Seems like it's better just to build warriors

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Almost anything but these so called “immortals,” which are quite frankly anything but immortal.

They had mixed results in real life, too, but with a moniker like "Immortals", of course they're going to get outsized representation in computer games.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I don't understand the immortal dislike. I mean, they're a swordsman that also shoots guys.

 

[BarbarianHunter]

I don't understand the immortal dislike. I mean, they're a swordsman that also shoots guys.

I don't recall the exact circumstances, but I suspect my Immortal was completely green (30 melee strength), versus an experienced barb swordsman (36+). Perhaps the circumstance was situational, but it soured me on the unit. It doesn't take much to get me to the point where I just won't build an infantry class unit anyway. The main gripe I have with the Immortal is the infantry class promotion tree. Operationally I like to have at least 1 or 2 ranged class units to mix in with my line melee units. And double shots make that strategy work all that much the better. The immortals essentially suck the experience from my ranged units and divert it to what will, at some point relatively quickly, become a straight infantry class unit (musketman). It is at this point I think that I'd rather have promoted knight units mixed with a couple of double shot crossbowmen.

In summary: The immortal has a melee strength 6 less than your base sword, and a ranged attack on an initial parity with an archer, but will quickly fall off in ranged power due to the lack of access to ranged promotions.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I think they're made to be played differently. You don't/shouldn't mix arms. I'm not a warmonger by nature but build a big mass of them and shoot things before they even can reach you. I'm an archer guy too, but in my last game they were actually the ones that were just getting in the way. I could be wrong, but after playing incorrectly (only done a few games a persia) that seems the way to go.

 

[liv]

I am not big on the immortal. I find them to be weak as both melee and ranged. Persia is good with horses and movement.

 

[BarbarianHunter]

I think they're made to be played differently. You don't/shouldn't mix arms. I'm not a warmonger by nature but build a big mass of them and shoot things before they even can reach you. I'm an archer guy too, but in my last game they were actually the ones that were just getting in the way. I could be wrong, but after playing incorrectly (only done a few games a persia) that seems the way to go.

Certainly no wrong way to play this game. If it works for your style, more power to you. I generally warmonger and I don't care for the unit. As a defensive unit I can see the value of shooting invaders who, after making it through the fire zone, find not fragile ranged units but relatively hardy infantrymen.

I think they're made to be played differently. You don't/shouldn't mix arms. I'm not a warmonger by nature but build a big mass of them and shoot things before they even can reach you. I'm an archer guy too, but in my last game they were actually the ones that were just getting in the way. I could be wrong, but after playing incorrectly (only done a few games a persia) that seems the way to go.

Again, to each their own. If I were to have a big mass of units, I'd prefer to have archers/crossbows, mixed in with a high movement horse who could:
1) Stay out of range until I was ready to conquer the city, then swoop in.
2) After swooping in and taking the city realizing the higher experience for taking a city.
That way, my ranged units promote on the ranged tree and my ground units promote quicker. Sooner than later my light cav will end up with the escort promotion, which means it can bring a battering ram along with it when it moves 4 or 5 (without Persia's +2 movement or great general). The escort promotion is where the real fun starts.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

maybe, but you don't have to tech archery, and the whole question o whether to build slingers or warriors early is moot. And oligarchy.

Not saying I prefer it or if it's better/worse, but it takes a different mindset with how you're using/building units early.

 

[Spudsie74]

I play persia a lot, and find the immortals useful. I always build at least 3 slingers (for the Eureka), and upgrade them asap. Warriors upgrade to archers, but I find this most cost effective with the 50% discount upgrade card. With Cyrus, you get a big bonus on movement for surprise wars (what other kind is there?), although it helps to have some chariots, wich grow up to be knights. (I always push for Feudalism). A point worth noting is the you can besiege a city with Immortals, and range attack until their defenses are depleted, then rush in. With the double movement for surprise wars, it's pretty easy to rotate wounded units in & out. A couple chariots hovering out of rane can also zoom in for the kill. IMO, with Cyrus, and my play style, a combined arms approach works nicely.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I'll take your word for it, like I said it was just my impression based on limited experience.

 

[row2infinity]

As Rome (normally) I churn out as many warriors I can, a few archers, upgrade to Legions, and slaughter a civ or 2 before the end of the Medieval era <3