MGS the AI can take down with enough units. If you have a cav spamming AI, you eventually reach the point where drill MGs are more cost effective than CG.

Yes, you have to have numeric superiority against the MGs to take them down with cav; but it is more cost effective than using cannons and flanking means you should get some highly promoted units out of the deal. Also, flanking cav are great at killing siege protected by MGs in the field.

Personally I find it hilarious that cavalry are the best counter to MGs (until the marines or arty come into play) in game given the historical results of that match up. Riflemen, grenadiers, and infantry, at least, could opt for infiltration at least.

 

[mike p]

I had a game recently where Ironclads were very useful. If you have Steam Power but not Astronomy, you can still build Ironclads. And if Sitting Bull left you four settled GGs in his capitol, you can Nav II Ironclads right away to chase away pesky Privateers.

As for why I didn't have Astronomy, it's because playing as the Ottomans I took Nationalism with Liberalism for drafting Jannisaries, and I had my vassal Lincoln was researching it for me while I was heading up the tree towards Assembly Line. So it was a pretty narrow window of usefulness, to be sure. I still think Mobile Artillery is less important - Bombers and coastal bombardment can do the same job, faster, and Ironclads at least are the strongest naval unit pre-Combustion, even if they are slow and have a specialized role.

 

[fantsu]

Airship, just what were they thinking?!?
AIRSHIP?!?
It failed even in the real life.
FAILED!
Ironclad is cool, airship isn't, both are 100% useless.

 

[Draco Spirit]

Airship, just what were they thinking?!?
AIRSHIP?!?
It failed even in the real life.
FAILED!
Ironclad is cool, airship isn't, both are 100% useless.

Acturly airship are quiet handy for defence and scouting, - 10 percent health units are much easier to fight off.

 

[StuntedAzrael]

I'm suprised at so much hate against ironclad. I have certanly made them useful in archipelago maps if I'm going to war with grenadiers or rifles. By then I usually have a bunch of fregates but they are vunerable to ships of the line. Whipping ironclads in conquered cities to reduce population that is anyway going to starve is a good tactic. They serve as galleon and frigate defenders and to bombard city defenses. There is no great need for speed since most turns is spent loading and unloading units onto ships. Destroyers are not that close to ironclad. A fine unit in my opionion. Ship of the line I never built so far in my games.

I voted anti-tank.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I have to say, I find it amusing that cuirassers and muskets have votes while knights have 0. How many people actively use knights a lot? I noticed that they're not too bad if you can get some spy support (pinch and longbows chasing takes care of most serious counters), but they still feel markedly behind cuirassers as attack units, although admittedly they can be started 20 turns or so sooner even with just plain trading lib techs so possibly you could hit in time to avoid rifle defenders...

 

[JTMacc99]

I'm surprised about the knights as well. Even when I'm KHAAAAAAAAAN! I don't have a lot of use for them. It is just too likely that they will either run into Pikemen or CG longbows (probably on a hill) at some point in their useful lives. Guilds is an unlikely tech for me to beeline, so it is rare that I would have knights on the battlefield way ahead when the AI can counter it. Also, they require both Iron and Horses, which makes them not exactly the easiest unit to build. Like you said, at least the Cuirassiers stand up much better against the knight killers, plus they are easier to upgrade to cavalry.

 

[champ82]

Devil's advocate alert

I built a few ironclads in a multi-player game and was happy to. If one is playing an opponent who might be able to actually pull off a half decent intra-continental invasion then they seem OK.

In this same MP game I had Mehmed as a neihgbor. I made a point to build many pinch musketeers. It was clutch against janisaries and nothing else of tech parity is.

Airships? Great for recon. These things aren't expensive, why not have 1 or 2 around to know what's going on with your neihbors?

I haven't voted in this poll. My vote would probably go to stealth destroyer though. It's hard to imagine them making a big difference.

 

[nbcman]

I pick stealth destroyer. It can only defend against other stealth destroyers so it is useless as an escort.

I rarely build ironclads but they can be OK for static defense of sea resources when your opponents don't have destroyers. Plus ironclads can be parked in the areas most likely to see an AI invasion to kill their frigates/galleons (unfortunately the galleons will likely have unloaded first).

 

[aarocks]

i voted ironclads and would've closely followed with grenadiers.
ironclads have a very short life in the game, and often cant travel very well. the only perk of it is its strength, and that is only good when most rivals have wooden navies.
grenadiers would be my second choice for similar reasons. it has a very short life, as i always get to riflemen first, and then grenadiers a bit later and often infantry right after that. therefore, i cant build many grenadiers, and often dont want to put all my funds into creating my melee units grenadiers, as i prefer the rifleman. also, i believe it is more expensive to go from grenadier to infantry than it is for rifleman to infantry, and therefore i rarely have grenadier

 

[Ghpstage]

I built a few ironclads in a multi-player game and was happy to. If one is playing an opponent who might be able to actually pull off a half decent intra-continental invasion then they seem OK.

While I accept it may be able to do *something* in defense against AI idiocy (though I've never bothered), but in MP!? Its time to blow this 'Ironclads are good for defense' myth out of the water...

*Big disproof of Ironclads worth as defense specifically in MP, but also shows why they do so poorly against AI invasions. With pictures!*

Spoiler :

These pics are from an obviously WBd game with the +1 move from circumnavigation. Ragnars culture marks the area his Ironclads would be able to travel in. All pics are from the same turn.

Spoiler :

First blockade by a privateer, notice it is close enough to gain gold from blockading, yet it can't possibly be attacked by an Ironclad. This applies to Frigates, SoLs, and Galleons too, even Galleys in some, occasional cases ...
Also remember that blockade prevents use of fishing boat resources entirely, I really can't see the point of putting an expensive Ironclad out to guard a fishing boat that contributes nothing, better to buy a frigate to try and keep it and lots of other tiles useable. Heck even a caravel has better odds of being useful in these circumstances

Spoiler :

Next is the galleon, it has moved in, dropped off 3 cavalry and got back out. The 1 move left shows it doesn't even need circumnav or nav 1! Even the AI will get units off a Galleon to invade as it waits outside borders before declaring though it will probably leave its ships up close due to being the AI
Defense against invasions? Don't make me laugh!

Spoiler :

Now we have a frigate which has moved in, bombarded and retreated in to a safe distance. This does however rely on Nav 1 or circumnav. Though Nav 1 really isn't difficult to get with Steel

Spoiler :

Just to take the mick, we have a Ship of the Line bombarding on the 'blind' corner of the city, not even requiring circumnav or nav 1 and still retreating safely . Even slow SoLs can completely ignore Ironclads every time in certain (though adittedly rare) circumstances

Spoiler :

And the final picture shows the movement range of a circumnav (or nav 1) Ironclad against a Sentry ship's (Privateer) sight range.... there are a few ways you can increase your intel around an area such as zig zagging your ships or placing ships further along the coast.
The only ones that may prove an annoyance are Viking cirumnav nav 1+2 Ironclads. Of course this is all assuming the player actually leaves ships in an attackable tile, else they're still worthless!
How exactly can it defend if it can be avoided in just about every circumstance?

In short they cannot stop blockades, invasions or even decently planned bombardments! Do you intend to block invasions by placing an Ironclad in every coast tile!?
So please explain how exactly Ironclads can defend against someone capable of decent intercontinental invasions, because I really fail to see any way they can

They are too slow to reliably attack things, so the only feature Ironclads have that is better than wooden ships is that it is very difficult to kill, the lack of a need for Astronomy may also give it a little weight on Pangea. This however, is only useful in blocking chokepoints and naval ones are very rare OR on offense, which is strictly limited to short distances due to speed and either on the same continent, or an island reachable by coast hopping.