Repeat attacker UU's mostly worthless?


Civ wanna B
May 18, 2005
I played a number of games as Russia. Russia's UU is the the cossack (not sure I spelled it right) which replaces calvary and its only special is being able to attack more then once a turn.

I find this special ability rather worthless in most games, unless your much stronger then the enemy's units, I'll usually need to retreat and heal after each attack, not attack again. (don't want to get into unit trading of cossacks for some cheaper enemy defending unit)

Perhaps the point of cossacks is they only really help you if you really outstripe your enemy in tech? Russia is a scientific tribe after all.

I think such units would be better served by having more attack or defence or more movement (along with repeat attack wouldn't be too powerful, other UU's have several specials)

Repeat attack units/cossacks one of the most worthless special UU, Opinions?
I dunno there have been plenty of times of which I could have used a repeat attacker. Not exactly during that era(at least not often). But still repeat attack could save me a few turns of conquest. Course I still play regen so maybe that could skew my perceptions.

I think such units would be better served by having more attack or defence or more movement (along with repeat attack wouldn't be too powerful, other UU's have several specials)

This I do somewhat aggree with. Whilst repeat attack can be highly useful at times, it isn't always useful and at times it can be absolutely useless(I have had whole games where I would not need repeat attackers).. they seem to be a big gamble.
If used with artillary, all the enemy units will be redlined, and so you can get some use out of attacking more.
Yes, there are flaws of cossack. But I think that ability to attack more than one more time/turn serves to its advantage. They are more efficent, than unit with same ADM rating.
The only time I really use Cavalry/Knights/Horsemen is to mop up the last unit in a stack, so attacking twice would be very helpful to a player such as myself.

My advice would be to use that extra attack to take down a redlined unit.

And although it's not that spiffy of a trait, you can capture two workers or just one and then attack, or you could pillage twice.
The blitz ability rocks. I love being able to take out a stack of 5 or 6 enemies with just two units. Of course, like others said that is after damaging them with cannons.
Why not just play the Ottomans instead? They are also scientific and the Sipahi has a stronger attack. :)
The blitz ability is quite useful to produce elite units, as two victories in the same turn gets you an automatic promotion. So fighting outdated units could gain you some MGLs, and I gather that cossack-armies are rather strong.
You can attack units like musketmen or cavalry at least twice with a Cossack so it is quite useful.
The Blitz ability is great infact one of the best unit abilities in the game IMO. You thing is you have the choice of attacking twice which is always nice.
There have been plenty of times in my games when I've attacked a large city with a stack of cavs, only to run out of attackers with a couple red-lined defenders to go. Had I had the blitz ability, I could have thrown my surviving cavs at the city.
Ah forgot to mention, the "blitz ability" evaporates once you put cossacks in armies. An army of cossacks has the same number of attacks as those of a army of calvary.(so are no more powerful)

silver 2039 said:
You can attack units like musketmen or cavalry at least twice with a Cossack so it is quite useful.

Only if they are already pretty injured and the cossack unit isn't. You have a choice to attack several times but even though I played russian for a good number of games I rarely made that choice (unless its a army) because I didn't want to lose the unit/trade it for a lesser defender like a musket'r. The sRNG is way too extreme in possibilities on both sides. If my cossacks injured it could lose it to even a defending warrior. (probably would take the risk in that example, just drawing out how extreme the sRNG is)

I wonder why cossacks lost that point of defense in conquest. Its not like it would make them over powered. Just check out that post where they ask which units people like best, noone voted for cossacks. I don't know if any of the others mentioned were "blitzers"

But I'll try coupling them with bombarders next time I play russian.
with cannons it is a GREAT unit. you need much less units to take out a city with 10 defenders. and dont you hate it when a city is defended by a couple of pikes rifles and you kill it with a cavalry without losing one bit of health? really? so do i... cs then your stuck with the extra moves and you dont know what to do with them and you get mad cs you cant attack again.
Cossacks could be a solid UU. The Blitz is really nice, easily as good as +1 Attack, and surely better than +1 Defence.
But, I fail to understand why they cost 90sp instead of 80. IMHO higher costs are justified for the Sipahi, ok.
For the Cossacks, it is not. And those 10sp do make a difference - first, upgrading Knights costs twice as much. Then, the better cities at that time can make around 20spt, while 23 is rare; in other words, 5 turns instead of 4; the 12.5% cost increase results in about 20% less units.
90sp units are fine in the IA, but painfully hard to build before RR.

I'd rate the Cossacks among the worse UUs (in a group with Keshiks or Conquistadors, not as bad as Carracks and F-15, of course) - but only because of the cost. At 80sp, they'd be average.
Top Bottom