Most useless unit?

[UncleJJ]

Carriers.

Their only use is obtaining a beachhead on a totally unfriendly continent. Once you have a beachhead and rebase your airforce, carriers are just eye-candy.

The problem is that building enough carriers+fighters to crack that first city is way more expensive than building the requisite number of disposable marines/artillery/barrage-tanks to do the same job.

You need to be trying to establish beachheads on many separate, unfriendly continents that have no friendly cities within bomber range for the construction of a carrier task force to be worthwhile. Maybe it's just how I play, but I usually keep a few friends around.

What a limited form of game you must play

Carriers (with their fighters) are the queen of the ocean and allow power projection and force multiplication that no other unit can bring to the game. If there are enemy coastal cities then a carrier task force is usually the quickest way to take them out. Wars should be short and use overwhelming force.

Force Multiplication
You don't need battleships to counter the AI fleets although a few do help. Your battleship versus his battleship is pretty much a 50 / 50 gamble and the same for destroyer versus destroyer. But strike the enemy battleship with 3 or 4 fighters from your carriers and the odds are pretty much 100 / 0 and even a destroyer can usually beat the battered battleship at say 99 / 1 odds.

When you want to take a coastal city just embark your Marines on the transports, send the destroyers to lower the defence and stike at the defenders down to half strength with the carrier fighters, attack with the marines from the transports... the city is yours and you are unlikely to have lost a unit. Land other defencive units to hold the city.

Next turn sail, to next coastal city and repeat. Three turns after I declare war I have 3 enemy coastal cities in my control (or razed if I can't hold them). That is what a carrier force can do for you. On the other hand, land forces in the age of the carrier that you use, are slowed down by the enemy culture and the need to rebase bombers.

The key advantage of the force multiplication is that my units will survive the combat and hence gain experience and produce lower war weariness, while your units doing the same tasks are gambling at bad odds and take casualties. That means they don't get better unless very lucky and you gain a lot of war weariness. War weariness is very expensive in lost gold and beakers if you have to raise the culture slider to counter it. The cost of your "expendable unit" strategy can be more than just the lost hammers.

Hammer cost and logistics
Simple comparison of the total hammer costs is misleading anyway. The carrier is a mobile platform that should never really be fighting itself. It is its fighters and jet fighters that do the work. Unlike a battleship that has to fight and once damaged is at risk. Unlike tanks and marines fighters don't get promotions so it doesn't matter where they're built or what civics you run.

I build my fighters in cities that can't build anything else useful like small fishing villages or captured enemy cities with low production and I use the whip to hurry them ... so for me they are nearly free. My tanks and marines and other quality troops get built with maximum experience so I am careful where they get build and what civics are running when they get built and they get looked after.

If you lose a battleship, a tank or marine its replacement has to be transported to the frontline and that takes several turns even using airports. A fighter lost from a carrier is replaced this turn and ready to go again next. For me the carrier is the most flexible and useful of all naval forces since it is the only one that can (through its fighters) weaken enemy forces and shift the combat odds in my favour.

Maybe you'll look at carriers a little differently in future. At least give them a go at how they enable coastal cities to be taken as I described above.

 

[uberfish]

I guess I just haven't run into the right sort of naval scenario for submarines just as some people haven't run into the right sort of naval scenario for carriers

2-3 carriers don't cost much compared to the price of all the units on your transports in the invasion fleet. I use them as floating air defence platforms, very rarely to attack. Not only do they defend the fleet, they defend the captured city from airstrikes on the first most vulnerable turn (because you don't have to rebase and then put them on sentry the next turn) and you don't risk losing the fighters if the enemy recaptures the city.

 

[Zilch]

My vote goes to Spies.
Never found a good use for them in the games I have played.

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

Explorers: With map trading, open borders, and all the huts gone there just arent that many reasons (read: none) to build one.

Carrier: With Vassel States, I can put my air force in a capitulated city. That pretty much puts the nail in the coffin for me concerning carriers.

 

[aelf]

What does everyone think the most useless unit is? I vote for ironclad or musketeer.

Musketman or Musketeer? While I agree the ordinary musketman isn't much good other than for city defense, the Musketeer is of a different class entirely. They are better than knights (since they also have two moves, have no hard counters and receive defensive bonuses) and you can get them earlier if you take the Education route (which leads to Liberalism).

People who say they have too small a window of opportunity are usually just not making the decisions that facilitate their use. When I play Napoleon, I don't get grenadiers. I use Musketeers to stifle my neighbours until I get cavalry, with which I will crush their mostly medieval forces quickly. Grenadiers take forever to cross enemy territory.

 

[JMaltman]

Well for the record I play Marathon speed on random maps with a different style depending on the leader and what sort of start I get

And I've thought of several uses for carriers. The question wasn't "which unit has no uses" the question was "which is the most useless" as in relative to the others. It can still be a fairly useful unit but still be the 'most useless.'

Wouldn't that be "least useful" - not "most useless"? A subtle distinction, but some people have indeed used the thread to say - I have not found any use for X unit.

I just think its testament to game balance and ultimate variety of strategies that we can have so many different opinions.

 

[blaugh]

Musketman or Musketeer? While I agree the ordinary musketman isn't much good other than for city defense, the Musketeer is of a different class entirely. They are better than knights (since they also have two moves, have no hard counters and receive defensive bonuses) and you can get them earlier if you take the Education route (which leads to Liberalism).

People who say they have too small a window of opportunity are usually just not making the decisions that facilitate their use. When I play Napoleon, I don't get grenadiers. I use Musketeers to stifle my neighbours until I get cavalry, with which I will crush their mostly medieval forces quickly. Grenadiers take forever to cross enemy territory.

Woops, I meant Musketman.

 

[Murky]

There really isn't a unit that has no usefullness. Probably the least used units are the late Modern age units because most games don't go that long.

 

[Bigfoot]

The unit that I use the least is the Explorer, but that probably says more about my style of play than their usefulness. Actually, I intend to try out some of the uses for these units suggested in this thread.

As for modern era units, they can and do come into play. Recently I finished the 'Earth - 18 civs' scenario (marathon speed with a huge map) with a domination win; modern armor and stealth bombers played a major role towards the end.

 

[bigbruthr]

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).

Carriers are not completely worthless. True, they do require a large investment in defense ships (I prefer a escort of destroyers with an outer perimeter of submarines), and are expensive to arm with aircraft. Often times, however, they are the most effective way to pillage an enemy territory when you don't have easy access for land units. Particularly when facing sprawling late game empires. Typically in late era wars I will deploy one or two carrier groups and within a few turns can deny access to all of my opponents resources.

With the chaos and plague in their cities due to lack of luxuries/health and the loss of stratigic resources limiting the units they can build it is impossible for them to mount a decent defense. All you need at that point is a handfull of tanks to blitz through their weakened cities and some units to defend them.

Faster wars and with a smaller investment in land units. Most of the time this will justify the cost of a carrier and its escorts.

 

[suspendinlight]

Does anyone know if you get WW points for doing airstrikes? Might be a potential way to minimize losses, battles, and consequently WW if you don't.

 

[snipafist]

My vote goes to Spies.
Never found a good use for them in the games I have played.

Try running a tight space race and you'll see the use of them. Sabotaging spaceship parts or sabotaging critical improvements (see: aluminum)in "friendly" competing civs can make the difference between victory and defeat. And even if you're not in a space race, they're excellent for putting in the middle of enemy territory just for their superb LOS.

 

[Paeanblack]

What a limited form of game you must play

Carriers (with their fighters) are the queen of the ocean and allow power projection and force multiplication that no other unit can bring to the game. If there are enemy coastal cities then a carrier task force is usually the quickest way to take them out. Wars should be short and use overwhelming force.

The limited form of game that I play is called Civ 4. I'm not sure what game you are playing, but it ain't Civ.

Once you have a beachhead on a new continent, you can rebase your *entire* airforce there immediately, obsoleting carriers. Once you have a foothold, transports and airlifts will bring in the units that can actually alter borders. Carriers are certainly helpful for taking that first city, but there are far cheaper ways of performing that task.

If you are just having fun role-playing an Admiral deploying massive Carrier Task Forces, that's great, but you'll probably get more relevant feedback in the Stories and Tales forum than the Strategy forum.

 

[snipafist]

The limited form of game that I play is called Civ 4. I'm not sure what game you are playing, but it ain't Civ.

Once you have a beachhead on a new continent, you can rebase your *entire* airforce there immediately, obsoleting carriers. Once you have a foothold, transports and airlifts will bring in the units that can actually alter borders. Carriers are certainly helpful for taking that first city, but there are far cheaper ways of performing that task.

If you are just having fun role-playing an Admiral deploying massive Carrier Task Forces, that's great, but you'll probably get more relevant feedback in the Stories and Tales forum than the Strategy forum.

As much fun as patronizing and pompous posts (and posters) are, perhaps we should actually pay attention to what he is saying. You can still rebase your bombers onto land once you've taken that beachhead. But his comment still stands that your "expendable unit" plan will drive up war weariness unneccesarily. Additionally, a carrier fleet makes marine invasions of coastal cities far more enticing, which can really speed up how quickly you can finish a war. The uses of fighters to weaken enemy naval units is also well-put. Combined with a couple submarines, a carrier-supported fleet can hobble an enemy navy before you bring in the big guns to finish it off, which also eases war weariness on your side. Sure, it represents a decent dedication to naval buildup, but controlling the seas has some distinct advantages that I feel you utterly ignore.

 

[suspendinlight]

Once you have a beachhead on a new continent, you can rebase your *entire* airforce there immediately, obsoleting carriers. Once you have a foothold, transports and airlifts will bring in the units that can actually alter borders. Carriers are certainly helpful for taking that first city, but there are far cheaper ways of performing that task.

First of all, I really don't think fighters or carriers are particularly expensive, my crappy far off cities without barracks can build fighters in several turns. Also since fighters only have a range of 6, carriers are often necessary to move them to somewhere in range to capture cities after the first "beachead" city unless you are keeping every city, attacking in a particular order and the cities are all within 6 tiles. Finally, they are also useful for recon behind enemy lines with your fighters.

 

[Mighty Spearman]

The most pointless unit is...

Warriors.

Honestly, you build one, maybe two? They're not good at really doing anything. They are beat by every other unit in the game.

Warriors suck.

 

[UncleJJ]

Paeanblack, I seem to have irritated you with my jibes but I promise no harm was meant and my intention was to amuse you. Hence the use of emoticons. Instead you misunderstood me and responded in a hostile and superior manner. That I can understand and I'll pay no heed to it, but you are very wrong in your assumptions and assertions and they need to be put right.

The limited form of game that I play is called Civ 4. I'm not sure what game you are playing, but it ain't Civ.

I play Civ 4 in all its glory. And when neccessary, and I see fit, carriers are used. If you think that means I no longer play Civ 4 then your understanding of the game is strange indeed.

Once you have a beachhead on a new continent, you can rebase your *entire* airforce there immediately, obsoleting carriers. Once you have a foothold, transports and airlifts will bring in the units that can actually alter borders. Carriers are certainly helpful for taking that first city, but there are far cheaper ways of performing that task.

I just can't imagine how it was possible to make so many mistakes in so few sentences All these statements are wrong and in almost every respect.

Once built carriers are never obsoleted but are normally the preferred way to base fighters offering much greater mobility. If you want the fighters to use the newly captured coastal city square just move the carrier there

As I said in my first post, once a carrier task force has been assembled that can take a coastal city in one turn why would you not continue to use it? Even on most Continental maps about half the AI cities are coastal ones. Naval forces with their amphibious troops move 6 or more squares through enemy culture while other land forces only move 2 squares (tanks + cavalry) and 1 for the rest except gunships that move 4 but can't take cities. Nothing can move faster than a naval force. That is why I said:

If there are enemy coastal cities then a carrier task force is usually the quickest way to take them out.

Incidentally, for those hardcore gamers who switch off at the mention of "romantic notions" like "carrier task forces" allow me to translate for you "Fast moving amphibious SoD"... that is something that takes a coastal city a turn every turn and upto 6 squares away. Do I have your attention again? This is not just a way of conquering enemy territory, it is probably the fastest way of "altering borders" on most maps that have a lot of water.

Paeanblack mentioned airlifts and they are good ... except that you can only bring in one unit per captured city per turn until they come out of revolt (say 7 turns) and build their own airport. You could burn a GA and then rush buy an airport to bring in unlimited units quicker but that needs the GA to be in the city and the US civic running. My carrier task force strategy can capture another city a turn and that allows an additional unit to be airlifted per turn thereby speeding the build up of forces.

Your remarks set me thinking along another route. I'm not sure what military technology you had in mind when were so adamant that your method of conquering another continent was so superior that carriers were useless. I looked at the research tree to see if the answer lay there. But what I found was that Flight (giving fighters, carriers and airports) can be researched many turns before bombers and can easily be researched before Industrialism (tanks, marines and battleships). In fact there are very few prerequisites for Flight and it can be researched long before many military techs.

This leads me to think that a radical strategy for conquering another continent might be to beeline for Flight which also picks up Combustion (destroyers, transports and oil wells) and then just add whatever land technology is appropriate to overcome the AI defences at that stage (given fighter support)... maybe rifles and cavalry. The strategic movement of forces is covered by transports and airports and force multiplication from fighters based on carriers means even slightly superior defenders like infantry could easily be overcome. I must stress I haven't actually tried this myself yet , although I intend to soon, unless someone can see a major problem. If you do see a problem please post.

However, if I am right with this radical research strategy it might mean that not only could the other continent be conquered very quickly using carrier task forces but by researching Flight early you could start many turns before a more traditional approach Paeanblack is suggesting and shorten the game substantially.

If you are just having fun role-playing an Admiral deploying massive Carrier Task Forces, that's great, but you'll probably get more relevant feedback in the Stories and Tales forum than the Strategy forum.

You don't know me very well. I consider myself a serious gamer who enjoys studying the game mechanics... and I've been playing games a very long time plus I've worked in the defence industry for many years so that is where the terminology comes from. My sole interest in carriers in Civ 4 is in what they offer in the game rather than some romantic notions of leading carrier task forces. I enjoy playing the game but also thinking about it, writing about it and discussing (maybe arguing) about it, for me the whole experience is fun.

Finally, since you made wild speculations about me, allow me to return the favour . You seem to be one of those hardcore gamers who think that because they beat the game on Deity in some weird and contrived manner that they are somehow better than other people on this forum. Other players are mere mortals that play an inferior game even if they are having fun. Of course that makes it all the more amusing for us mortals when you're shown to be wrong and playing the game in an inferior way.

 

[UncleJJ]

As much fun as patronizing and pompous posts (and posters) are, perhaps we should actually pay attention to what he is saying. You can still rebase your bombers onto land once you've taken that beachhead. But his comment still stands that your "expendable unit" plan will drive up war weariness unneccesarily. Additionally, a carrier fleet makes marine invasions of coastal cities far more enticing, which can really speed up how quickly you can finish a war. The uses of fighters to weaken enemy naval units is also well-put. Combined with a couple submarines, a carrier-supported fleet can hobble an enemy navy before you bring in the big guns to finish it off, which also eases war weariness on your side. Sure, it represents a decent dedication to naval buildup, but controlling the seas has some distinct advantages that I feel you utterly ignore.

I've never been called patronising and pompous before so thanks for that, I guess there's a first time for everything. You on the otherhand have shown yourself to be perceptive and I'm grateful for your comments and support.

First of all, I really don't think fighters or carriers are particularly expensive, my crappy far off cities without barracks can build fighters in several turns. Also since fighters only have a range of 6, carriers are often necessary to move them to somewhere in range to capture cities after the first "beachead" city unless you are keeping every city, attacking in a particular order and the cities are all within 6 tiles. Finally, they are also useful for recon behind enemy lines with your fighters.

More sound support

 

[Salah al-Din]

I've always found 1 carrier useful in a modern war. I only rarely use it for amphibious assaults in which all the fighter basically just cover my landing force from being bombed to bits the second it lands.

In the majority of modern wars I simply have a carrier with 2-3 destroyers which go and take out all his faraway strategic resources (Oil, Coal, Aluminium, Iron). Usually this is a safety net for me if spies have failed on their own to destroy them due to military presence or counter-spies.

 

[Hey Joni]

OK, maybe carriers are not THAT useful but they can be fun to use! Explorers, on the other hand, are neither useful nor fun!

(Forget about that medic to tanks thing and promote a cavalry to do the same. What, they fix broken tanks with their rapiers or something?)

I know the topic is about usefulness but admit that fun can be a factor too!