Lord Emsworth
Emperor
Oh, come on now. That is not a rational assessment of Egypt's UU - and you know it.
(As an aside, I have seen hundreds of WC wins.)
Most uselss unit
- Thread starter civ4lyfe
- Start date
Oh, come on now. That is not a rational assessment of Egypt's UU - and you know it.
(As an aside, I have seen hundreds of WC wins.)
darski
Regent in Training
the OP was asking what I considered the most useless unit; therefore my experience is as valid as any other assesment tool.
I am serious in that **I** have only seen one WC win in 10 years of play.
Lord Emsworth
Emperor
You were actually not responding to the OP; you were responding to a post of mine by 'asking' the rhetorical question about the upsides of a unit as a settler in combat and by justifying your view by personal experience.
We can quickly change that:
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/game_info.php?entryID=1499
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/game_info.php?entryID=1847
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/game_info.php?entryID=1685
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/game_info.php?entryID=1283
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/game_info.php?entryID=1188
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/game_info.php?entryID=1260
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/game_info.php?entryID=1172
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/game_info.php?entryID=1773
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/game_info.php?entryID=1424
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/game_info.php?entryID=1087
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/game_info.php?entryID=2124
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/game_info.php?entryID=1077
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/game_info.php?entryID=1063
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/game_info.php?entryID=1049
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/game_info.php?entryID=1034
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/game_info.php?entryID=947
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/game_info.php?entryID=963
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/game_info.php?entryID=940
These all are games from the HOF that feature Egypt winning quite early Conquest or Domination wins. Load a save or two from somewhere in the middle of the campaigns (if at all possible) and see if your still left with only seeing one win.
Though perhaps a bit exagerated, Darksi's point, I think, is that when I am in the middle of a war, I am not thanking the powers that be that the guy in the trench next to me is a War Chariot. While it may be far from the worst UU, it is certainly far from the best (IMO). One might also be curious how far you need to be away from the worst to be far from it.
And while they may work perfectly well on a particular (or cherry picked) map, they have plenty of shortcomings that I find distasteful. To call their movement penalties a minor annoyance is perhaps understating the fact that they can't even attack units in their restricted terrain (at least in PTW; not sure if this was upgrade in C3C, which would go some distance in redeeming it; not sure how that would work, though since they can't claim the tile after a battle).
You also need to overcome the immediate tech problem and locate horses. While this could be argued for a few other early UUs, the Chariot is becoming obsolete from turn 0. I would not want to be Egypt looking for horses while Carthage is the next civ over with a 2/3/1 unit requiring no resources.
The argument that it can easily trigger a GA is questionable as a criteria for greatness. There are only a handful of units that fall into the 'problem' category.
Can the War Chariot be useful? Sure. But I don't enjoy playing Egypt because of the UU. I enjoying playing it in spite of the UU.
And while they may work perfectly well on a particular (or cherry picked) map, they have plenty of shortcomings that I find distasteful. To call their movement penalties a minor annoyance is perhaps understating the fact that they can't even attack units in their restricted terrain (at least in PTW; not sure if this was upgrade in C3C, which would go some distance in redeeming it; not sure how that would work, though since they can't claim the tile after a battle).
You also need to overcome the immediate tech problem and locate horses. While this could be argued for a few other early UUs, the Chariot is becoming obsolete from turn 0. I would not want to be Egypt looking for horses while Carthage is the next civ over with a 2/3/1 unit requiring no resources.
The argument that it can easily trigger a GA is questionable as a criteria for greatness. There are only a handful of units that fall into the 'problem' category.
Can the War Chariot be useful? Sure. But I don't enjoy playing Egypt because of the UU. I enjoying playing it in spite of the UU.
Lord Emsworth
Emperor
You say that there are plenty of shortcomings and that you even find them distasteful, but apart from the terrain penalties I cannot for the life of me spot anything more. Maybe you are thinking of this:
Please, you cannot seriously try to sell the fact that you need a resource and that you need to research one technology as a shortcoming.
Or maybe you are thinking of this as a shortcoming:
I am not sure what this is supposed to tell me. In any case the War Chariot never becomes obsolete. You can continue to build it, even if you've had your golden age.
Maybe this:
Name one civ for which a neighbor with a resourceless, ancient age unit with a defense of 3 would not pose a problem. Maybe Persia? Can't be - the immortal needs one techs and iron.[/slight sarcasm]
No, I only count one disadvantage. And not plenty.
I could swear there are more UUs with problems.
And when it comes to a certain of liberty of being in a position to chose when exactly you want your GA, there are only a handful of UUs to match the War Chariot. There are plenty of UUs which come later and much later, while others may leave you little choice, and with yet others there may be the problem of a low attack value and finding a suitable target.
scratchthepitch
King
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2010
- Messages
- 798
Darsky
That rng is something, isn't it. It's half the reason I don't play the game very much any more, and never play unmodded stock games that don't compensate for it.
Raliuven
In a stock game I have never found chariots to be of much use (any kind of chariot), unless I've roaded just about everything and are using them as city garrisons (where they can zip out and attack, and then retreat and there are no problems with terrain crossing). The movement penalties kill them as an offensive unit in another's territory, except for very special circumstances.
Interestingly, in games where I modded chariots to be like horse units with same offense, slower move, and better defense, but kept the terrain penalties, the AI used them as rapid striking forces defending their cities (like I described using them in a stock game) and chariots could be very annoying to come up against in those situations in the Ancient Age.
BTW, if a unit can not cross certain terrain types, it also can not attack units next to it if those units are in those terrain types in Conquests, like with the earlier versions of C3. Really kills their usefullness on varied maps. I believe that also applies to land units trying to bombard, if my memory is right.
Lord Emsworth
It's not necessary to be rude, it's only a computer game.
That rng is something, isn't it. It's half the reason I don't play the game very much any more, and never play unmodded stock games that don't compensate for it.
Raliuven
In a stock game I have never found chariots to be of much use (any kind of chariot), unless I've roaded just about everything and are using them as city garrisons (where they can zip out and attack, and then retreat and there are no problems with terrain crossing). The movement penalties kill them as an offensive unit in another's territory, except for very special circumstances.
Interestingly, in games where I modded chariots to be like horse units with same offense, slower move, and better defense, but kept the terrain penalties, the AI used them as rapid striking forces defending their cities (like I described using them in a stock game) and chariots could be very annoying to come up against in those situations in the Ancient Age.
BTW, if a unit can not cross certain terrain types, it also can not attack units next to it if those units are in those terrain types in Conquests, like with the earlier versions of C3. Really kills their usefullness on varied maps. I believe that also applies to land units trying to bombard, if my memory is right.
Lord Emsworth
It's not necessary to be rude, it's only a computer game.
creamcheese
Spreading since 1990
I'm in the camp of war chariots can be very useful I guess. I like to play nice huge maps, so there is usually a band of flat terrain from the tropics to the tundra, and you don't have to venture into mountains if you don't want to. The Egyptians ind trait also helps them build some extra roads if you really need to. War chariots I use as a cheaper horse basically. Very nice for early wars to gain expansion room and/or resources. Early golden age can be worked with, instead of against, to gain some vital early expansion.
I can also tell you it is a pain in the butt to defend against them when the AI attacks you early.
Not the best UU, but in the top half for certain situations IMO. The real key is planning your early game carefully to take advantage of it.
I can also tell you it is a pain in the butt to defend against them when the AI attacks you early.
Not the best UU, but in the top half for certain situations IMO. The real key is planning your early game carefully to take advantage of it.
Desertsnow
πr²
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2004
- Messages
- 1,794
The traits are a reason that Egypt remains one of my favorites civilizations. Industrial-religious makes a potent combination in my experience. The War Chariot is still no great shakes as a UU. I've seen more of them win than Darski, but still not enough. Yes, I'll build them if I have horses and don't have iron; they cost the same as the basic chariot, but to me the stats reflect not so much a strong chariot as a fast archer, without the free defensive shot, and needing to stay on the road in order to travel. It does trigger a Golden Age, but this GA usually comes too early. Maybe it's not the absolute worst unit, but it's still a pretty darn bad one.
Thanks for the defense but I don't think that Lord Emsworth was trying to be rude; I certainly did not intend to come off that way. I've always found Lord Emsworth to give great insight and information in the past. I think this is a matter of opinion and our opinions differ. I'm not opposed to having my mind changed. When a question is asked "Most useless unit" you will get a lot of answers depending on a variety of factors, all those factors (level of play, method of play, enjoyment of the game, etc) will come together to form an opinion. Sometimes we even let facts get in the way.
On to the discussion at hand. How to tackle this in a logical, readable manner.
lol: epic fail)I'm going to take a long range shot at this first. Something I may not have made clear in my last post but which I mentioned earlier is that my problem with the WC is that it dictates a particular method and playing style to be used effectively. If that method and style matches your tastes, then it may be a great UU for you. If it does not, then it is distasteful UU. From my point of view, it is not a great UU because it is not versatile. If you are relying on this UU to make your game, then the WC dictates either a course of action or a set of 'hopes' you need to fulfill. So let's examine that.
Sure, I can buy this as a factor for making it better than the worst. Along with a bunch of other AA units. Of course if you considered a despotic GA undesirable, it is a little less useful and other, later UUs become attractive. Mostly I agree with its versatility in this area because unlike the hoplite or NM, it is highly unlikely to start a GA unintentionally - which is to say you'll keep this unit far from the battlefront until it is needed for the GA and only if you remember where you parked it after building it in 2500 BC. Also, it is unlikely to kill anything on the defensive, so no worries there either. If you intend to actually use it BEFORE the AI can match it with swords and horse of their own, you've got to move fast and that dictates an early GA.
Yes, you can even build it in the modern age. While you may be looking at this from a cash rush point of view, that is again a particular playing style/method. Otherwise I'd rather have tanks. Eventually the Chariot is obsolete. Period. Generally I would think that, except in some particular situations, they are never built once you have horsemen and swords. The problem is that the AI will have a comparable unit that is not restricted by movement relatively fast - perhaps freakishly fast at higher levels.
If the chariot had no movement restriction, I would be more favorable towards it. But the fact is that this penalty pretty much kills it on a randomly generated map. Although we are talking about the UU, it is hard not to mention the Civ Traits. Here there is some redemption because Egypt is industrial and can build the much needed roads fast. This is nice synergy, other than it dictates the use of your workers if you plan to make the UU effective.
So now is a good time to talk about the 'hopes' for this UU. On a randomly generated map, you'll need to set a clear path for the use of this UU. First, you need TW.
Sure I can be serious about this because it dictates your opening strategy. Egypt doesnt start with the TW. The time is ticking on your WCs usefulness so you need to get moving. First, you need to either plan for TW or HOPE for it. If you plan for it, you are dictated to researching TW first. You are putting your money on this bet and you are HOPING it will pay off. Or you could HOPE that you spawn next to someone with TW or trade it. Japans not a bad choice because they have TW and a later UU. But since this is a random map, thats a pretty slim hope. Or you can HOPE to pop it from a GH; quite feasible on a lower level, not so much at the higher levels.
And while we are talking about what civs we are hoping to spawn next to, lets talk about the ones that would rather not see next to us. Rome or Persia if they find iron before we find horses. Greece or Carthage would be unhappy neighbors, particularly if they have some hill/mountainous land. The Iroquois will dominate our UU in 2 short techs. The Zulu have a unit that matches our unit attack for defense & vice versa and they can use terrain. Hittites have a better TMC. Not to mention if we take too long getting to any civ it may spell the end of our WC crusade.
You can make the argument that every civ has this same set of problems.
You got me there, other than the fact that we are talking about the UUs effectiveness. If I spawn next to these neighbors, my more versatile or later UU never needs to face these units on an uneven playing field. My entire plan doesnt suddenly collapse. In other words, Egypts UU does not equip it to deal with these early threats any better than a Civ without the WC. All you can is HOPE, like we all do, that they are not your next door neighbor. There is no planning around that fact in the random game.
The difference between Persia, Rome or the Iroquois is that their unit has some staying power. You have time to find iron/horses and then they are effective for much longer than the WC. If the tech pace is fast, they will likewise have the UU usefulness reduced, but if the tech pace is slow then it will seem as if Immortals, Legions and MW are around FOREVER. Oh, they dont need a legion of workers to make a road to cross over a mountain.
Lets move on. Next, you cant even see horses until you have accomplished the above task. So you need to HOPE youve got horses nearby. While nearby horses in and of themselves usually dictates worker movements (i.e., hey, road TOWARDS the horse, idiot workers!), it now becomes a mandate. Another dictation.
Okay, youve got TW and youve found horses and you are ready to spit out WC at the nice price of 20 shields, which actually isnt bad, another redeeming quality. In the meantime, your scouts had better not report that you are facing any significant terrain obstacles between you and victims. In spite of the fact that chariots are never obsolete as far as Cleopatra is concerned, there is a practical point when the rest of the world laughs when they appear. It can be argued when the cutoff point is, but surely by the time of pikes and knights the going is going to be a little rough. So youve either got to road through it (work demands) or ship around it (building demands).
So if you consider all of this to be only 1 disadvantage, then I guess the WC is the UU for you. For me, no thanks. This is sort of like the Socratic Republic. Its a great place to live IF EVERYTHING is working the way it should. Short of that, its a nightmare. Unfortunately the HOF games are deceptive. You are showing Darksi the Socratic Republic.
As I said before, yes, it can work. Im sure we can find something for the F-15 to do while we are at it. Okay, that might be going a little too far.
Sorry Darski,
but the fact that you've seen only one win of a WC doesn't make it useless.
That's like saying eating parrots isn't nutritious because you've never eaten one.
Sure, they are a bad unit, and hardly an upgrade over anything, but to have them early (and Egypt is often near horses) makes them a good unit to steal a settler or an early city and get an early lead.
but the fact that you've seen only one win of a WC doesn't make it useless.
That's like saying eating parrots isn't nutritious because you've never eaten one.
Sure, they are a bad unit, and hardly an upgrade over anything, but to have them early (and Egypt is often near horses) makes them a good unit to steal a settler or an early city and get an early lead.
Lord Emsworth
Emperor
Thanks for the defense but I don't think that Lord Emsworth was trying to be rude; I certainly did not intend to come off that way. I've always found Lord Emsworth to give great insight and information in the past. I think this is a matter of opinion and our opinions differ. I'm not opposed to having my mind changed. When a question is asked "Most useless unit" you will get a lot of answers depending on a variety of factors, all those factors (level of play, method of play, enjoyment of the game, etc) will come together to form an opinion. Sometimes we even let facts get in the way.
On to the discussion at hand. How to tackle this in a logical, readable manner.
I'm going to take a long range shot at this first. Something I may not have made clear in my last post but which I mentioned earlier is that my problem with the WC is that it dictates a particular method and playing style to be used effectively. If that method and style matches your tastes, then it may be a great UU for you. If it does not, then it is distasteful UU. From my point of view, it is not a great UU because it is not versatile. If you are relying on this UU to make your game, then the WC dictates either a course of action or a set of 'hopes' you need to fulfill. So let's examine that.
Every good UU, sort of, dictates a course of action. If a UU doesn't do that, then it is also not a good UU. And the course of action that a UU dictates is predominatly going to war with the intention of conquering large stretches of land, while befitting from what you UU has to offer in terms stats. A secondary, much weaker use of a UU, is to merely use it as a GA trigger. To repeat this more bluntly, a dictated course of action is NOT a downside of a UU.
The predominat benefit is perfectly fulfilled by the War Chariot. One must however not fall into the trap of seeing this unit solely as a replacement for the irrelevant chariot. Rather it is a replacement of the chariot AND on top of that an alternative horseman; an alternative horseman that is a lot cheaper to build (66%) on one hand, but of course of the other and has certain drawbacks. What this means is, that the shelf life that is to be considered for the War Chariot begins a little earlier than that of the horseman, but otherwise stretches into the game as long as the horseman is useful. It also means that it is a great benefit on the battlefield, because firstly you are combative and ready very early. Secondly, later on, you can field a much larger force of ancient age fast movers. Why, you can always build a mix of horsemen and war chariots. Depending on the situation (terrain!) you can replace more, or less horsemen by War Chariots. In the best possible case you replace them all, and for example, can afford to build 30 instead of just 20 units. (IOW, you receive a better discount than demigod AIs). In less favorable cases, you can still replace maybe half of your horses by war chariots, and to stay with the example, build 25 instead of just 20 units. (Still about as good as Emperor AIs). And this second usefulness lasts as long as the horseman is useful. And then there is still the thing about the upgrade basis, which last as long as the usefulness of any mounted units. Provided of course, you are willing to do upgrades.
Tanks only become available in the late industrious age.
And when you say chariot, do you mean the vanilla chariot or do you mean the War Chariot? If the former, then yes, this unit is never build once you have horses and swords. If the latter, the war chariot, then you are simply wrong. It is just as I laid it out above. You can always trade in at least some of your 30 shield horsemen for cheaper 20 shield war chariots. How many exactly depends on the terrain. Chances are, you can completely forego building horsemen and exclusively rely on War Chariots. But even if you have a lot of jungles and mountain, you surely have situations where these terrain types play no role at all. And that is where you should use war chariots instead of horsemen.
You are just way overstating the movement restrictions. Randomly generated map != War chariot killed
-/-
The statement that the Iroquois will dominate our UU is not only not right, it is not even wrong.
The Iroquois simply have a killer UU. If you happen to start near them, one thing you certainly do not want under any circumstances is to have to face the Mounted Warrior on the battlefield. One course of action is to try to take on Hiawatha before he has (a larger number of) Mounted Warriors. For that you will need a civ which is combative very, very quickly. A civ with the military trait, and hopefully easy iron. Or a civ with good early UU. And Egypt fits the second category. Of course, you'll need easy horses. But at least you can hope. Another course of action is to try to not get into trouble with MWs. May work, or may not work.
If you somehow get into trouble with Mounted Warriors though, then you have a really, really, really big problem. Not only are you facing much more unpredictable fast movers, no, you are facing unpredictable fast movers which can easily kill anything that you might hope to toss into their path. The only chance that you have is to be in a position, where you yourself can react and act swiftly and quickly yourself and not let Hiawatha have the total initiative. IOW, you would need to have fast attackers yourself, so you can easily exploit the weak defense of the mounted warrior. Slow attackers are very unlikely to have a shot so-to-speak, while trying to combat MW on the defense is futile, even more so if the level is Emp, DG or even higher. And which are the only available ancient age fast attackers? Horsemen, Gaelic Swords, and ... War Chariots. Cost for vanilla horsemen: 30 shields. Gaelic Swords: 40 shields, but can be upgraded from warriors as long as you have money. War Chariot: 20 shields. Further requiremets: horses as a resource for Horsemen and War Chariots, and iron for Gaelics.
No, with Egypt you are not necessarily dominated by the Iroquois UU. In fact, with no other civ is it as unlikely to be dominated by Mounted Warriors as it is with Egypt and the Celts. With a little luck and skill it is even possible to dominate them in turn.
It is simply wrong that the War Chariot has no staying power. You can always trade in at least some of your 30 shield horsemen for cheaper 20 shield war chariots. How many exactly depends on the terrain. Chances are, you can completely forego building horsemen and exclusively rely on War Chariots. But even if you have a lot of jungles and mountain, you surely have situations where these terrain types play no role at all. And that is where you should use war chariots instead of horsemen.
Darski's complaints were, if you recall, that she's only seen War Chariots only win a battle once. I think it is best to give these complaints a rest.
And it is not about showing a Socratic Republic. And why should that be necessary? But if you find the games that I linked to somehow can be likened to Socratic Republics, fine by me. Only the good UUs make any such comparison possible. But then, as I said, it is not about Socratic Republics anyway.
It is rather about good, bad, solid and so-so unique units. It is about their qualities and shortcomings. And where exactly the Egyptian War Chariots fits in there. Especially, it has been about the shortcomings of the War Chariot. It has terrain restrictions, it has terrain restrictions, it has terrain restrictions, it has terrain restrictions ... But no matter how often this is repeated it is only o n e disadvantage, not five, and not twenty.
The rest, are simply pseudo-shortcoming, either because they are general problems that all civs suffer from more or less ,like techs, resources, strong neighbors or some such. Or they are downright imaginary.
As I said before, yes, it can work. Im sure we can find something for the F-15 to do while we are at it. Okay, that might be going a little too far.
Yes.
But my vote for the absolute worst goes to...
Paratrooper: Here you are Mr AI. I offer you my expensive but weak unit, that you may easily kill it. I place it well inside your territory, where I cannot defend it, and where you can easily attack from many directions, without leaving your own units vulnerable to my counterattack. This is my gift to you.
Moronic beyond belief, but the parachuting animation is cute.
I've never used paratroopers in Civ3. In Civ2 they were somewhat useful, because they could capture empty enemy cities. Does anyone know, whether that still works in Civ3? Kill all defenders of a town with bombers and then capture it with paratroopers? That might be quite useful for ultra-fast advances into enemy territory in cases where you can't use combat settlers.
On the topic of War Chariots: I must say I have to agree with creamcheese and Lord Emsworth here: the WC is a good UU, and (depending on your strategy and the planned victory condition) it can even be an excellent UU in certain circumstances.
As Lord Emsworth pointed out: the fact that Egypt features so many top spots in the HoF tables for Domination shows that many top players consider the Egyptian War Chariot as an excellent choice for ultra-fast ancient age Domination games. (Besides the obvious choices of the Celts and the Iroquois.)
Of course it depends on what you are trying to achieve. But this can be said of every UU in my opinion. For example: if you are playing for a 20K victory, usually your military is weak in the beginning. If you get attack during that time, the Greek Hoplite can easily save your neck. But if you are going for a fast Domination/Conquest victory, the Greek Hoplite is completely useless...
So I repeat: for games involving early war-mongering, the WC is excellent, and it remains useful even beyond that early phase, because it can be upgraded all the way to Cavalry, so the units you build in the AA will still help your military efforts in the early IA (when Riflemen become available). This is quite similar to the Iroquois Mounted Warrior, and I guess no one disputes that the MW is an excellent UU?
As Lord Emsworth pointed out: the fact that Egypt features so many top spots in the HoF tables for Domination shows that many top players consider the Egyptian War Chariot as an excellent choice for ultra-fast ancient age Domination games. (Besides the obvious choices of the Celts and the Iroquois.)
Of course it depends on what you are trying to achieve. But this can be said of every UU in my opinion. For example: if you are playing for a 20K victory, usually your military is weak in the beginning. If you get attack during that time, the Greek Hoplite can easily save your neck. But if you are going for a fast Domination/Conquest victory, the Greek Hoplite is completely useless...
So I repeat: for games involving early war-mongering, the WC is excellent, and it remains useful even beyond that early phase, because it can be upgraded all the way to Cavalry, so the units you build in the AA will still help your military efforts in the early IA (when Riflemen become available). This is quite similar to the Iroquois Mounted Warrior, and I guess no one disputes that the MW is an excellent UU?
I'm not going to respond to the rest of the posting because I think it comes down to a matter of opinion, even if at times it appears as if you are stating facts. I've stated my case and we could spend the next ten pages reposting the extact same arguments and accomplish nothing. At times I think you purposely missing the point I am trying to make, but that's not my problem.
I'll have to chew on this and play Egypt a few times to see if it changes my mind.
Okay, perhaps I didn't take her as literally as you (and others) did. Since a spear can win against a tank, obviously war chariots can win a battle. It seems pretty silly to list 18 HOF games to prove that. Again I think you missed my point, but whatever.
The question is - how many maps did they need to generate and how many starts did they play out before they found the right one for those HOF games? I do not doubt that there is great playing involved with the HOF, but to an extent luck probably played a role too. That the top of the list game has 3 cows on grass in the BFC of the captial city is a point in fact.
You may have an opinion, but you may not have your own counting system. I brought up several issues I have with the war chariot. That you don't consider them issues does not invalidate them. I could do the same to you - your agrument is about one issue - cost. I don't actually believe that because your agrument is far more complex.
I get it. You don't agree with me. Just like I don't think that the terrain problem is as insignificant as you make it sound. Otherwise point out what you think is imaginary and I'll explain it better.
I'll have to chew on this and play Egypt a few times to see if it changes my mind.
Okay, perhaps I didn't take her as literally as you (and others) did. Since a spear can win against a tank, obviously war chariots can win a battle. It seems pretty silly to list 18 HOF games to prove that. Again I think you missed my point, but whatever.
The question is - how many maps did they need to generate and how many starts did they play out before they found the right one for those HOF games? I do not doubt that there is great playing involved with the HOF, but to an extent luck probably played a role too. That the top of the list game has 3 cows on grass in the BFC of the captial city is a point in fact.
You may have an opinion, but you may not have your own counting system. I brought up several issues I have with the war chariot. That you don't consider them issues does not invalidate them. I could do the same to you - your agrument is about one issue - cost. I don't actually believe that because your agrument is far more complex.
I get it. You don't agree with me. Just like I don't think that the terrain problem is as insignificant as you make it sound. Otherwise point out what you think is imaginary and I'll explain it better.
The War Chariot is more dependent upon terrain and how the start plays out. If you happen to get a lot of flat land near you so the WC isn't hampered by it's inability to move onto terrain, you can get a lot of mileage out of it. So on the HOF where you only play great starts, Egypt's great start would include that.
Most of my normal games seem to involve some blockage where my War Chariots can't go where I want them to. I don't think the War Chariot is as dependable a UU as most of the others. Admittedly, the fact that it replaces a unit you don't build may be a point against it.
Most of my normal games seem to involve some blockage where my War Chariots can't go where I want them to. I don't think the War Chariot is as dependable a UU as most of the others. Admittedly, the fact that it replaces a unit you don't build may be a point against it.
HagiaSophia
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2011
- Messages
- 73
Actually, the point of paras is to use them in huge numbers. And the F-15 isn't useless, I think it gets 2 runs at attacking or something. I only use it for air superiority though.
I didn't know they could bomb twice?
As I recall, jet fighters are pretty bad at bombing, so allowing them to bomb twice is a minor boon. So even if that is true, it does not support the F15's primary function - air superiority as you pointed out - it's not of much worth.
This is like the extra attack point for a NM (2/3/1, cost 30 shields). The NM is a good unit - I actually like it for barb heavy beginnings; high defense and a higher attack rating gives it a lot of durability as a single scouting unit. But their primary function is still defense. I'd build archers, horses or swords to attack. Archers are cheaper for the same punch, horses and swords are better for the same cost. So adding 1 to the attack rating is a minor boon. Otherwise it is an early pike (at the same cost vs the Hoplite's reduced price tag of 20 shields).
PaperBeetle
Emperor
For sure the F15 doesn't have two moves. It has rate of fire 2, putting it between a normal jet (1) and bomber (3). Its bomb strength is 6, compared to the jet's 2!! and the bomber's 8. Well, you have two uses for fighter units: defense against enemy aircraft, with air superiority, and distracting / neutralizing enemy AA before sending in your bombers. The F15 is pretty handy for the second use, because it actually might do something useful on the decoy bombing run.
That said, once you are fighting with aircraft, you probably have the game won anyway, and the extra power of F15s is worth what? Victory a turn or two earlier in corner cases? It might not be completely counterproductive like the paras, but you wouldn't miss it if it wasn't there.
That said, once you are fighting with aircraft, you probably have the game won anyway, and the extra power of F15s is worth what? Victory a turn or two earlier in corner cases? It might not be completely counterproductive like the paras, but you wouldn't miss it if it wasn't there.
Lord Emsworth
Emperor
I have just been toying around with that. But it does not seem to work. You can airdrop a paratrooper on a totally* empty city, but you'd just get the message "Airdrop failed" and the paratrooper would be gone.
* means that there also must not be any workers or artillery units
scratchthepitch
King
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2010
- Messages
- 798
Did Lanzelot mean drop a para right on the city, or next to it. If the latter, I suppose other units could be rushed to the city for its defense, or the city could rush build or draft a unit, since the para cant move on the same turn it gets dropped. But next turn, para's side could bomb the city again, and then take it with paras just walking in. I guess using several para per city might work pretty well, by spreading out the units the city's side must destroy, if the logistics of it could be arranged. Dropping some paras next to an unit denuded AI city might also work as a diversionary tactic to draw back some AI troops, that were proving to be a headache nearby.
-----------
Switching back to the war chariot vs F-15. It seems the F-15 is disliked mostly because it comes so late, the benefits of it being an UU are useless. If it comes too late to generate the GA, much of the usefulness of it being an UU isn't there. Since the war chariot comes near the beginning of the game, that aspect is kind of reversed in that this unit is available too soon. If you don't want a GA during the AA, you would have to hide the war chariots away from the other players to avoid them being attacked and setting off the GA. That would make them useless for anything but for being able to look at their icons.
So, one UU comes at the beginning, but you cant use it or it will cause a GA too soon, and the other comes near the end, when you already had the GA.But what about their usefulness as units? With the F-15 it's not its stats, which are fine. Many say by the time they get it, the game is won already. But that would be true of all the other units you get at that late part of the game. Compared with a regular jet fighter, the F-15 rocks. If at a point in the game where I'm going to using late air units, I'm going to be using this UU. I was never one who rushed to see how early I could beat the game and finished during the middle or industrial ages. I liked playing all the eras and use each of their toys. I suspect most people who played the game didn't race for an early finish, either, and played all the ages.
I cant say war chariot is a useful unit in the same sense the F-15 is, due to its movement restrictions. If you start in an area where there is a lot of mixed terrain, which is usual, the WC isn't going to be worthwhile compared to horsemen, even if it is cheaper. That extra 10 shields for horsemen is worth spending and only represents 2 or 3 more building turns to get a vastly better unit. So setting aside the GA aspects, I still wouldn't have much use for WC in most games I played. This makes them sort of the opposite of F-15. The F-15 I prefer over the jet fighter, while with the WC vs horsemen, I would usually build horsemen.
Either unit fails as an UU and that is due to poor game design. But as units in their own fields, the F-15 always shines, the war chariot usually fails.
Similar threads
