Most useless unit?
- Thread starter blaugh
- Start date
Gnarfflinger
Wiseguy in Training
I play on Pangea maps, so anything that's naval or Airborne tends to lose its appeal...
DigitalBoy
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 1,346
Explorer, maybe?
volfan37132
Chieftain
I vote ironclad as the most useless unit. They are too slow. The only other
one that comes to mind is explorer, but I do use one with Medic I promotion
to follow my attack units as a healer. I use all the other industrial age or
earlier units to some extent.
one that comes to mind is explorer, but I do use one with Medic I promotion
to follow my attack units as a healer. I use all the other industrial age or
earlier units to some extent.
Skippy_Kangaroo
Prince of Denmark
I've never built an ironclad.
I built one explorer once.
I invaded a continent with musketeers once.
On that basis, I reckon the ironclad because it is so unimpressive that I have never even wanted to bother experimenting with it. For the others they have at least tempted me to experiment. Not sucessful experiments, but experiments nonethelss, thereby demonstrating that they have some veneer of usefulness which the ironclad is totally devoid of.
I built one explorer once.
I invaded a continent with musketeers once.
On that basis, I reckon the ironclad because it is so unimpressive that I have never even wanted to bother experimenting with it. For the others they have at least tempted me to experiment. Not sucessful experiments, but experiments nonethelss, thereby demonstrating that they have some veneer of usefulness which the ironclad is totally devoid of.
DaviddesJ
Deity
Settler. Why build cities when you can conquer them? 
sigmakan
Warlord
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 217
Any plane seems useless to me. I've never played a game where planes have even existed. I guess thats because I usually finish the game before the 1900s.
Ironclads are also very useless and musketeers seem to have a very very small window of usefullness and even then knights and macemen seem to perform better.
Ironclads are also very useless and musketeers seem to have a very very small window of usefullness and even then knights and macemen seem to perform better.
catchsomezzz
Life is recursive.
Scouts & Explorers make great medics. You can usually get at least one, maybe two level 1 medic promotions for your early Scouts from animals.
By mid-classical era, you might be able to produce level 2 medic promoted Explorers (barracks, civics, GGs, and the charismatic trait would definitely help).
These specialized medics allow you to promote the important combat promotions for your fighting units.
Anyhow, I think Fixaris did a great job with unit-balancing in Civ IV. All the units have their uses -- at least, I've used every single one of them. The only unit I can think of that has a really short lifespan is the Musketmen, but even they have their uses.
Whereas, Ironclads have their uses when the AIs frigates & galleons just dropped off their boarding party on your soil (which will all be crushed the following turn), and then decided to stick around your coastlines serving as naval blockades. You can really use a couple of Ironclads then.
By mid-classical era, you might be able to produce level 2 medic promoted Explorers (barracks, civics, GGs, and the charismatic trait would definitely help).
These specialized medics allow you to promote the important combat promotions for your fighting units.
Anyhow, I think Fixaris did a great job with unit-balancing in Civ IV. All the units have their uses -- at least, I've used every single one of them. The only unit I can think of that has a really short lifespan is the Musketmen, but even they have their uses.
Whereas, Ironclads have their uses when the AIs frigates & galleons just dropped off their boarding party on your soil (which will all be crushed the following turn), and then decided to stick around your coastlines serving as naval blockades. You can really use a couple of Ironclads then.
I'm on board with the ironclads. Their lack of speed is horrific. Plus, they can't enter oceans. Even assuming that you've got a fleet of them, your enemy can amass sit there in the ocean amassing numerous frigates or transports and park them in the ocaean just taunting your ironclads. Finally, when they are ready, they can zoom by your ironclads and land troops. Even slow, I might like them a little better, but not being able to enter oceans is just a double whammy that'll never cause me to build them.
ownedbyakorat
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
- Messages
- 242
Ironclads have a purpose - a narrow one, but a purpose, and that is to take out enemy frigates, either galleon escorts or resource pillagers. It's good to have that option available even if I rarely make use of it. If you can manage to employ one offensively you can be really really mean with it, and your opponents can't do anything about it until they have their own ironclads or destroyers.
I think the most useless unit in the game is the carrier. It can't defend itself adequately against any other ship of the same era, and since planes can rebase anywhere in 1 turn it's not useful as a floating airbase. It can't carry enough planes to muster a significant offensive force against the kind of stacks that your opponents will have; it's not useful to defend your navies since navies aren't very useful to begin with, and its cost makes it prohibitive to use it for the purpose for which it was designed. To even be effective in its designed purpose it needs to be protected by battleships, which are themselves very expensive. It doesn't help you to gain naval superiority in any way during those times when you do need navies, and its land recon potential is minimal given that you'll have explored the whole map anyway by the time you can build them, and what you really need to see (coastal city defenses) can be seen just as well by any other ship. Sea recon is better done by destroyers and battleships which can be repurposed into bombard duty, and can actually put up a fight if attacked.
While the ironclad may be nearly useless, the carrier is worse than useless, it is a massive drain on your production for little gain should you choose to build one (or more).
I think the most useless unit in the game is the carrier. It can't defend itself adequately against any other ship of the same era, and since planes can rebase anywhere in 1 turn it's not useful as a floating airbase. It can't carry enough planes to muster a significant offensive force against the kind of stacks that your opponents will have; it's not useful to defend your navies since navies aren't very useful to begin with, and its cost makes it prohibitive to use it for the purpose for which it was designed. To even be effective in its designed purpose it needs to be protected by battleships, which are themselves very expensive. It doesn't help you to gain naval superiority in any way during those times when you do need navies, and its land recon potential is minimal given that you'll have explored the whole map anyway by the time you can build them, and what you really need to see (coastal city defenses) can be seen just as well by any other ship. Sea recon is better done by destroyers and battleships which can be repurposed into bombard duty, and can actually put up a fight if attacked.
While the ironclad may be nearly useless, the carrier is worse than useless, it is a massive drain on your production for little gain should you choose to build one (or more).
catchsomezzz
Life is recursive.
The speed of the Ironclads isn't much of an issue for me.
By the time I can build Ironclads, I'd already have West Point and/or the Pentagon built, the Vassalage & Theocracy civics, and DryDocks.
Charismatic or not, each Ironclad that I pumped out would likely have 3 immediate promotions, to which I would use on Flanking I, Navigation I, Navigation II.
And more often than not, I would have already beaten the other Civs to circle the globe. So that's +3 movement points for all my ships.
Admittedly, the inability of Ironclads to enter the ocean is a drawback, but it is realistic. However, the enemy Civs don't really park their frigates and galleon in the ocean just out of reach.
The moment, I withdrew my Ironclads out of their ship's line-of-sight (for example, into the city), they start moving their ships from the ocean into my waters again... and next turn, my Ironclads sink me some wood.
Note: this is actually what's happening in my current game.
By the time I can build Ironclads, I'd already have West Point and/or the Pentagon built, the Vassalage & Theocracy civics, and DryDocks.
Charismatic or not, each Ironclad that I pumped out would likely have 3 immediate promotions, to which I would use on Flanking I, Navigation I, Navigation II.
And more often than not, I would have already beaten the other Civs to circle the globe. So that's +3 movement points for all my ships.
Admittedly, the inability of Ironclads to enter the ocean is a drawback, but it is realistic. However, the enemy Civs don't really park their frigates and galleon in the ocean just out of reach.
The moment, I withdrew my Ironclads out of their ship's line-of-sight (for example, into the city), they start moving their ships from the ocean into my waters again... and next turn, my Ironclads sink me some wood.
Note: this is actually what's happening in my current game.
OceansEleven
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2006
- Messages
- 82
How can you people say airborne units? Late in the game, that's one of the most important units you can have. You need atleast 2-3 jet fighters in each city to make sure if you go to war, the opponents stealth bomber can't kill you.
And stealth bombers rock. Or bombers. BIG advantage if the AI doesn't have fighters. Build them, replace them with artil, and you save a couple turns. *Modern armor + mech. inf have 2 movement each, while artil has one. Just get them 2, with maybe gunships, and your set to go.* Set the bombers near the closet target city, bombard them, then do coll. damage, take over the city, and place the bombers in that city and go for the next closet target city. What I just did in my game. Had a horrible tech lead, which lead to the best. Only a permanent alliance couple are keeping up with me.
But yeah, I have never once built an ironclad in my Civ 4. life. It just zooms by, and then I have destroyers. Chariots once... I never build them. Could be useful very very early in the game. Took out Mao Zedong with only them against his archers. Finally had to use axemen and stuff, but I did a good deal of damage to him with chariots.
And stealth bombers rock. Or bombers. BIG advantage if the AI doesn't have fighters. Build them, replace them with artil, and you save a couple turns. *Modern armor + mech. inf have 2 movement each, while artil has one. Just get them 2, with maybe gunships, and your set to go.* Set the bombers near the closet target city, bombard them, then do coll. damage, take over the city, and place the bombers in that city and go for the next closet target city. What I just did in my game. Had a horrible tech lead, which lead to the best. Only a permanent alliance couple are keeping up with me.
But yeah, I have never once built an ironclad in my Civ 4. life. It just zooms by, and then I have destroyers. Chariots once... I never build them. Could be useful very very early in the game. Took out Mao Zedong with only them against his archers. Finally had to use axemen and stuff, but I did a good deal of damage to him with chariots.
carl corey
Deity
I'm torn between Ironclad and Explorer, just because I've never used them other than for curiosity purposes. 
But catchsomezzz's use of the Ironclads might make me rething this, especially when I move up in difficulty. Right now, on Prince, I'm usually the first to have Frigates, so I don't bother with Ironclads, but this might change on Monarch.
But catchsomezzz's use of the Ironclads might make me rething this, especially when I move up in difficulty. Right now, on Prince, I'm usually the first to have Frigates, so I don't bother with Ironclads, but this might change on Monarch.Hey Joni
Warlord
I vote for explorers! Useless, except for that medic promotion and I don't use them for that either... It's so late in the game that it can rarely be important.
carl corey
Deity
Oh, yeah, about the Medic promotion. I usually have a Spearman early on that takes Medic, or, when I fight with Cavalry one of them also gets Medic since sometimes I'll use them to move deeper into enemy territory without support from other troops. And I'd rather have an extra unit that can fight then a Medic-only one, so that's why I never build Explorers.
As for Bombers, Fighters, Stealth Bombers and Jet Fighters they are excellent to replace your Artillery, as OceansEleven said. I also use them to scout an area before attacking if I don't have Open Borders or Spies. For this purpose the Stealth Bomber is just the best, as I can usually map nearly all of my enemy's territory with 4-5 of them in the same turn. Unit distribution, defenses, lines of attack, everything can be updated in an instant.
I did also find use for Carriers. In a three continent map I started a war with an AI who had two coastal cities on a small distant continent. Rather than shipping a lot of troops there I got a few destroyers, two battleships, just in case, no less then four carriers full of jet fighters and four transports full of marines. The sea counter was pitifull, so my ships bombarded the city defenses while the fighters reduced the life of the units inside. My marines stayed safely loaded in the transports until the city defenses were down to 0, and all troops were at half-life, then I took the cities easy as pie.
Anyway, I bet that on maps with a lot of water you'll find carriers very usefull for late wars, as most of the time you won't be able to base your fighters or bombers on a city on the island you want to attack. And sea attacks have the advantage of not allowing a counter-attack against the transported troops, so a destroyer-carrier-transport-marine combo can prove to be quite a force.
As for Bombers, Fighters, Stealth Bombers and Jet Fighters they are excellent to replace your Artillery, as OceansEleven said. I also use them to scout an area before attacking if I don't have Open Borders or Spies. For this purpose the Stealth Bomber is just the best, as I can usually map nearly all of my enemy's territory with 4-5 of them in the same turn. Unit distribution, defenses, lines of attack, everything can be updated in an instant.
I did also find use for Carriers. In a three continent map I started a war with an AI who had two coastal cities on a small distant continent. Rather than shipping a lot of troops there I got a few destroyers, two battleships, just in case, no less then four carriers full of jet fighters and four transports full of marines. The sea counter was pitifull, so my ships bombarded the city defenses while the fighters reduced the life of the units inside. My marines stayed safely loaded in the transports until the city defenses were down to 0, and all troops were at half-life, then I took the cities easy as pie.
Anyway, I bet that on maps with a lot of water you'll find carriers very usefull for late wars, as most of the time you won't be able to base your fighters or bombers on a city on the island you want to attack. And sea attacks have the advantage of not allowing a counter-attack against the transported troops, so a destroyer-carrier-transport-marine combo can prove to be quite a force.
PMabey
Warlord
modern armour. i have never researched composites even when i win by space race. aircraft are very important if you reach the modern era. i tend to built a few ironclads for the reasons that catchsomezz mentioned. Musketmen are short lived but not entirely useless. jaguars and numidian cavalry are the worst uu's
Hey Joni said:
Actually, when playing Vikings or Carthagenians I'll usually get Compass early for the harbour anyway, so I'll get explorers fairly early. They're recon, so nobody gets any unit-specific bonuses against them, and with a barrack you can have them at Guerilly II or Woodsman II off the bat. Park it on a hill and it's effectively strength 7, regardless of the attacking unit. They're also move two, so you can even send one along with a raiding party of cavalry to soak up spear attacks -- at least for raiding mines; not too good for farms and huts.
Hey Joni
Warlord
Leif Roar said:
Good point! (but not enough to convince me that explorers are not the most useless unit - this strategy is very narrow. BTW, can explorers pillage improvements? If they did it would change things a lot, I never tried it.)
Hey Joni said:
Sending one along with horse archer or chariot pillagers is a narrow strategy, but sending a couple of explorers along with your attack stack isn't. Sure, you could have sent with a couple of spears or axemen which you can use offensively -- but spears are vulnerable to axemen and axemen to chariots, whereas explorers are all round defenders with no particular counter.
Similar threads
