Ratings and Strategy for Unique Units!

[Astax]

Phalax is my favorite. It comes bundled with Combat1. Pop in a barracks promote with cover then after one kill city raider its awsome all around unit. It wills top Chariot UUs and horsman archers in their tracks. I usually go 1/2 Phalanx 1/2 Axemen and I got counter to everything You dont have to bring defensive units with you in that stack.

 

[Zombie69]

I don't see why you should give Americans an advantage in spies, when in real life, British intelligence was just as fearsome, and the Russian KGB even more so. American spies weren't the best of their time, as all UUs should be.

Navy seals is right, but i guess they should have been made more powerful for game balance. Or maybe give the Americans better choppers, or better jet fighters. Nah, navy seals are the best choice.

Edit : typo.

 

[Astax]

Yes American Spies and the fine job they did on 9/11 and Iraq War intelligence...

 

[R3dKnight]

when i think american i think air force.
so they shd get a more solid gunship or something.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Fast Workers. Hands down the best UU by a wide margin. It lasts the whole game...

Redcoats are great as well. That's exactly the era where the AI Civs all head to Infantry, and you're very vulnerable if you don't do so as well - unless you're England.

Praetorians are by no means overpowered on even ground - Axeman. 'nuff said.

And Jags - well, they start with Combat I. Throw in cheap Barracks, and you will defeat Rome in most cases. And, resourceless UUs are a great help. Sure, you won't build many Seals IF you have Oil...

 

[Qpdaj]

IIRC, the American UU in Conquests (or was it vanilla Civ3?) was the F-16, and no one was much impressed with that one, either...

 

[Xarathas]

I don't think historical correctness are as important as gameplay (see Keshik), which is why I think spies would've been a good idea (adding a 3rd type of unique unit other than military units and the indian worker). Though, a good gunship sounds good too I've actually put those to extensive use against the AI unlike the Marines.

 

[Zombie69]

If you need a UU spy, make it Russian. There's no way you can give it to anybody else.

And how are Keshiks historically inaccurate? What made the Huns (from the place currently known as Mongolia) formidable was their ability to use bows while riding horses, and the tactics that emerged from this incredible advantage. This is the most historically accurate and relevant UU in the entire game!

 

[KillerCardinal]

Maybe useless is too strong a word. Let me put it this way. The musketeer does not substantially improve its replacement unit in tha same way that say...Pratorians improve swordmen. They're a little faster...whup de doo. That's what I have mounted units for.

Just a quick point here. Just out of curiousity, I decided to see if ANY other unit that is not naval, air, mounted, or armored(essentially melee type unit is what I'm going for) has a movement speed of greater than one. Interestingly enough, NONE did. (Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think I am). (I got this from here btw, http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/info/units/)

Now this may be a point in the musketeer's favor because if a civilization is counting on anti-mounted unit defenders to protect them from a fast attack, the musketeers won't be affected by those modifiers. I'm not sure just how useful this may be, but I just wanted to throw that out there.

 

[Draax]

I think the musketeer has *potential* but the game hasn't been out long enough for them to brew. Like KC said, they're a fast-mover that have promotions available that are in all other cases limited to speed1 units.

Come to think of it, I just had a thought. With Nappy as a leader and good use of civics, they'd be brutal raiders. Combat 1&2 + formation right out the door. Seems like they could pillage with impunity pre-cavalry because the only things that can catch them would just be gun food.


Aargh I hate it when I get neat ideas when I'm stuck at work and can't try them out. Makes the afternoon unbearable .

 

[BubbaYeti]

I agree with the folks who think aztec jaguars are nothing special. I modded the unit xml file so that their strength is now "6", so they are now essentially swordsman that don't need rescources and are really good in jungle. Maybe their are other mod ideas to beef up the other weak UU's?

 

[Zhahz]

IIRC, the American UU in Conquests (or was it vanilla Civ3?) was the F-16, and no one was much impressed with that one, either...

Since you can't put bombers on carriers in Civ IV a stronger jet might be appealing to some but a UU that's highly situational still wouldn't be impressive.

Praetorians are tough - very easy to get early and +2 base strength that early is pretty huge. Nice promotion options. If you're early and constantly aggressive they last the whole game (like fast workers) since it can be over before they're obsolete.

I like Cossacks too - another unit with a nice base strength boost that can dominate it's time.

 

[Astax]

I agree with the folks who think aztec jaguars are nothing special. I modded the unit xml file so that their strength is now "6", so they are now essentially swordsman that don't need rescources and are really good in jungle. Maybe their are other mod ideas to beef up the other weak UU's?

My beef is they should be axemen replacement. That would make it a powerful unit with no bronze hookup required! Thou it could prove a bit too powerful for rush

 

[jdotmi]

Since you can't put bombers on carriers in Civ IV a stronger jet might be appealing to some but a UU that's highly situational still wouldn't be impressive.

I've put bombers on carriers before... or can you put Stealth and not regular bombers on them?

 

[Astax]

I've put bombers on carriers before... or can you put Stealth and not regular bombers on them?

You might want to check to make sure all your markers have their caps on them. You cant put Bombers nor stealth bombers on a carrier. Maybe you thout a jet fighter was a bomber?

 

[diamond geezer]

Except that the Soviets were much more successful at spying...

 

[jdotmi]

You might want to check to make sure all your markers have their caps on them. You cant put Bombers nor stealth bombers on a carrier. Maybe you thout a jet fighter was a bomber?

Hmm. It's been a while since I did a sea invasion, so I can't recall at this point. I know once I had a toe-hold city I wasn't using carriers anymore at all. Just re-based to the toe-hold.

And I don't do markers. Those are so third grade.

 

[JohnMK]

Except that the Soviets were much more successful at spying...

Agreed. The deeply ideological nature of Soviet society combined with effective training and luck can and did produce very successful spying operations for the USSR.

 

[diamond geezer]

Mind you Navy Seals - are they really the top unit of their time? What about the SAS? But probably the Israelis would take pride of place. I think a better Jet would make most sense - maybe a Fighter/Bomber.

And why did Legion get changed to Praetorian in this game?

 

[DarkTori]

I like Navy Seals, they can heal and move. I use them to make raids deep into the enemy's territory, or to make hit and run attacks by attacking an enemy and running away. They seem to be better than gunships for deep striking.

Using them for these purposes, even when there is a lot of land, has helped me defeat an enemy late in the game when there is a large modern war.

Personally though I would have like to give them the option to paradrop, or be stealthy to add that little more. Some of the UU are much better. The Panzers are great, but only for a short period of time, does their bonuses extend to Modern Armor, if not it should (maybe upgrade to a slightly better Modern Armor of 41 pts).