Rating the Unique Units by Ision

[dze27]

I'm surprised nobody rated the Cossack higher. It has a real uniqueness being the earliest blitz unit (other than Armies) by a longshot. It is useful really until the end of the game with its movement and can defeat redlined Infantry regularly. The blitz makes it like having extra units around and you get Elites and thus MGLs like crazy. If an enemy SOD invades, you are almost guaranteed an MGL or two every turn if you've got some artillery. Personally this is in my top tier.

The Hwach'a I would also rate higher since it is truly unique and since I use artillery so much anyway.

I haven't had much luck with the Berserk. Everyone else seems to like it, but it's expensive and really requires escort units since it's slow and has mediocre defense. Another couple I'd rate lower would be the Keshik and Bowman.

Other than that I pretty much agree with all the rest!

 

[t3h_m013]

i think the keshik depends a lot on the map (i know youve said standard map etc.) but on a flat map its worse than a knight, only real advantage (the cost is minimal iirc) is not needing iron so it is luck wether it is useful ot not. wheras on a mountainy map you can totally dominate. these large elements of luck i think means it should be very low.

Having played some of cotm2 and fared awefully against spain in wars my opinion of the conquistidor is much higher, 3 attack compared to knights 3 and they are very very fast

 

[nullspace]

Yeah, I was surprised to see the Keshik in Tier 2. The only time it is actually better than a knight is if you have no iron, and there are big mountain ranges to cross. Otherwise, I'd rather have the knight's 3 defense for an extra 10 shields. I think the war chariot, h'wacha, musketeer, and cossack all deserve to be in tier 2 more than the keshik.

 

[andy80]

Whats the reasoning behind the musketeer being in the 3rd tier while other defensive units are in the 1st and 2nd? Aren't they basically the same thing? I know the percentage increase from 2->3 and 3->4 is greater than 4->5, but the musketeer has defensive bombard.

 

[Giio]

I think Beserks are an excellent UU even if im only on Warlord i went from second last(31 Ai on a tiny map) to first with out any resources the Beserks totally dominated taking citys out in a mere turn or 2 and they were still relatively useful when industrial age came around for taking coastal citys quickly. Of course i was playing Warlord so its probably less useful on higher difficultys that you guys play on.

 

[Ision]

One problem with making references to '3-tiers' - is that players often confuse the tiers themselves. They tend to interpet 3-tiers to mean good - average- bad. This is not the case at all. Every UU is of benefit - and they all provide an upgrade over the units they replace and/or supplement. My intention with tiers is to break units or civs into catagories that reflect the degree to which they are an upgrade.

Ision

 

[yankees]

Every UU is of benefit - and they all provide an upgrade over the units they replace and/or supplement.

yes very true ision. we all exagerate the difference of one uu over other uu too much. for most player the difference is only seen when they try new uu or they use the same type of uu al the time, like knight type keshik,rider,ansar.

Y

 

[Ision]

Beserks are often underrated because players attemp to build them in mass - they are tremendously efficient even in small numbers. That 6 point hit power combined with amphbious can be deadly. The idea is to use the same group of Bezerks over and over again, and hold the cities with cheap back-ups. As to the Beserk having a weak defense - that 2 point defense is much hardier than most units with the same stat due to the increased odds of units attacking Beserks not surviving the counter-punches of a 6 point attack unit. A savage little UU whos only real downside lies not with itself - but with the typically poor Ancient Age REX of the Vikings.

Ision

 

[Pfeffersack]

Berserks can be even a nightmare in the hands of the AI.The AI handles the Vikings as civ very well, so they often have the economic ressources to build them quickly.As Ision said the danger is that a small number of them can cause a lot of damage, which means it is one of the few offensive UU the AI uses well.
The Vikings in the MA are what Persia is in the AA - better stay peaceful with them, unless your are already the superpower.

 

[foods]

I'd personally rate the musketeers a bit higher. One important to why is that when entering the industrial age the choice between Steam Power and Nationalism can be a tough one. Steam Power is to me, though I'm a novice player, the single most important advance because of the boost to economics, production and defense (a more mobile army) it yields. On the other hand, the need for defense in form of riflemen is often desperate. With musketeers you can endure a little longer without the riflemen.

 

[Longasc]

I agree, the Musketeer is useful if you do not have Riflemen, defensive bombardement is really nice, too.

 

[dgfred]

Beserks are often underrated because players attemp to build them in mass - they are tremendously efficient even in small numbers. That 6 point hit power combined with amphbious can be deadly. The idea is to use the same group of Bezerks over and over again, and hold the cities with cheap back-ups. As to the Beserk having a weak defense - that 2 point defense is much hardier than most units with the same stat due to the increased odds of units attacking Beserks not surviving the counter-punches of a 6 point attack unit. A savage little UU whos only real downside lies not with itself - but with the typically poor Ancient Age REX of the Vikings.

Ision

I agree 100%. I love 'em. I have seldom lost many Berserks in
battle, the AI are never prepared for seaborne attacks . In my current Monarch game with I have had about 12 Berserks the entire game and have
produced 4 MGLs with them, forming 2 Berserk armies and 2 Cav armies.
Needless to say I have almost 'won' this game . Currently it is 1340 and
I have 68% of population and 49% of land . As you noted the difficulty is
having 'cheap' units along for the attacks to fortify captures, enough galleys
to transport B's and enough cities early to make plenty of the monsters.
Enough cities early is usually my biggest problem, expanding peaceful like with
the Vikings is very tricky

 

[player1 fanatic]

War Chariot 3rd tier is totaly undeserving.
In my oppinion it's better then Bowmen, Jaguar and Impi, and more useful Man-O-War.

You just need to know to use Despot GA well.
And trick is to obliterate opponents before they get horses and Iron.


player1
for years long time Egyptian civ player
(jungles are rarely if ever problem)

 

[Samson]

Every UU is of benefit - and they all provide an upgrade over the units they replace and/or supplement.

Now I know I am nit picking here, but I dissagree. I think the Chasqui Scout is offen a disadvantage over the normal scout. OK, they can igrore hills and mountains, and have a chance against barbs, but they get told to leave by other civs, because unlike scouts they have an attack and defence. This makes your exploring harder, and ruins the AI attidude as they are always telling you to leave. Also you cannot do the old reascore delial exploit (if you are into that sort of thing, and they are twice (?) the price of scoputs, so you get half as many, or have twice as long before you can start doing something usefull with them.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Luckly, Incas are Agr, so they are still very powerful civ, although their UU is indeed weak.


P.S.
Now if only Celts and Iroquois were balanced.

 

[Bigfoot]

Thanks Ision, this is an interesting list. I have not yet tried all of the UUs in the game, so I don't feel qualified to rank them all. For what its worth, here are my observations:

- In my experience the naval UUs are on the whole less beneficial than land UUs, especially if they don't have lethal bombard. They cannot control any critical squares, and they don't generate any GLs.

- I have found that late era UUs tend to be less useful, because my games tend to be pretty much decided before the Industrial Age. The F-15 is virtually worthless.

- I tend to prefer high attack value over high defense values, but maybe this is just my playing style. I do more attacking than defending during the course of a game.

- Above all I value speed (to quote Gen. Tommy Franks, 'speed kills'). The Rider is probably tops in my book, although I am sure that reasonable people could disagree with this view.

BTW, I will have to give Scandinavia a try soon, all of that vicarious raping and pillaging sounds like fun!

 

[dgfred]

Thanks Ision, this is an interesting list. I have not yet tried all of the UUs in the game, so I don't feel qualified to rank them all. For what its worth, here are my observations:

- In my experience the naval UUs are on the whole less beneficial than land UUs, especially if they don't have lethal bombard. They cannot control any critical squares, and they don't generate any GLs.

- I have found that late era UUs tend to be less useful, because my games tend to be pretty much decided before the Industrial Age. The F-15 is virtually worthless.

- I tend to prefer high attack value over high defense values, but maybe this is just my playing style. I do more attacking than defending during the course of a game.

- Above all I value speed (to quote Gen. Tommy Franks, 'speed kills'). The Rider is probably tops in my book, although I am sure that reasonable people could disagree with this view.

BTW, I will have to give Scandinavia a try soon, all of that vicarious raping and pillaging sounds like fun!

I agree with your observations . I also like high attack values

The you will LOVE!!! They dominate the Viking, I mean Medieval Age. . The 'speed kills' part is the reason I also like to play the
Celts and Iroquois- Their UU is fast and POWERFUL early...

 

[yankees]

i ask before but no one answered. maybe this time.

what do you guys think of the swiss merc? ision finds them good but in my games they have make very little difference.

Y

 

[player1 fanatic]

Well, it depends from play style.

If you are always superior in techs, you'll be in offensive when making war so Hoplites and Swiss Merc won't help you a lot.

But, if you are a backward civ on defensive war, "50% less expensive musketmen" is pretty good deal.

It also gives an option of slow units stacks filled with Med. Infantry and Swiss Mercenaries.

 

[andrewlt]

Does the Hwach'a have some special ability I'm not aware of? From my understanding, it's just a cannon that doesn't require iron. I just don't find that special ability that useful.