Least Important Unit?

[Single Malt]

I build explorers when I need a Medic III so they won't engage in combat. I voted airship because I've never built one. I always have better things I'd rather build at that period.

My second choice would be paratrooper. I've built them but never really used them for anything other than novelty. Ironclads mostly suck but at least you can use them if you need to finish conquering your own continent. They mop up the wooden ships and (IIRC) they upgrade to destroyers.

explorers and scouts cannot go medic or guerilla III as they are attacking promos (at least in BTS) I went ironclads

 

[Camikaze]

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 Sure, the Musketeer can be useful, with double movement, but I always find Musketmen to be outdated by the time I attempt to use them, or am forced into using them.

 

[Single Malt]

For me, it's probably the submarine. It seems like the unit, given there is also an attack submarine coming on line around the same time, should be available at Combustion rather than at Radio. Also, destroyers would then not be able to see them until the discovery of radio. At least this way you could have a useful life for submarines where they would absolutely savage old wooden navies (which hopefully wouldn't be in hiding since they wouldn't actually see the subs in the area) and then you could slide them into the missile carrying roll once they become vulnerable to enemy destroyers.

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.

 

[JTMacc99]

Subs can be spotted with physics using airships, well before they can be built. If a sub 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.

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...

 

[Kwibuss]

On that list? Ironclads. I'd have voted for the explorer if available, since it sucks so utterly even at its own role (at least spies can pop guarded huts).

I could see ironclads being used to blockade or annoy someone who can be reached via coast. However, it's still easily the worst unit on the list.

Someone picked nukes as a joke.

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
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

 

[nanomage]

ironclads are cheaper to upgrade into destroyers than frigates )

 

[Snovvdog]

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.

 

[ston]

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?

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.

As for my 'winner', the Musketman - No thanks (waits for rifles...)

 

[JTMacc99]

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.

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.

 

[azzaman333]

Since explorers aren't an option, (pfft)

Definately Ironclads.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

Put the OTHER kind of missile on the sub, and it's a lot more competitive w/ carriers.

Both have their uses though.

 

[Deckhand]

No offense meant but the one person who said MA is useless should get his head examined imho .

None taken. Can you recommend an examiner?
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.

 

[Ultimocrat]

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.

 

[Single Malt]

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.

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.

 

[nanomage]

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.

 

[JTMacc99]

Put the OTHER kind of missile on the sub, and it's a lot more competitive w/ carriers.

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.

 

[uncarved block]

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.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

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...

 

[Neal]

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.

 

[Dirk1302]

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.