Most useless units?

[justanick]

Does it trigger a GA if used in this way?

Yes.

That just makes it an inferior version of other weak units with two movement points, like Jaguar Warriors or Impi.

Not quite. The Inca UU moves hills and Mountains like plains. So they can attack, win and retreat. With the exception of the mongolian UU and the spanish UU no other unit can do it. Well, for hills units with 3 movement points will work, but at mountains even they fail. So the the Inca UU has a rare strenght.

 

[walletta]

Yes.



Not quite. The Inca UU moves hills and Mountains like plains. So they can attack, win and retreat. With the exception of the mongolian UU and the spanish UU no other unit can do it. Well, for hills units with 3 movement points will work, but at mountains even they fail. So the the Inca UU has a rare strenght.

Ah, OK. Even so ...

 

[CKS]

The Incan UU is excellent for superfast conquest games at low levels in Conquests.

Look in the HOF: All the fast conquest wins on smallish maps and low levels are Aztecs (if PTW) or Inca (if Conquests). The Chasqui scouts walk into undefended capitals before the AI gets its first unit built.

Personally, I'm not so interested in a game that lasts 5-10 turns, but for those who are (and who want to play Conquests rather than PTW), the Inca are the way to go.

 

[Lord AJ]

Well, according to that logic, Tanks, Modern Armor or even ICBMs would qualify as "worst units"... Which is kind of true: if you finish the game with a horsemen-rush in the Ancient Age, the ICBM is quite "useless"... But if you get into the Modern Age, it is quite a formidable unit... So I think this argument should not be used. Each unit should be seen in its "natural environment" and judged by how well it performs in the age in which it is up-to-date.

I know this and that is why I used the word "personal" meaning to state that planes weren't useful to ME in MY games. This was also one of the reasons I repeated my opinion of zeroing in on the Navy at the end of the post.

 

[Lord AJ]

This is exactly what the KI thinks about ships, and because of that they use them poorly.

In one of my games on an archipelago I was under attack by the Celts, who had an superior army (I had no rubber). So I used my fleet to intercept their troops transports and to disrupt their supply lines. Since the KI moves their escorts only as some sort of shield and without attacking any enemies while on convoy duty, my fleet was able to shell them without even taking hits themself.

In the end Boadicca was bankrupt and she has lost beside of her complete navy a huge part of her army (with only one short land engemanent at the start of the war). And I was in the end able to launch my starship.

Okay so that's 1 place where the ships proved useful . But this was when you were faced by an emergency situation in a particular case which isn't as common as the situations one finds land units useful in. I don't think you would've planned doing any such thing as an essential part of your game plan. But Where else would you find them useful. They don't generally form a major component of any long-term strategies to victory. On pangea maps they're almost completely useless. Almost all battles are fought by land units and the best possible use for ships, that I can think of, would be to get your army to a faraway civ's territory. All other units, can be used almost everywhere with the same efficiency be it continents, archipelago or pangea. So I still stand by my opinion.

 

[Kirejara]

They (the navy) don't generally form a major component of any long-term strategies to victory.

On an archipelago map I still count on a strong navy to keep enemy armies out of my land. Land forces can not attack, what they can not reach.

And if my navy sinks every intruding transport (including their shield ships), this also enables me to strike back and take that island with the rubber resource.

 

[Takhisis]

@Mizar: haven't you ever seen the mighty spearman defeat puny tanks?

 

[daft]

@Mizar: haven't you ever seen the mighty spearman defeat puny tanks?

A completely realistic scenario in real life as well,

 

[Tasonne]

Most, if not all, of the ultra-fast Domination and Conquest victories in the Hall of Fame and the GOTM competition have been achieved with fast horseman rushes.

You stinking guys have changed my life...

Regarding ironclads though.. Rarely they can be useful, I'm pretty sure, in a very specific and key situation

Haven't probably ever used helicopter or paratrooper either

 

[WeirdoJoker]

Regarding ironclads though.. Rarely they can be useful, I'm pretty sure, in a very specific and key situation

It depends on how advanced your enemies are. But now that Ironclads have been made (in C3C) into a separate technology, I never research it or even take it in trade. They serve no purpose for me anymore.

Haven't probably ever used helicopter or paratrooper either

I think I built a paratrooper or two by accident, and never a helicopter. Never saw the need, and in fact I never develop Advanced Flight anyway. (Took it in trade once, though.)

 

[Takhisis]

Paras and helicopters can be really useful in scenarios where their capabilities can actually be used. As they are they remain mostly a waste of resources in the epic game.

 

[Quintillus]

Indeed, in Vanilla, Ironclads were pretty useful. They clearly outclassed Frigates, and came soon after. But as a separate tech, they lose much of their luster. Combustion is not that far in the future, so it's usually better to wait for that. I can see where, playing a human on a pangaea map, whoever researched Ironclads could controls the seas. But against the AI, I almost never see a need.

My vote is helis, though, with paratroopers second. I rarely find situations where it isn't a better idea to simply land some Infantry, with their better defence, and railroads mean Paratroopers are often wiped out anyway, due to lower numbers - an Infantry force is cheaper and more likely to survive. Helis don't add enough flexibility, either. If the range were similar to, say, the Bomber, they'd be a lot more useful for trying to deny resources - but again, as it is, I'm more likely to send out a pillaging Explorer than a Paratrooper to deny the enemy their resources - and by that stage of the game, a couple Bombers are even more likely.

 

[Theov]

I dont know about 'useless' but I never build many chariots or horsemen. Sometimes horsemen to upgraydd them, but i just dont build them often.

 

[Quintillus]

Horsemen can be quite powerful. Most top-level players view them as the best Ancient Times unit, as their speed (and consequent ability to retreat) usually allows quicker conquest than Swordsmen. And even for more moderate players, they can be clutch if iron is lacking, as well as for Cavalry upgrades.

Chariots, yeah, kind of agree. I'm not sure I've ever built one seriously. They're too expensive compared to Warriors and too weak compared to Spearmen and Archers. I'd be curious to read of a game in which an early Chariot Rush was put to effective use.

Edit: Strategy thread discussion Chariots: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/does-anyone-use-chariots-in-vanilla-c3c.417006/ Strategies mentioned include using them as scouts, mobile military police, barbarian fighters, and to help speed up pillaging campaigns in conjunction with spearmen.

 

[Takhisis]

Yeah, chariots have their uses even if, as was true generally in history, the slow-moving men with pointed sticks will win you the day, but the Hittites and Egyptians actually have chariots that can be helpful. They can only really be stopped by massed Enkidu Warriors, Hoplites or Numidian Mercenaries, unless you can fortify a big city on a hill as a chokepoint.

 

[Theov]

How would you change Ironclads - I don't know how they were in Vanilla.
I could put them somewhere else and remove the Ironclad tech...

 

[tjs282]

In my Mod-in-Progress, I've moved the Ironclad unit back to Steam Power, where it was in Vanilla (but Frigates also become available earlier in the Middle Age, so they're still worth building first).

I renamed the Ironclads tech as 'Railroads' -- no prizes for guessing what it allows now! -- and changed its prerequisite from Steam Power to Industrialisation (although the Worker-job 'Build rails' now needs only Iron).

This was all part of a larger aim, to encourage the AI to go for Industrialization much earlier in the Industrial Era than it usually does in the epic game, to make it more competitive.

 

[Theov]

In my Mod-in-Progress, I've moved the Ironclad unit back to Steam Power, where it was in Vanilla (but Frigates also become available earlier in the Middle Age, so they're still worth building first).

I renamed the Ironclads tech as 'Railroads' -- no prizes for guessing what it allows now! -- and changed its prerequisite from Steam Power to Industrialisation (although the Worker-job 'Build rails' now needs only Iron).

This was all part of a larger aim, to encourage the AI to go for Industrialization much earlier in the Industrial Era than it usually does in the epic game, to make it more competitive.

Sounds like a good idea. This will somehow go into my mod.

 

[tjs282]

Sounds like a good idea. This will somehow go into my mod.

Nooooooo!!! That's my idea, not yours!!! You can't have it! It's miiiine! I forbid you!

Should also point out that to date, none of the changes in my mod have been properly road-tested for synergy, like, at all...

 

[Kirejara]

Good thing, that one can mod units out of uselessness.

For myself I have relabled the tech "Ironclads" into "Iron Construction". It allows the building of Pre-Dreadnought-Ships and is a required for the tech "Steel" (and yes, that allows Dreadnoughts ). The unit Ironclad has been moved to "Steampower".

And while I have not moved the Frigates, I have Catapult Galleys with "Mathematic" and Wargalleons with "Astronomy". So even the ancient seas are a much less peaceful, than in the orginal Civ3.

BTW even the Paratrooper has become more versitable by giving it all terrain as roads. Even the KI suddenly loves it.