Most useless unit?

[eric_]

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.

Garrison 2 musketmen are quite effective in my experience, but I'm only playing up to Prince so far.

 

[RobertTheBruce]

Garrison 2 musketmen are quite effective in my experience, but I'm only playing up to Prince so far.

Musketmen are annoying defenders because they are only slightly better than longbows which get an automatic 50% city defence bonus. In a city on a hill, the longbow is a better defender. They can't get a city raider promotion so they aren't good attackers against longbows.

Musketmen have a short window before grenadiers which are a better attacker and defender. At standard speeds, the short window when they are marginally the best defender just doesn't justify their production.

 

[aelf]

Musketmen are annoying defenders because they are only slightly better than longbows which get an automatic 50% city defence bonus. In a city on a hill, the longbow is a better defender.

And the musketman can actually counterattack.

 

[Hey Joni]

Musketmen are annoying defenders because they are only slightly better than longbows which get an automatic 50% city defence bonus. In a city on a hill, the longbow is a better defender. They can't get a city raider promotion so they aren't good attackers against longbows.

Actually, I like the unit itself. It is the way musketmen are obsolete too quickly that bothers me (many other people, you too, I believe). Musketmen are good defenders despite the mentioned facts, good for stack defence too. And if the way cultural and wall defense bonuses work is changed, they might gain more strategic use (that is highly unlikely, though).

Let's just note that I dislike the movement bonus to Musketeers. It's too little, perhaps a free promotion or something would work better. Just look at the Janissary - it is huge against a +1 to movement!

 

[luniz]

I would say Musketman is much more useful than "explorer". Then again I don't usually have a lot of open borders.

 

[Haethcyn]

I think that the most useless unit is really a sort of situational thing. In a game where everything is going right, the big picks are always going to be the musketman, the ironclad, and the explorer. And some styles of play, starts, and maps are suited to where one or the other might not be needed.

Let's say I get amazing land and I don't need to do much scouring the globe. Then I don't have much use for an explorer, and hence it is the most useless unit to me. Or if I'm a technology juggernaut, then the window of time where a musketman is relevant is too small. You blink, you miss it. Or the ironclad. Let's say I'm landlocked, or that I have oil. Then it's not really that useful of a unit for me.

The same holds true viceversa. If resources are a problem, then an ironclad might be for you. On the other hand, if you've got terrible land or you're playing Terra, then explorers aren't terrible units to have. And if you need something to beef up your stack, then maybe you might use a musketman or two.

So maybe the question asked ought to be what is the least useful unit to you and why?

 

[kcbrett5]

So maybe the question asked ought to be what is the least useful unit to you and why?

The least useful unit to me is the nuclear warhead. I have actually never built one. The AI tends to vote them out if they ever get in charge of the UN anyway.

 

[Wlauzon]

The least useful unit to me is the nuclear warhead. I have actually never built one. The AI tends to vote them out if they ever get in charge of the UN anyway.

I would have to agree with that. I have built one, once, months ago just to try it out - and I used World Builder for that.

But aside from that, I would say that musketeer is pretty near the top of the list, mainly because he is not that much better than any previous unit, and he usually have a pretty short lifespan before you get something better.

 

[malekithe]

The unit that probably spends the most time available without me building any is the explorer. Though, I've probably built fewer ironclads on the whole. I'd say, as others would seem to agree, that it's a toss-up between those two. Interestingly, I just realized that I have not actually built any modern armor in over 9 months now. Same goes for nukes, stealth bombers, jet fighters, and mechanized infantry. I produced all of them in my first 2-3 games, but haven't had a need for them since.

 

[aelf]

Let's just note that I dislike the movement bonus to Musketeers. It's too little, perhaps a free promotion or something would work better. Just look at the Janissary - it is huge against a +1 to movement!

Musketeers are easily as good as Janissaries. If you think muskets have a short lifespan, Musketeers at least have the luxury of being able to get there to cause some trouble for your enemy. And it can mean big trouble for him of you do this right.

Janissaries are great on paper, and if you are more advanced, you can pretty much move about unopposed for a while. But they do have a counter - muskets. The enemy might start building muskets of his own soon, and then you can no longer consider your Janisaries invincible. And they don't have the mobility to always contribute very much before this happens.

Come to think of it, isn't the Musketeer the best possible counter to the Janissary in the advent of gunpowder?

 

[Charles 22]

I say carrier is the worst. I agree with the first poster that spoke against carriers, but I also would like to ass their most significant failing is the inability to carry bombers of any sort, and fighter type aircraft just aren't good enough for that role. Also, the small capacity even of fighters is woeful as well, which could easily make up for lack of bombers otherwise. So what would you say 1 fighter unit is roughly the equivalent of? 10 fighters? Even light carriers in WWII could carry 30 planes, but I guess these are supposed to be fleet carriers, which in most navies was a bare minimum of 50-60 planes, with many of them ranging in the 70-100.

Unlike the ironclad, it can't even defend a sea resource in it's own era.

 

[Hey Joni]

Musketeers are easily as good as Janissaries. If you think muskets have a short lifespan, Musketeers at least have the luxury of being able to get there to cause some trouble for your enemy. And it can mean big trouble for him of you do this right.

Janissaries are great on paper, and if you are more advanced, you can pretty much move about unopposed for a while. But they do have a counter - muskets. The enemy might start building muskets of his own soon, and then you can no longer consider your Janisaries invincible. And they don't have the mobility to always contribute very much before this happens.

Come to think of it, isn't the Musketeer the best possible counter to the Janissary in the advent of gunpowder?

This just makes beelining Gunpowder the most important task for an ottoman player, its doable on Monarch perhaps even on Emperor...

The competitiveness between janissaries and musketeers is very hard to judge because of their short timespan. Until (if ever) Firaxis decides to fix that I can't say how they relate.

However, in terms of value, I consider the janissary bonus much better than musketeers. Even after the enemy discovers Gunpowder, he will have a lot unupgraded units and jans will cut through them like knife through butter (is there such an expression in English or am I just being funny?). Jans can get pinch promotion to get an edge or at least be even with other musket units, they don't have an actual counter.

2 movement and 9 strenght is cool but you already have knights with 10 str. Sure, knights are mounted units with effective counters but is adding a musketman with 2 mov really that beneficial? You can pillage easier, but it won't help you fight your battles as would a janissary's bonus agains everything except gunpowder. That was my point

 

[Grabnar]

Artillery...slow moving junk. If I need to take down city defences I use air or naval power.

 

[aelf]

2 movement and 9 strenght is cool but you already have knights with 10 str. Sure, knights are mounted units with effective counters but is adding a musketman with 2 mov really that beneficial? You can pillage easier, but it won't help you fight your battles as would a janissary's bonus agains everything except gunpowder. That was my point

An extra move is really cool for almost any land unit. And like you said, there's no hard counter to muskets, with only other muskets as a counter unit (not considering promotions here). So Musketeers really only need to worry about knights, and terrain defense can help with that.

Let's put it this way: the Janissary is good as a main assault unit while the Musketeer is more versatile and offers more support/auxillary capabilities. The latter is also good for cleanup.

I made a thread about beelining to Gunpowder for a Musketeer rush sometime ago. I guess it can be applied to the Janissary. But that thread was talking about an Industrious Napoleon who could attempt CS slingshot (to open up Paper and then Education, which is the faster way there) with a very high chance of success on Emperor. Given the fact that neither the Warlords Napoleon nor Mehmed is Industrious, I think these musket UUs would most likely have to contend with enemy muskets by the time they are built. It makes their lifespan even shorter, and you have to be clever and creative to put them to good use. However, they are still much better than UUs like Jaguar or Camel Archer.

 

[Haethcyn]

Actually, I like these units that get an extra movement bonus. Even though the Janissaries are on paper the stronger(est?) units, I've used musketeers before with some great success. I have yet to play Warlords, but you can use musketeers to go pillaging. Seeing as how they're so stubborn and difficult to counter, sending them in with knights to go pillaging can really cripple an enemy.

 

[Dronten]

I play exclusively MP, and most of the time Terra or Archipelago, and Explorers are quite useful under those circumstances. Even so, I have to agree with most people that the Musketman/Explorer/Ironclad triple are the least useful units (though I've used all of them with great success, but not very often).

My most useless unit is:

ICBM

It comes too late to really decide the game, and it's very easy to defend against. On top of that, it's quite expensive.

Also, Carriers are definitely not among the most useless units. Adding a Carrier to each group of Battleships/Destroyers gives you a serious edge over the opponent. Most human players will have Drydock Battleships, and modern naval battles almost always come down to 50/50 attacks. Just one single airstrike will give you a 65-75 % chance to win those battles, and that's a serious advantage in MP games. By using cities as airbases, every now and then the fighters effectively lose a turn rebasing instead of attacking. Also, it limits the radius in which your fleet can operate. In Civ IV, Carriers aren't as expensive as in Civ I-III either.

 

[cabert]

must agree that carriers have some use. A double use in fact.

A carrier with 3 fighters can very effectively spot an enemy fleet coming and so let you cut it's road and sink those transports.
How would you do recon, without fighters on enemy land? how would you bring fighters in range for recon without carriers?

+ second use : is what dronten said: once a fighter has spotted an enemy fleet, the other fighters will damage the defensive boats, letting your boats close in for the kill.

 

[MrCynical]

While not 100% useless, I very rarely build carriers.

How would you do recon, without fighters on enemy land? how would you bring fighters in range for recon without carriers?

I find spies do just as well, and they aren't vulnerable to attack.

As with many people the explorer comes stone last. When constructed there's never anything left to explore unless it's a Terra map. Ironclads similarly I find of minimal use, though I might occasionally park them on top of seafood resources. Their inability to keep up with enemy frigates leaves there better strength rather academic for attacking purposes.

 

[cabert]

While not 100% useless, I very rarely build carriers.



I find spies do just as well, and they aren't vulnerable to attack.

playstyle...
I never (well almost never) build spies + the recon from spies is better in cities (entering city screen!) but it has a very small line of sight... even more so on the sea

As with many people the explorer comes stone last. When constructed there's never anything left to explore unless it's a Terra map. Ironclads similarly I find of minimal use, though I might occasionally park them on top of seafood resources. Their inability to keep up with enemy frigates leaves there better strength rather academic for attacking purposes.

well, for explorers i have no argument. It's a waste to build those IMHO. They don't even count as a defensive unit in your city for happiness purpose!

But high level ironclads can be cool! i just finished a warlords game where i built 2 of those (could have used more, but needed gallions which go better with frigates), which gave me an edge on my bad tempered neighbout (stalin) : i sank his frigates and gallions with ease, with my 4 moves ironclads (navigation 1 and 2!).

 

[ownedbyakorat]

playstyle...
I never (well almost never) build spies + the recon from spies is better in cities (entering city screen!) but it has a very small line of sight... even more so on the sea

The idea with the spy relative to spotting sea movements is that you park him in the enemy's major port. When the enemy ships are no longer there, that's your clue to intercept.