Persian Immortals

[EQandcivfanatic]

to me the Immortals seem like just a lower defence Knight that goes slightly slower. Nothing can stand against the huge cheap swarms of them until the Industrial Ages. Only attacking them can deafeat them with such a lousy defence. They are cheaper too. Just wondering if anyone else had any thoughts on that.

 

[Hades]

I like their 4 attack, but I would rather get legionaries with 3 defense. In most of the early battles, I find the decisive factor is not how fast you can take a city, it is how long you can stand the attack while you are in enemy's terroitory. Most of the time, if I send in 10 swordsmen to attack, by the time I get to the city, I would only have 7 or 8 left.

 

[nullspace]

It' s always the opposite for me: I lose most of my swordsmen by throwing them against stacks of spearmen in cities. 2 is plenty for defense, since it is usually easy send a guerilla force to cut off your enemy's source of iron. Then the worst you have to worry about are horsemen and archers. Stick to rough terrain when possible to protect your swordsmen, it doesn't even slow them down. Or just send some spearmen with your swordsmen to absorb any attacks. The extra defense on legionares is almost wasted, since nothing will attack them! Enemies would rather attack the spearmen I leave behind in my cities. The immortal's high attack is always nice, but especially when attacking a hill city, or one over size 6.

 

[Yndy]

Building some 15 vet warriors early on and upgrading them to immortals for 600 gold make an unstoppable army early on. Figure a stack of 15 immortals whith a cost of 150 shields and 600 gold.

For this reason I consider persians the best civ.

 

[HenriIV]

I agree. However, it seems almost like too much of an advantage that they get upgraded from the warrior. Thankgod the AI doesn't seem to know that, at least they don't seem to make too much of it.

 

[bobgote]

You can send immortals out by themselves ok, as the only advantage spearmen with them can possible offer is to take the attacks, but since their defence is the same, it won't make much difference. Keep thim in defensible territory like nullspace said.

Just make sure that you build spearmen when you go to war, to put in captured cities and free up your immortals. They're my 2nd fave civ after the zulus.

 

[calle-76]

At monarch or higer i allmost allways play persians or china because of their awesome UU:s.
The Immortals are allmost to powerfull.

 

[XOVER]

I guess I'll chime in with this "me-too" post.

Immortals are nice little attackers, ok to poor defenders, but the fact that you can upgrade from Warrior makes them quite attractive in those ancient wars. (Assuming you've got a landmass containing iron, of course!)

The negative? They don't upgrade.

But I don't think Legionares upgrade either. Plus Legionnaires come along later, and don't possess the Warrior upgrade (correct?). Though Legionaries with 3/3 are more balanced. Someone correct me if I've gotten Legionaries wrong.

 

[Eowyn of Rohan]

The Romans, for UUs at least, rank as third: behind the Chinese Rider and the Japanese Samurai.

Anything that gives me a GA in the Ancient Age can't be good - I usually haven't finished building Aqueducts and so on. The Immortal would be a great UU except for the lack of retreat ability. If you HAVE to use a civ with an Ancient UU I would go with Iroquois.

Overall best UU? I have to say Japanese Samurai. You can use them to take AND hold cities. They upgrade to Cavalry so you can conquer even more. They don't need horses! And last of all the GA comes at the PERFECT time, at least for me.

 

[calle-76]

Yeah, i use the samurais to trigger my golden age then i wreak havok.

 

[Evincar]

Eowyn just said it all!! . Samurais completely sweep aside anything in front of them. They are the all-in-one unit that comes in a perfect time. I also like that they don't need horses because I usually find it easier to have iron that horses.

The fact that it's the best time to trigger a GA is plainly undeniable. It's the time to get all those lovely wonders...and at the same time, conquer everyone else with your hordes of fast, good at everything units. That's why the Samurai is the best UU for me, closely followed by the Chinese Rider.

Wait for Gallic Swordsman though!

 

[thefrenchzulu]

I like Immortals aswell. Just remember that if you are playing culturally linked game, you might be facing the Babs, Greek and Romans. That tends to neutralise the early attack advantage. Attacking hoplites with immortals are the same as attacking spearmen with swordsmen.

I find that unique units don't win you the game, but a well timed GA can.

Must add my first Deity conquest win was playing the Persians

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Except i would much rather be attacking a hoplite with a 4 attack than a 3 attack. And later if you don't have horses Immortals can act just as well as Knights if they have Pikeman support.

 

[Shabbaman]

Evincar, great avatar!

IMHO the greater movement of knights/samurai makes them uncomparable to immortals. The additional point of movement changes the war completely. Usually an advance can be so swift that it is stalled by waiting for additional defenders.

Please note that I don't say that immortals suck, I just mentioned that knights are better. Oh yeah, and that they don't upgrade and become obsolete sure doesn't add to their usefullness. But that'll change with ptw.

 

[calle-76]

Ofcource knights/samurai/chinese riders are better because as you all know immortals are ancient units.

 

[Yndy]

Immortals are well ahead of their time. They have attack 4 when only Greeks have defense 3. They are only matched by Musketmen on open ground. Of course samurai are better but on a high difficulty game when you have samurai everybody has musketman (at least in my games).

 

[Evincar]

Originally posted by Yndy
Immortals are well ahead of their time. They have attack 4 when only Greeks have defense 3. They are only matched by Musketmen on open ground. Of course samurai are better but on a high difficulty game when you have samurai everybody has musketman (at least in my games).

Yes, but that's not the big deal. What's wrong about inmortals is that it's pretty easy to lose them BEFORE they attack. It has only defense 2, while enemy swords have attack 3, and cannot retreat. . If you don't find good defensive terrain, you're in trouble. However, there are two interesting things:

1) If you severe the enemy's iron supply...
2) In very difficult terrain, lots of mountains and hills, you get the defensive bonus you need, so no problem with your low defense. Also, that kind of land negates the advantage of moving fast. However, placing Samurais on hills gives you a huge pleasure when the enemy loses all his knights in hopeless battles

Yes, I encounter muskets when I have Samurais, but I kill them equally

 

[wysiwygger]

immmortals are more like a longbowman than a knight.

I like riders way better than samuri. I always have horses anyways. last game I had 4 when I got chivalry.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Originally posted by wysiwygger
immmortals are more like a longbowman than a knight.

I like riders way better than samuri. I always have horses anyways. last game I had 4 when I got chivalry.

But they have 2 defence which is the major defence stat in the ancient age with the exceptions of hoplites and romans. And 4 attack is the best in the ancient making the Persians great for ancient warfare.

 

[Hurricane]

Immortals are good, but what makes them unbelievably good is that they 1) upgrade from warriors and 2) are available after iron working which for the Persians is only 1 tech away. This means that you can have a sizeable Immortal army when the enemy only has Spearmen and Archers, even on Deity level.