So, the Worst UU was decided to be...

[Ataxerxes]

I can like something and still be surprised if other people are not insulting it(though that particular observation was not me). I like the Gal. War. just fine for a sword UU.

It was my observation. You explained my position very well. More than once I've seen people nominate the fast worker for the worst UU. And then argue to defend their choice. If people can nominate the fast worker, they can nominate anything. I agree the Gal. War. is fine. Not great, but not useless at all.

If Obsolete tells me Panzers are nearly useless on Deity, I believe him. If it is nearly useless on Deity, it has to be completely useless on lower levels. Personally, I've never found it the least useful. My diplomation usually comes before anybody else has tanks.

 

[Iranon]

Skirmishers are ok to avoid early rapage by barbs and such.

Of course, but they do far more than that and are a serious contender for the best UU in the game.

 

[blind biker]

Is there a thread/poll on best UU, by the way?

I seem to be in the tiny minority who voted French Musketeer - it's, theoretically, an excellent unit, but it gets superseded way too quickly to be of any import, IMHO.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Is there a thread/poll on best UU, by the way?

I seem to be in the tiny minority who voted French Musketeer - it's, theoretically, an excellent unit, but it gets superseded way too quickly to be of any import, IMHO.

More than one. I think there was one a couple of months ago. You think this thread is long and argumentative? You should see that one. One of them had a long, drawn-out argument trying to convince somebody that the Fast Worker wasn't a bad unit.

I'm fond of the Musketeer, but it's a weaker UU, true. Similar to the Oromo, you often go to Gunpowder soon.

OP: If this is ever decided, I'll be shocked. Different strategies for different people. Also game speed, water vs. land, difficulty level all factor into it.

 

[LateGameWarMong]

Just 1 worst UU?
I think if we narrowed it down to 3 (ie, the Worst UU is 1 of the following: Seal, Panzer, Ballista elephant), we could get a consensus (at least a majority vote), the poll seems to support near consensus for 1 of those 3.
Although I wouldn't vote for the most common one there (ballista) simply because it has an ability that *no* other unit in the game has, and that is the ability to ignore the strongest defender in an enemy stack and instead engage a unit that it has the best bonus against.
First strikes, or a promo, or a X% bonus vs ______ are all common.
Special "targetting" within a stack is unique.
Seals aren't really unique-> just give a regular marine drill 1,2, and march, and you have everything a Seal has and more (except for how easy it is to promote after that).
It would be useful for attacking an enemy pillaging stack defended by spears/pikes (or impi, but impi would be nearly obsolete by the time ballistas are out)- which may be more common on multiplayer.


Discarding the Ballista elephant (which isn't that useful)
The navy seal or panzer seem the obvious choice because of how late they come and how rarely used of marginal benefits are.


But of course, on a highlands map with no ocean, the carrack and indiaman start looking pretty crappy (and the cothon, trading post, feitoria, and dike as well).

 

[plasmacannon]

I saw some negative comments towards the dog soldier, and I am aware they are not the best UU.
I would like to point out a scenario in which they are great for.
Stopping Jaguar rushes.

dog soldier is available at BW, and requires no resourse.
So, I can build a few before IW reveals my Iron, and place them out on fog busting duty.
If it takes about the same amount of time for me and my Aztec for to research IW, then, Iron will be revealed at about the same time for us both.
Once, I see it, I send out at least 1 dog soldier to fortify on it, until I can get a settler to it.
Now, If the Aztec opponent starts building Jags and rushing me, what will happen?
The 1st Jag will go splat!
Why?
Because, axemen are designed to kill swordsmen, basically. Both have a reduced strength, but, the dog's +100% vs the Jag, will kill the Jag.
I have seen Iron appear on hills and on plains.
Never in woods or jungle, so, the Jag even at woods3, has no advantage attacking a dog fortified even on plains. It's chances on hills are even worse.
Just something to keep in mind.
no matter how great a UU is thought to be, there are others that can beat it.

 

[Yxklyx]

While I have not used a SEAL, I recently had a game where I built lots of Amphibious Infantry and Marines and went around the world conquering all the coastal cities with the help of strategically based Bombers. The SEAL would probably have cut down a lot on my losses as well as making my conquest faster. This was on Monarch.

The Ballista Elephant I've already modded and I do see the AI building tanks - though not as much as I'd expect.

 

[plasmacannon]

While I have not used a SEAL, I recently had a game where I built lots of Amphibious Infantry and Marines and went around the world conquering all the coastal cities with the help of strategically based Bombers. The SEAL would probably have cut down a lot on my losses as well as making my conquest faster. This was on Monarch.

The Ballista Elephant I've already modded and I do see the AI building tanks - though not as much as I'd expect.

Yea.
I think some of the UUs are better in multi-player games, where humans actually think of strategies better than an AI can.
btw, what does your modded Ballista Elephant do?

 

[Yoshi1]

Dog Soldier gehts my vote any day, simple reason is not so much the axe-rush but that axemen are often the best early unit to attack a mixed stack. If there are swords, a spear and some chariots your axe would attack the chariot and get decent odds. The dog soldier gets 50/50.

 

[RedBull Redcoat]

I never found the Babylonian Bowman useful at all, to be honest.
I'm a huge fan of the US Navy SEALS. Really useful for the way I play and is it just me or do they look awesome?

 

[Yxklyx]

Yea.
I think some of the UUs are better in multi-player games, where humans actually think of strategies better than an AI can.
btw, what does your modded Ballista Elephant do?

I just gave it 1-2 First Strikes - the basic unit is pretty strong as is. Historically they mounted Crossbows, which in this game get First Strikes.

 

[obsolete]

I never found the Babylonian Bowman useful at all, to be honest.

They are VERY useful, the problem is.... if you want a bowman UU, you're much better going off with a Skirmisher (or some other good choices).

If the Bab UU had another bonus vs mounted, that could change some things...

 

[LateGameWarMong]

Ok, I certainly don't hate the Skirmisher, but I'm sensing more love for it than I would think.

Pros:
1) Like any archery unit, it is resourceless.
2) 33% more strength than a normal archer: Makes for very hard to take cities early on
3) Extra first strikes

As a result, it is stronger than Spears vs non-mounted units
But it doesn't take CR, and its strength is too low to be a city smashing unit
It doesn't stand up to Axemen (unless fortified or on hills/forrest), so its not a great stack defender (not that its a bad one)
It doesn't have any movement bonus, so its not a good pillager.
It doesn't offensively counter any unit (other than warriors and unfortified archers outside cities on open flat ground).

I always viewed it as a "sits in a city, or comes along in your stack to sit in any cities it takes and also as secondary stack defense" type unit.

By no means is it bad, but since I view it as a strong city defender (and little more), the Bowman also seems good, as it is more specific to the specific city raiding units (melees).
Though I do know that as defensive bonuses stack up, that +50% vs melee becomes inferior to higher base strength

 

[Iranon]

Responding on each line of the perceived shortcomings of Skirmishers:

1) City Raider isn't important. Against high-bonus defenders like archery units, combat does almost as well... this means CR becomes most useful around the time you can't get it any more on your non-siege units.

2) Skirmishers can take cities because they are cheap. You will lose more units compared to Swordsmen, but usually similar numbers of hammers worth. If upkeep and war weariness are non-issues, that's what matters.
This is against archer garrisons - if the opponent has relevant numbers of Axemen the numbers may be better.

3) It may not be a hard counter for anything, but it has a slight advantage against the entire field. Hammer for hammer, it beats all non-unique units until Knights. This is on open ground without any hill/city defense bonuses.
No other UU offers that.

4) It can get a movement bonus with G2... but it doesn't need to be fast to be a reasonable pillager. No specific weakness after all.

5) Same as 3.

*

Of course they are even better for defense, but that also translates into a better offense if your main unit makes excellent defenders to hold on to the gains.

 

[plasmacannon]

I always viewed it as a "sits in a city, or comes along in your stack to sit in any cities it takes and also as secondary stack defense" type unit.

Even if, that is all that you ant to use it for, it does this job better than any other unit.

Compare it to the archer, like you might with the Gallic vs. the Jaguar.
It has a higher base strength, and all promotions will improve it better than the lower based equivilant unit.

Its higher base strength makes it better than PRO archers, better than Baby's Bowman, even better than Nat Am.'s archers.
You can fogbust terrain, and it gains a 50% defense bonus.
In Monarch games and higher, AI start with archers, humans don't.
Barbs start coming out sooner, and you might just be able to get archery researched.
If so, then, your cities will be defended better with fewer units (a prod savings there).

I think of them as cheap longbows.
Not as effective, but, cheaper and available much earlier.

 

[Farm Boy]

Skirmishers can make for almost cheesily effective rushes on many(all?) difficulty levels. They are the end-all of choking units.

 

[Akkon888]

Well frankly, I don't believe the Panzer, the SEAL or the Ballista Elephant have any credible traits whatsoever.

Of course, they have their minute advantages in special situations, but these three units almost never utilize their bonuses.

The Ballista needs Ivory. Sure, that is ok I guess; but wait, it targets mounted units first (YES!!) outside of a city (...).

The SEAL is a very late game unit. I guess that is okay. The base unit is pretty bad though. Infantry receive a bonus so as to destroy the base unit, and now the SEAL replaces a quite crappy unit with a slightly better one. The fact that you are America and attacking an island country; there are too many 'ifs' about whether the SEAL can be used to its strengths.

Ah, the Panzer. Some may argue that it passes this test, and that it is not the worst unit. I have two solid reasons: One, the bonus vs tanks is not used when taking on a city of infantrymen/riflemen; two, usually the game is decided at the point Panzers come out and I would either lose anyway or thrash the opponent anyway regardless of their existence.

So, those are my three. Can't choose between one because they all suck equally badly. I suppose if you twisted my arm I might say the Gallic Warrior is up here as well because the Hills promo isn't enough, but I beg to differ by arguing that the swordsman is a common unit and the Hills promotion does have its uses. Musketeer is the next one that comes to mind; the movement is nice but temporary, but it is really quite great when wanting to organize the army and hit quickly. Bowman, Dog Soldier, Jaguar? All seem fine to me considering their early game usefulness. Same things with the Hwacha, the Numidian Cavalry and Landsknecht; the bonuses are quite good, especially for the Cavalry. Frankly I haven't played Arabia to know the Camel Archer. And, the East Indiaman is one of the best friggin units in the game for transporting.

Just my two cents.

 

[TheWilltoAct]

You through me for a loop with the wording here Iranon, but I eventually figured it out.
I couldn't tell whether you were arguing for or against.

The Jaguar Warrior may be a significant drawback to offensive warfare if:

 

[Iranon]

I'm aware that I'm not always good at wording my thoughts

Just to make sure: the point was to show there is a long list of prerequisites that all need to be met to make the Jaguar a liability, some of which are unlikely
In opposition to a similar prerequisites for the Dog Soldier: The trivial one (that's more likely to be true than its Jaguar equivalent) and one that's almost a certainty above Prince.

Followed by pointing out that the Jaguar is also better positioned in ways that can't be jammed into the framework of formal logic.

 

[TheWilltoAct]

Thanks, I did glean your meaning. I was just taken aback by how many unique conditions would have to coexist before the Jags' usefulness could be trumped.

EDIT-
Not to belabor the point, but the way you worded it it almost seems like you're saying Jaguars and enemy axemen should coexist, when really wouldn't Jags attacking axe be a disaster?