In previous threads about best/worst Unique Units, I suggested quantifying the benefits in units that would apply to all: promotions. I finally got around to do this for all, with some interesting results. A few guidelines: Free promotions were, naturally, counted at face value, without differentiating whether the promotion in question is particularly useful. If a feature was available for a promotion line that featured increasing returns to scale, I used the second promotion as a default; for example the +10% city attack of Swordsman was counted as 0,4 promotions (CR 2 gives 25%). In case of different base strenghts, I counted the number of combat promotions needed to get the weaker unit up to par (example: Jaguars need 2 combat promotions to get to the strength of 6 regular Swordsmen have). A + or - implies that the unit is slightly better or worse than the value given; often because the virtual promotion lacks the secondary effect of the real thing. Example: A first strike is less than a Drill II promotion because it lacks the collateral damage reduction. Immunity to first strikes was counted as equivalent to a full promotion. A word of warning: I can't account for all features in my quantifications. Some Uniques are more specialised than any regular unit of the type could be, and I can't think of an elegant way to account for how useful the actual promotions/virtual promotions are. Sometimes I really had to bend over backwards... for example, in the case of the Phalanx: On the defense, it has the equivalent of 4 Formation promotions... I just halved that for my 'virtual promotion number' since it doesn't apply on the offense. You can't get 4 of those. You might think it would be a ridiculous investment anyway when you can protect your stack with a few Spearmen. Points taken; my only point was to give as good a mathematically objective comparison of the UUs. I am perfectly aware of its shortcomings, this is mostly an exercise in geekery. The format blow is Unique Unit/Virtual Promotions/Real Promotions. The latter are important because they stick. Now, in order of theoretical badassery... East Indiaman 5+/0 Quechua 5/1 Landsknecht 4/0 Skirmisher 3.8-/0 War Chariot 3.5/0 Oromo Warrior 3-/2 Samurai 3-/1 Janissary 3/0 Praetorian 2.9 Cho-Ko-Nu 2.7- Navy Seal 2.5-/1 Immortal 2+/0 Conquistador 2+/0 Impi 2/1 Bowman 2/0 Panzer 2/0 Phalanx 2/0 Hwacha 2/0 Cossack 2/0 Berserker 1.4/0 Keshik 1+/0 Musketeer 1+/0 Numidian Cavalry 1/1 Gallic Warrior 1/1 Cataphract 1/0 Redcoat 1/0 Holkan 1/0 Vulture 1/0 Camel Archer 0.75/0 Dog Soldier -0.5/0 Jaguar Warrior -1/1 Ballista Elephant n/a Fast Worker n/a Carrack n/a Now the first thing that struck me is how useless the whole exercise was with respect to general gameplay. The leaders in points are hit-or-miss affairs. East Indiamen can ensure gamebreaking naval dominance, as often they will be a non-factor. A Quechua Rush can break the game by 2000 BC or the unit can fade into obscurity before seeing combat. In other cases, the sizable bonuses go to waste - sure, Landsknechts can competently fill a secondary role compared to Pikemen but they remain a niche unit; that a stack of two grillion Macemen + Trebuchets needs an escort of 3 Landsknechts instead of 2 Crossbowmen and 2 Pikemen for the same protection is a fairly marginal saving of resources. Bonuses to bread-and-butter units, especially ancient/classical age ones, are far more likely to play a major role in the game... but here too the question is mostly whether the unit fits the role required of it rather than how strong it is in abstract terms. The Vulture and the Dog Soldier for example don't look as if they would matter a lot, but ancient warfare is usually dominated by Axemen. Having a general-purpose attacker or a specialised defender that does its job extremely well can make a huge difference.