Least Important Unit?

[CornPlanter]

Are you going to build one for every coastal resource?

I'd rather use ships of the line, or ideally frigates + airships if I can trade for physics w/o major concessions. I guess an iron clad could serve in that role if truly needed though.

I do that often for resources that are most likely to be pillaged in a case of war (and war is somewhat likely). If resources are close together I use patrol command instead of building separate stacks of ironclads for each resource, obviously.

Maybe its not the best way to protect resources, maybe there are alternate (better!) ways, but still, Ironclad has its uses, performs its duty fairly well and is certinly far from "most useless" unit in the game. In my opinion, explorer is like hundred times worse than Ironclad. I bet people dont vote for it only because they forget it exists at all (never been built in past 5 years)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I do that often for resources that are most likely to be pillaged in a case of war (and war is somewhat likely). If resources are close together I use patrol command instead of building separate stacks of ironclads for each resource, obviously.

Maybe its not the best way to protect resources, maybe there are alternate (better!) ways, but still, Ironclad has its uses, performs its duty fairly well and is certinly far from "most useless" unit in the game. In my opinion, explorer is like hundred times worse than Ironclad. I bet people dont vote for it only because they forget it exists at all (never been built in past 5 years)

Make no mistake, had explorer been an option, it'd have gotten my vote. It's garbage for sure. They should at least let it attack, it's not like it would do especially well anyway being 4 str...but at least it would have SOME use.

 

[CornPlanter]

Yeah I just checked first post to see why on Earth explorer is not here. Well it makes sense to exclude it as obviously no. 1 useless we need some discussion after all.

So you voted for Ironclad? What about Carrier then, does it have more uses? So far I used it only for flavor purposes (really like carriers and all things military aviation ).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yeah I just checked first post to see why on Earth explorer is not here. Well it makes sense to exclude it as obviously no. 1 useless we need some discussion after all.

So you voted for Ironclad? What about Carrier then, does it have more uses? So far I used it only for flavor purposes (really like carriers and all things military aviation ).

Carriers + fighters can be used to cost-effectively overwhelm anything basically, since they're not capped like cities. At tech parity or better they're absolutely dominating. I've used them + cavalry to beat industrial AI armies with ease.

 

[fed1943]

A built explorer can be useless, I agree.
But if you have a lucky scout, the warlord explorer can be the top medic.
Best regards,

 

[r_rolo1]

Why would you want to upgrade the medic scout? To make him more susceptible of being the best defender ?

 

[CornPlanter]

OK from the given list, Ironclad probably is the most useless... meaning not that it cannot be usefull, but that every other unit in the list is more usefull/versatile.

 

[Ai Shizuka]

I still fail to see how a stealth destroyer is more useful than an ironclad.
Both suck and we agree, but at least I can see some options for the ironclad.

But a stealth destroyer?

 

[6K Man]

I still fail to see how a stealth destroyer is more useful than an ironclad.
Both suck and we agree, but at least I can see some options for the ironclad.

But a stealth destroyer?

With a bit of a tech lead (and the AIs never prioritize Stealth in my games), Stealth Destroyers can operate in enemy territory with impunity, picking off damaged units, scouting, and intercepting weaker units (the native first strikes give them a small advantage against regular Destroyers). I have trouble operating conventional warships in AI territory unless I have an overwhelming superiority - simply because chasing down damaged (or healthy) AI ships often means than my own ship will be damaged in turn and probably lost if the AI has other healthy ships nearby.

I grant you that it is a niche unit, but being wholly invulnerable to counterattack until the AI has Stealth has its uses. But obviously, it comes too late in the tech tree to be useful in most games.

Ironclads are a 1-use unit (defense) and are too slow to react well to an enemy incursion. And they have a fairly short window before Combustion/Destroyers makes them obsolete.

 

[StrategeryBush]

In terms of specific units, I agree that Ironclads are probably the least useful for the least amount of time; however, the least useful UU is the one that you can't build. Phalanxes and Vultures without bronze are completely useless, as are War Chariots, Immortals, Keshiks and Numidians without horses, or Praetorians without Iron. Early UU can be completely useless due to lack of the proper resource.

 

[fed1943]

Rolo: it depends on the epoch/turn and civ/traits; if the explorer is still the weaker, as the others are rifles,grenadiers, cannons, then it moves faster on safer tiles and can always be on time.
Best regards,

 

[KaytieKat]

Hi

I used to rate ironclads as most useless but I think the sea patrol mission gives em new life. Now you can just park one in middle of your capitols big seafood group and they will attack and usually kill any all frigates or SoL's that try to pillage. And if there is no group of seafood putting them on top of it is even better.

ANd yeah I know you can make your own firgates and SoL's but sometimes ironclads are better. Its been more than a few games were I have been isolated cuz either its a LHC game or I cleared off my land mass or osmething so havent warred all that much but meanwhile some AI whose been at war and generateing GG's since the BC's will just put 4 or 5 or more in ONE city and then pump out combat 3 and even 4 frigates right out the box like there no tomorrow and meanwhile Im LUCKY if I have maybe a cpl of combat 2 ones that used to be triemes. So Ironclads keep the seafood safe and let you save your wooden ship for offense. (plus ironclads are a cheaper upgrade to destroyers)

Now I would have to say its the aircraft carrier. Just seems like max of 3 fighters is just meh. Especially since I still remember civ2 days where a carrier could carry like 8 bomber or cruise missles or nukes. Now THOSE carriers packed a punch.

I admit just seeing the limit stops me from using them but I DID try one time when having to attack an ai civ who was keeping up in tech with me and had infantry and sams and fighters of their own so just droppping off a stack of infantry and marines and artillery and waiting a turn would have HURT so I buile like 5 carriers loaded with fighters to go with my attack stack. Between being intercpeted/shot down a grand total of ONE figher actually did damage to the garrison and I think all but like 3 of my figheters got shot down and those that lived through being intercepted were so shot up they would be useless for several turns while they heal. And since you cant rebase fighters to carriers that was pretty much IT for that airgroup's contribution to my invasion. I think I would have just been better off using the hammers that went into them to making a bigger landing stack to abosrb more of the collateral damage when they land and wait for a turn.

Kaytie

 

[PieceOfMind]

You can rebase fighters to carries, no?

Carriers are one of the easiest ways to concentrate air power in any one spot on the map, whether it be in enemy territory or at home.

I would find it very rare to consider them one of the least useful units. I'd probably even build them on pangaea maps if the need was there.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You can rebase fighters to carries, no?

Carriers are one of the easiest ways to concentrate air power in any one spot on the map, whether it be in enemy territory or at home.

I would find it very rare to consider them one of the least useful units. I'd probably even build them on pangaea maps if the need was there.

Yes, you can rebase to carriers regardless of carrier location. 50+ planes on one tile is lights out for almost anything (nukes would do them in, but that'd be the day where the AI uses those properly...), but usually far less is plenty. Tank coming in? Bam...14 str and now it can't attack your cavalry effectively, or even your rifles. Infantry gunpowder bonus? Ha! It couldn't even beat cuirassers now!

I used to rate flight lower but lately I've been putting it up on my priority list for some game types (when I'm not trying to brute force a victory while backwards ---> I just learned that musket + cannon can in fact take down an equal-sized AI that starts with machine guns and flight and gets infantry halfway through, and with better than 1:1 kills/death.). Fighters on carriers are good for pillaging certain resources, too...If they don't have oil hooked up yet there's no reason to let them do so . Watch uranium too though, once the AI gets fission it can use its metal navy if you let it keep the uranium.

 

[KaytieKat]

Hi

I guess thats why I find carriers so "meh" yeah maybe getting like 50 or so planes going might do the job but then so would 50 marines or 50 paratroopers or 50 tanks especially if that in ADDITION to the stacks you are gonna be making even if you do build 50 planes and the carriers to hold em and unlike those 50 planes those other units can actually capture a city if and then help hold it. Heck I would even find more use out of 50 extra cannon or arties than 50 planes. Maybe it wouldnt be so bad if I would just need 10 or less carriers to move em around. thats my BIGGEST gripe with em they just have way too low crago capacity and SHOULD be able to carry bombers and even being able to ship paratroopers and let em do drops from em would be fun too. that and fact that 80% of em get shot down or intercepted without doing ANY damage. At least when a cannon dies trying to attack its still done some damage to SOMETHING.

Like I said maybe it my play style or just being spoiled by memoreies of carriers in civ2 that could carry 8 bombers or 8 missles (and even then I kind kept asking why cant they carry paratroopers?) But I had the same problem with civ3 carriers they just dont pack anywhere near the punch of the ones in civ2.

Yeah if you mass like 50 of em they can be doing some damage but like I said if I have to mass THAT much of anything in a stack to get job done carriers and fighters waaaay down on list of what I would rather have 50 of.

Kaytie

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Hi

I guess thats why I find carriers so "meh" yeah maybe getting like 50 or so planes going might do the job but then so would 50 marines or 50 paratroopers or 50 tanks especially if that in ADDITION to the stacks you are gonna be making even if you do build 50 planes and the carriers to hold em and unlike those 50 planes those other units can actually capture a city if and then help hold it. Heck I would even find more use out of 50 extra cannon or arties than 50 planes. Maybe it wouldnt be so bad if I would just need 10 or less carriers to move em around. thats my BIGGEST gripe with em they just have way too low crago capacity and SHOULD be able to carry bombers and even being able to ship paratroopers and let em do drops from em would be fun too. that and fact that 80% of em get shot down or intercepted without doing ANY damage. At least when a cannon dies trying to attack its still done some damage to SOMETHING.

Like I said maybe it my play style or just being spoiled by memoreies of carriers in civ2 that could carry 8 bombers or 8 missles (and even then I kind kept asking why cant they carry paratroopers?) But I had the same problem with civ3 carriers they just dont pack anywhere near the punch of the ones in civ2.

Yeah if you mass like 50 of em they can be doing some damage but like I said if I have to mass THAT much of anything in a stack to get job done carriers and fighters waaaay down on list of what I would rather have 50 of.

Kaytie

Except that they're essentially highly mobile siege that can both bombard and strike pretty deep inland. Usually 12 are enough with a tech lead to mess the AI up pretty nicely. You only need 30+ fighters once the AI starts using air-based interceptions. I used 50 as an example because THAT will work against ANY AI setup, even stealth...

Don't forget they allow naval initiative to win easily and are the only way to damage defenders (short of nukes) when attacking amphibiously. If damaged they swap out almost instantly ----> unlike conventional siege you can rebase them from anywhere in the world. You say the cargo is an issue, but frequently you get to economize on transports by subbing in air power...so it's not as bad as implied.

As I said they're pretty good even at tech parity but they're especially ridiculous when the AI target doesn't have flight. SAMs, ATs, and MG's in AI hands are unimpressive - there's very little to check your fighters and unless the AI city has a huge amount of defenders the fighters will hurt them so badly that you can fight with ground troops a full era behind with minimal losses.

That one emperor island crap start map I did recently was a good example ---> I'd land a stack of cavalry, then just maul everything with fighters. I'd cut resources/roads, lower infantry to 10 str where pinch cavalry beat them easily, and even beat down tanks using combat II/III cavalry vs 14 str (and injured units don't do as well as full strength ones given a str value) tanks. Nothing held up...cavalry losses post-flight were very minimal despite going up against troops available along the assembly line/industrialism path...and they double plenty well for beating on the AI navy.

Finally, you can hit with them FAST. A set of 4 airships upgrades to fighters for 320 gold on normal speed. Upgrading a good 12 airships to fighters straight away can make invasions go lightning fast...

 

[KaytieKat]

Hi

Oh I love using fighters to weaken stuff and do know they are earliest option to damage defenders for an amphib attack without landing troops by the city first. Now when I am a little ahead of the ai techwise it not usually a problem. Land the stack next to the city-on a hill if I can. let it absorb the counter attack. Then use siege to do some damage to the defenders.

But that strat can be a PAIN if ai same tech as you and is just as stronger or tronger than you. Wave after wave of arty coming from ALL over thanks to RR's then tons of other units can really mess up an even largish stack.

So that why that one time I tried the carrier route. 5 carriers 15 fighters against a city with full garrison of fighters on intercept plus a few sams and mg's. And one after the other--your fighetr was intercepted, your fighter was shot down, I did get a few your fighter shot down and enemy fighter trying to intercept or something like that. But when it was all said and done. ONE fighter managed to actually damage ONE single unit. And I only had 3 fighters left at the end and all badly wounded. And whole time I was thinking sheesh if that had been 15 cannon and even if ALL of them died there at least there would be TONS of woulnded defenders and they city would be LOTS easier to take. So I would have been better off just putting the hammers into a making a BIGGER landing stack to handle counter attacks for that one turn since I had to land seige anyways thanks to that fiasco the fighters turned out to be.

I still like to use fighters to attack stuff out in the open until I get bombers and they DO help speed things up if you have em and the ai doesnt but if you ahead in tech they not necessary and if the ai has em too they not THAT helpful. Well they ARE helpful and I do love airlifting em over once I start conquering cities and rebase em into the captured cities and do LOVE having them attack income stacks and fleet but again out of cities.

In actually taking a city on a forreign landmass to get that initial first city the one time I tried fighters they werent impressive so for now at least when I invade overseas Ill just take TONS of siege and other units and then rebase fighters to help out later as I gather cities and since doing that makes carriers unnecessary for me at least the one of the most useless units. Maybe I didnt build enough and try a game where I build a TON of carriers.

As for rebasing them him I guess I not doing it right. Obviously I havent messed with carriers THAT much but few times I have I always remember TRYING to get a fighter onto an empty carrier thats out to say but always having to make that carrier go into a city then send the fighter to the city and then have it "load" onto the carrier. Maybe if I figure out what I am messing up there carriers might sseem more attractive.

but I dont know I still love my big land stacks hehe Plus it is IS hard to get over how they just NOT what they were in civ2.

Kaytie

 

[PieceOfMind]

Due to the combat mechanics for air units, most battles will see the attacker or defending fighter killed. If you are attacking a city defended by 8 fighters you will need an overwhelming numbers advantage. I think losing as many fighters as you did was on the unlucky side. Usually fighters will not be shot down by intercepting land/sea units unless the fighter is damaged.

I'm not 100% sure about this but combat promos on fighters seem to make a big difference to the odds of surviving dogfights. Also, never try to use regular fighters against an opponent with jet fighters. It will end in tears.

 

[Isikien]

But, what's up with the Ironclad?
Is it that bad?

It's not bad but it's kinda like a one trick pony. If you're teching up quickly enough by the stage you get ironclads you'll eventually get destroyers.

 

[Zx Zero Zx]

Ironclads and Machine Guns are by far the worst.