Praetorian Vs. Immortal which UU do you prefer?

[ABigCivFan]

I have had great success using both units in my games(Single player). They are both very powerful in early games. It is hard to say which one is better, but I am interested to know which UU is better in your opinion.

Pros for Immortals:
1. Cost 25 hammer Vs. 45 for Praetorian (9 Immortals for 5 Praets)
2. Speed 2 Vs. 1 - Can get to the target city 2x faster
3. 50% bonus Vs. Archers. - like a mounted swordsman (w/o CR though) also + 100% attack Vs. Axeman
4. More effective at pillaging (although I rarely pillage)
5. Ability to withdraw
6. Faster promotions with Charimatic trait

I pick Praetorian over Immortal for the following reasons:

1. City raider promotions. CR allow the Praetorians to be as effective as Maceman (but 100 turns earlier than other Civs) when attacking cities. CR also applies against ALL city defending units where immortals only gets bonus against archers. CR3 Praets = attack strength of 14 against cities! in 1000 BC.
2. Much stronger in attacking and defending in open fields.
3. Defensive bonus on hill or in forrest/Jungles.
4. Upgradable to CR Granedier/Infantry/Mech Inf.
5. Better winning/survival rates than Immortals due to its strenth superiority.

These advantages means that the Praetorians have a much longer shelf life(until gunpowder) and survival rates than the Immortals, which translates into much bigger fruit from early conquest which sets up a much stronger mid-late game for the Romans.

I have played these games on Immortal level, I could keep pushing the Praetorians swarms even when the AIs had Longbows and spears whereas the Immortals will suffer heavy losses against such foes. So Most of the time I had to stop my Immortal rush when AIs get Fedualism, and they get to it very early at high levels. But I could push the Praets unitl I see large number of AI maces/Crossbows which come much later than Longbows/spears.

 

[Elandal]

I'd pick Immortals, although only for the reason that I don't really care about playing Rome (Augustus sometimes, Julius never) but every now and then decide to play Cyrus. If I don't care about playing Rome, I can't say I'd prefer Praetorians

 

[Frulling]

I must agre, one army of Praetorians is unbeatabel when you gett them and giv them som promotions.

 

[Panda]

Praetorians for brutal strength and longevity.

 

[Arlborn]

List the Immortal's strenghs, I never played as Cyrus..ALthoguh I know its strengh by this forum, not everybody is obligated to know..Talking good only about Praetorians is a kinda of influence on the answers ;p

And I cant know because I never played with Cyrus..

 

[.Shane.]

Don't the immortals come to early in the game to let you do much other than take out maybe 1 neighoring civ?

 

[Technocactus]

I like Immortals, because they have 2 movement. Both can pretty much dominate their era, but the extra movement can help take more people out.

 

[ABigCivFan]

Don't the immortals come to early in the game to let you do much other than take out maybe 1 neighoring civ?

That depends on the game setting size/speed/difficulty

I am doing the comparison that applies to all difficulty Chieftain-Deity

On higher levels, AIs could get Longbows around 500BC. Some of these immortal rushes could get stopped cold too early. AIs build more defenders as well; I had encountered AIs that built 10+ CG archers in 1 city(city with the Pyramid) before it had the longbows; I had no Catapults, so I wasted 20 immortals on that one city thats when i wish i had the praets.

 

[Arrian]

I personally prefer Immortals, but both are excellent.

One can deliver a knockout blow (or several of them) very early with immortals. Praets come later, though they last longer and are more versatile (there is not particular counter to them).

edit: as to level, I play primarily on Prince. I could see Praets being better at higher levels.

-Arrian

 

[gettingfat]

It's hard to say which one is better, but in terms of going for an early rush, immortals can be more devastating and easier to implement.

First, after AH you will know where the horses is. With Cyprus being an imperialistic leader, you will typically get the settler fast enough to take this spot. Unlike the Roman leaders, by the time you see iron they may be in the other AIs' territory already. I've never played a game with Cyrus without horses, but I've played a number of games as Romans (esp. Julius, without creative trait) I need to fight for the iron.

In SP games, immortals are certainly better because AIs love archers and immortals kill archers. In MP games, from the limited number of games I've played, human players certainly will build spears. However, they seldom build a lot. Besides, any experieced rushers will cut off the copper supply first. It's much easier to cut off resources with the 2-movement units than praetorians.

On higher levels, AIs could get Longbows around 500BC. Some of these immortal rushes could get stopped cold too early. AIs build more defenders as well; I had encountered AIs that built 10+ CG archers in 1 city(city with the Pyramid) before it had the longbows; I had no Catapults, so I wasted 20 immortals on that one city thats when i wish i had the praets.

I think if you want an immortal rush at higher levels, you don't wait till you have 20 of them. I generally start my rush as long as I have about 8-10, even without building barracks. While I build the immortals research mining and then BW. Once you start the first wave of rush go whip for the reinforcement, maybe 4-5 more units. The charismatic trait of Cyprus will keep your pets (sorry, should be people) modestly happy. Your first wave of attack should take aim at your enemies' strategic supplies. In general, by doing this you will be able to take out 2 cities. I personally do not suggest to take to many. Raze them if the cities are too far. Unlike the Romans, Cyprus doesn't have organized trait and can easily get into overexpansion issue.

 

[ABigCivFan]

I think if you want an immortal rush at higher levels, you don't wait till you have 20 of them.

That Pyramid city was the last I took in my rush. I captured 4 other cities from the Germans using smaller groups of Immortals (5-8). But when I get to the prize city with my 10 Immortals, it already had like 7 CG archers, so i had to wait for reinforcements. But every turn I waited, the AI built one more archer, until I funneled 10 more immotals into the hot zone, it had 10 Archers. I captured the city with heavy loses, but it was well worth it. Needless to say, I lost steam and had to go in build/defend mode from there.

With Praets, I can walk into a city battle with much more confidence (much better battle odds), I know I will take the city with smaller loses no matter what the AIs throw at me.

 

[.Shane.]

That depends on the game setting size/speed/difficulty

True enough. I've been playing on Prince lately. Typically w/ fractal maps and pretty vanilla settings, though I do bump the # of AI a few.

 

[Arrian]

I'll start messing with the AI with 1 immortal.

Sure, that's not a "rush" but I the point is you don't wait until you have some massive force. If I have an immortal out running around and I see an AI settler team, it's dead. Then I can "choke" until I have built enough to charge in. Speaking of which, that reminds me of a small advantage Immortals have that was not listed in their favor in the OP: they receive defensive bonuses.

Anyway, as soon as I get horsies hooked up, I will start sending out immortals, fixin' to misbehave. It's easier to mop up later if you've taken the enemy's workers and fortified unbeatable units (if all they have are archers/warriors) on their best terrain tiles.

edit: though yes, capitals/holy cities can be bloody to take down, particularly if on a hill. I have, on occasion, switched to "choke and wait for catapults" mode.

-Arrian

 

[ace94d]

Also, Prats can get Cover. So after City Raider they should head to cover(that means 100% City attack if it's a archer!)

 

[gettingfat]

That Pyramid city was the last I took in my rush. I captured 4 other cities from the Germans using smaller groups of Immortals (5-8). But when I get to the prize city with my 10 Immortals, it already had like 7 CG archers, so i had to wait for reinforcements. But every turn I waited, the AI built one more archer, until I funneled 10 more immotals into the hot zone, it had 10 Archers. I captured the city with heavy loses, but it was well worth it. Needless to say, I lost steam and had to go in build/defend mode from there.

A city with the Great Pyramid!!! Just the Pyramid itself gives you a value of about 300 hammers (I put a discount because of the loss in culture). And any city that has the productivity to build a Pyramid should be a good one. I say it's still good for you even you lose a dozen or more immortals for this city.

As another poster mentioned, immortals make the best "annoyer". Cyprus can be a "great jexk" if played correctly.

IMO, Cyprus is not as good as Augustus not because of their UUs. Praetorians can be stopped, though with difficulty. It's the traits and the UB that make Romans better.

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

Praets because they are good for so so long. They stand just as good of a chance as macemen against war elephants, musketmen, and knights. With a little collateral damage they can hang with grenadiers. If we take traits of their leaders also into account, they will be able to deal with captured land much better then Cyrus. Organized can afford it, and with creative (augustus) the borders are popped to take advantage of the population so that it doesnt starve.

Immortals are a bit easier to get...only animal husbandry. But spearmen are a better counter to immortals then axes are to praets. And of course immortals wont last nearly as long as praets. Pikemen and War elephants will eat them for a snack.

 

[Galileo44]

I think that praets are better because of higher strength in the open, defensive bonus's, longer shelf life, and CR and Cover promotions. Plus, Augustus is a great leader with creative (now fast libraries!) and organized, you can have a large empire up and running quickly. The other day I played as Augustus, teched right up BW-->IW founded second city near iron and pumped Praets. I took over my 4 nearest neighbors by 1200AD and was sustainable at 80% science. Settings: Monarch 2.08 Pangaea Epic 7 Opponents.

That is why Praets are better. Plus they helped me get my first Vanilla Emperor win a couple months ago.

 

[abuaftab]

I can't veote beacuse I like both for different reasons.

 

[FoxTrot12]

Praets are overrated. Immortals are better for my warring style. I like fast, quick kamikaze type wars, where I don't have to cry from losing a few units. Immortals match that; fast to build, better movement. Praets are like a big lumbering army; they rely on brute strength and therefore if a few die you'll be missing out.

 

[FoxTrot12]

By the way Galileo, I applaud you for winning in Emperor. At the same time, I scream with envy.