Legions or Immortals? Which is beeter?

Legions or Immortals? Which is better?

  • Immortals

    Votes: 93 68.9%
  • Legions

    Votes: 39 28.9%
  • Neither

    Votes: 3 2.2%

  • Total voters
    135

The Dark Master

Pure Evil
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
80
Location
Where Evil Lurks
Immortals duh! Wow I just answerd my own question I guess this was a wast. :D
 
I'll skip out on spelling police and get to the posting.

Immortals. Can be used as a top offensive figure until Knights, which have better defence and movement. Carry them in large masses (with pikemen) and you have a killing machine until the AI researches gunpowder.
 
It really depends... as usual. Immortals on the lower levels, but when the AI has tons of units at the higher levels I'd rather have my extra defense point.
 
I've seen two succession games, which a group of players play a variant of having only Legions as their main attacker thus achieving domination victory.

I wonder if someone else will play a variant of infinite immortals to see if they able to achieving the similar victory quicker than infinite legionnaries.

For your question: It varies..
Immortals could prove useful in showing no mercy to your closest neighborhoods and force them to hand over tech or gold for peace, if you provide at least 20 - 50 immortals.

Legions are used for defensive tactics and figuring out the right time to go for an offensive strategy along with catapult stackings.
 
it's funny how in immortals vs legions armies both are pretty much evenly matched, whoever attack the other will win, unless their in a town, which could go to either. Basically neither one would have a real edge vs the other.

But i'd say immortals are more useful, just because attacking points are usually more handy then defense points, which is one of the reasons they aren't using this system in civ 4.
 
Mad2rix said:
I've seen two succession games, which a group of players play a variant of having only Legions as their main attacker thus achieving domination victory.

I wonder if someone else will play a variant of infinite immortals to see if they able to achieving the similar victory quicker than infinite legionnaries.
Arathorn had a regent level open SG using immortals as the attackers. I believe it was also OCC and AW and they basically just pumped out immortals for most of the game. Edit: How could I have forgotten LK100?
 
Check out the SG LK100 - we had to stay in the Ancient Age for the whole game (large pangea map), we were Persia, and it was on Regent. We ended up pumping out mostly Immortals (along with a few ACs created).

I would rather have Immortals. In civ, offense is way overpowering and as long as you stay on the offensive, you will be fine.
 
My very first civ was Persia. I played a lot of games before choosing another civ. I got bored using Immortals. Therefore I choose Legions - better overall unit. But keep in mind what Ginger Ale said above: offense is more important (if you stay on the offensive of course). Cool animations for both units though.

:)
 
Definately the Immortals.

My friend plays Persia almost all the time cause he's afraid of getting beaten up by the Immortals.
 
Sorry about speeling i'm terrible with grammer. :blush:
 
im gonna go with immortals too - they have the exact same stats as midievil infantry (4 attack, 2 defense, 1 movement) and are 10 shields cheaper (immortals = 20, MI = 30), so basically you get 1.3 times as many immortals to MI's and they carry you all the way through middle ages
 
Back
Top Bottom