Most worthless unit?

What if they started out with March?

That just reinforces their role as a healer when they should be used for exploration.

Most "Explorers" travelled through terrain that was nominally owned by a "nation" (not exactly a nation state) as most coastlines were well known by the age of exploration, to reach internal lands and map them.
 
March doesn't heal others. It only works when you're moving.
 
Please someone, post how you use explorers other than as a medic.

And, if you use them to actually just explore, is it on a map other than Huge?

It just seems that Explorers are the most situational of any unit. Really, I have never used them.

Am I the only person here who likes explorers?

Granted, I like to play on Terra maps and be the first to reach the New World, which makes them genuinely useful for mapping out the land, but even without new lands to explore, they still have other uses.

I find them most useful as cheap observers (usually positioned on hills and key strategic points) for keeping an eye on possible enemy approach routes and to monitor the military forces in other civ's cities.

Lately I've been playing with 18 civs and it's not uncommon for distant civs to launch a surprise attack by moving through a friendly civ's land.

I learned that lesson when Bismarck suddenly declared war on me and an army appeared just two squares away from one of my cities, having travelled through my good friend Mansa's land. The same thing happened with Napoleon travelling through another friend's land. Being friendly with your neighbours is no protection against attack from a distant enemy.

Had I placed explorers near their borders I'd have seen their armies coming and had plenty of advance warning of their intent. Napoleon didn't surprise me, but Bismarck did, since relations weren't bad at the time.

Of course, you can do the same thing with spies, which cost the same, but explorers have a big movement advantage over spies. Not only do they have 2MPs, they ignore terrain costs too, which means they can move 2 tiles no matter what the terrain. This is a great advantage away from roads.

Another good reason is that spies often get discovered and killed off in supposedly "friendly" territory whereas explorers don't. (Surely that's not supposed to happen? Is that a bug?)

Alternatively, with enough espionage spending it is possible to get visibility into and around other civ's cities, but with 18 civs it's hard to devote enough points to that, it's much cheaper to station a few explorers in key locations instead.

As for just exploring, yes, I use them on maps other than huge.

Also, in spite of how weak they are, they're better than nothing in a desperate situation. They can be used to soak up enemy attacks while waiting for reinforcements to arrive.

My vote goes to ironclads, although they have their uses too. I usually build a nominal one, but typically end up wondering why I bothered.
 
Explorers definitely don't suck.

I use explorers as Great Generals, taking advantage of "ignores terrain movement cost" combined with the morale promotion can mean a very fast Medic III, even faster than the impi. Not even mounted units and scouts an outright ignore movement costs. Air units are faster, but too high in strength and may actually end up defending. I want to make sure it's as low-strength as possible. That, and I sometimes really wish I could promote a galley to a Medic III unit to heal my units during naval battles.

It's very hard to find an outright useless unit, really. I do end up using every unit, or most of them, in most games. The question I could answer, however, is the most *unused unit*. Has to be the infantry. For only a very slightly higher investment in hammers, you get a much better and much more versatile unit, the marines.
 
The Explorers are useful only if you get them early on.
 
I use them to defend my Cities when my Longbowmen must destroy a brigand who got his dirty little paws into my territory while my army was away.
 
I found that my citizens remained unhappy for lack of defence when only an Explorer was present. He would presumably have defended against an attack, but the citizens didn't see him that way.
 
But still, a Garrison is a Garrison, no matter what the little people say.
 
But still, a Garrison is a Garrison, no matter what the little people say.


What Bushface means is that the Explorer doesnt count as a garrison troop in terms of military police, so you will get a horde of unhappy people if you move your only longbowman out and leave an explorer there. Really, I dont see why you'd have an Explorer sitting around in an internal city anyway!
 
Really, I dont see why you'd have an Explorer sitting around in an internal city anyway!

As I said, I like to use explorers as observers to warn of an enemy army approaching. When this happens they can quickly retreat to the nearest city to help bolster the defences until reinforcements arrive. They may not be strong enough to defend the city on their own, but if the other defenders are wiped out and all that's left is a weakened attacker or two, they can make the difference between losing the city or not.
 
Good response Paul. I can see on a Huge Terra map maybe some use for them exploring. In response to using them as sentries, I suppose without mounted units you could do that.

Interestingly, mounted units (horses) can be just as useful exploring new lands, and they are stronger. The only thing worse is their goody hut results, which on higher levels and at a mid-game point aren't much anyway.

I wonder if nerfing mounted units to 1 mp in unexplored terrain would then buff the explorers.

Or giving explorers the ability to create an "Outpost", which will allow resource collection from a resource in neutral territory.

I dunno, I just wish I had a reason to build them.
 
It all depends, but the explorer is less hammers than most units. Even though they aren't that good, they do fullfill their roles very well. Most units cannot reveal tiles as efficiently as they can since they ignore terrain costs. Also, they can pop huts without penalty as well as get a defensive bonus.

Don't forgot, other than the carrack, caravels cannot hold standard units, so if one wants to explore ASAP, explorers have to be the way to do it.

A true useless unit is one whose hammers to effectiveness ratio is just out of wack, and I don't think explorers' ratio is that bad.
 
Most useless units:

Warrior
Archer
Longbowmen
Axeman
Maceman
Spearman
Pikeman
Crossbowman
Musketman
Rifleman
Infantry
Mech Infantry
Paratrooper
Marines
Fighter
Bomber
Jet Fighter
Stealth Bomber

They're all useless! :lol:
 
The consensus here seems to be the Guided Missile as the most worthless unit. I can't really comment since I haven't had the opportunity to try them yet, but wouldn't they be useful in naval combat when you can load 4 missiles on to a Missile Cruiser and wreak havoc on enemy naval stacks. They can also bomb city defenses -16%/turn; same as Mobile Artillary which comes much later, and the missile only costs 60 hammers compared to Mobile Artillary's 200 hammers!
I think all units have there strong points, but to me (and I know a lot of people would disagree) the weakest unit when comparing against all other units is the Fast worker which improves territory exactly the same way as ordinary workers, only it gains a free move. Only a very short span of usefulness early in the game. Probably more useful when playing Normal Speed games, but I only play marathon speed where cities take much longer to grow to make use of the Fast Workers slightly quicker progress.
 
Back
Top Bottom