The best unit in the game!

[aelf]

Even so, I wouldn't necessarily take this one. Let's say I'm struggling with war weariness, and I'm 4 turns away from taking the enemy capital, after which I will probably declare peace. I may not take the 2 longbowman city right then, simply because I don't want the extra war weariness hanging around my neck for the next 4 turns. Assuming my knights weren't needed elsewhere, I would park them, wait until I took the capital, then take this city, and then declare peace. But you see, I might be able to get some cats to help if I'm waiting 4 turns anyway.

Where are the cats going to come from in those 4 turns? Sure, you can wait for the capital to fall and only then take the weak city with your knights, but my point is still very much valid.

In my games such cities might be those I'd raze to clear enemy culture around my prime targets. In this case, I'd go for them with the knights right away while they are still lightly defended.

 

[JDpro]

I think it all depends on era. Phalanx rule the ancient world. Certainly Macemen in medievil. The Grenadier is a handy unit to have while people are just getting around to building musketmen. Then the tank because of it promotion capablitly in modern.

 

[Naismith]

Where are the cats going to come from in those 4 turns?

From my constant stream of replacement units going to the front - especially cats.

Sure, you can wait for the capital to fall and only then take the weak city with your knights, but my point is still very much valid.

I think your point is valid, and I suspect you know more about the game and play it better than I do. I bring up points like this just to see if my ideas have any merit to you and other posters. If they don't, I reconsider my cherished theories.

In my games such cities might be those I'd raze to clear enemy culture around my prime targets. In this case, I'd go for them with the knights right away while they are still lightly defended.

An especially good idea if the area cleared of enemy culture includes roads leading to your targets.

I guess the main point I'm trying to make (clumsily) is that the war weariness factor may make waging wars exclusively with fast units not as advantageous as one might think.

 

[cabert]

war weariness can be fought with the culture slider in the late game (you need the land for domination, it's not lost!) and in the early game it never is a big deal , since you don't lose massive amounts of troops
(is it also civic related?).
Plus, if you get war weariness in early wars, just whip some more troops

 

[pigswill]

Naismith: would I be right in guessing that you effectively use 2 different types of stack; one of city-raiders/seige for heavy defences and one of fast-moving units for recon/pillaging/light defences?

 

[Naismith]

Naismith: would I be right in guessing that you effectively use 2 different types of stack; one of city-raiders/seige for heavy defences and one of fast-moving units for recon/pillaging/light defences?

I don't do a lot of pillaging. Usually I'm focused on taking cities. Doing recon during a war is an interesting situation. I don't want to stick a lone knight out on a hill only to discover a pike within attacking distance, but I don't want to dedicate a stack to recon, either. I tend to keep my fast units with the main stack, sometimes wandering off a few spaces (if I believe they can do so safely). If I see a city that I believe will be lightly defended, I may split off 3-5 fast moving units to see if I can quickly take it (probably I would raze it, but it depends).

If I have old obsolete units (like chariots) that I don't want to upgrade, then they are perfect recon units. If they get killed, it's no big deal.

One of the things I love about fast moving units is the flexibility they give you when taking down a city. Let's say the city has 12 defenders, is not on a hill, and you have already weakened them considerably using cats. Say your stack has 4 macemen, 8 knights, and a longbowman. You can probably take down all 12 defenders with your macemen and knights in that one turn, and then move your 8 wounded knights into the city, along with your longbowman. It's very unlikely you need to worry at all about losing the city to a counterattack the next turn. If your stack had 10 macemen and 2 knights instead, trying to take the city in one turn would be much more of a risk.

Of course, fast units can heal in the city in the city you have just taken, and rejoin the main stack (moving along at one space per turn). They are more flexible in dealing with counterattacks on your stack. That's why I tend to have more fast units than slow units in my stack (not including cats). A stack of 10 cats, 3 macemen, 1 pike, and 8 knights would be typical for me. The reinforcements I build during a war will be weighted towards fast units, since they will reach the front more quickly.

 

[Naismith]

war weariness can be fought with the culture slider in the late game (you need the land for domination, it's not lost!) and in the early game it never is a big deal , since you don't lose massive amounts of troops
(is it also civic related?).
Plus, if you get war weariness in early wars, just whip some more troops

I often use the culture slider liberally. As you say, in the early game WW is not a big deal. Mainly, I hate using the culture slider when I haven't met all the Civs yet, so I have no idea whether I'm behind in the tech department. Also when it would be much easier to finish the war if I could only complete research on Military Tradition, but it's 50 turns off because I have my culture slider turned up to 50%.

 

[aelf]

Knights get obsolette pretty quickly in my games. I don't mind losing almost all of them and maybe upgrading the best on or two. In my experience, WW is most effectively dealt with by a quick end to the war. As long as you don't lost a dozen units, a few sacrificial ones may be worth the gain of a few turns in terms of WW.

I think your point is valid too. It's just a matter of style. I tend not to rely too much on siege because I've learned from a game that bringing those slow cats around to take weak cities really diminishes your gains in a war.

 

[Howitzah]

Plus, if you get war weariness in early wars, just whip some more troops

I love it.

 

[Naismith]

Knights get obsolette pretty quickly in my games. I don't mind losing almost all of them and maybe upgrading the best on or two. In my experience, WW is most effectively dealt with by a quick end to the war. As long as you don't lost a dozen units, a few sacrificial ones may be worth the gain of a few turns in terms of WW.

Yes. I try to build up an overwhelming force before attacking so that my offensive doesn't get bogged down. I hate fighting wars over 20 turns. I love taking 4 cities in 10, and declaring peace (for a price).

I think your point is valid too. It's just a matter of style. I tend not to rely too much on siege because I've learned from a game that bringing those slow cats around to take weak cities really diminishes your gains in a war.

The Civ4 siege units are interesting. But for me the game moves a bit slow sometimes, and I would love to dump them altogether from my army if I could see an effective way to do it. In Civ3, it was more possible to build entire stacks of fast units that would sweep through the enemy lands. Of course, you to take about a million cities...

 

[Rathelon]

As long as you're playing on normal speed I like the fast worker as well. Both Epic/Marathon dilute its power too much for me to play India when I have the urge to play those speeds.

Fast worker's special ability is just an extra movement point.

 

[malekithe]

Fast worker's special ability is just an extra movement point.

That is precisely why it loses some of it's potency at slower speeds. The faster the game speed, the more important every movement point.

 

[Truronian]

Personally, I'd say the warrior. Without it the Inca's would own every game

 

[cabert]

I often use the culture slider liberally. As you say, in the early game WW is not a big deal. Mainly, I hate using the culture slider when I haven't met all the Civs yet, so I have no idea whether I'm behind in the tech department. Also when it would be much easier to finish the war if I could only complete research on Military Tradition, but it's 50 turns off because I have my culture slider turned up to 50%.

you don't want to go to war if your war tech is not researched yet, do you?

If you get attacked, do the defense things, you lose much less units!

One of the things I love about fast moving units is the flexibility they give you when taking down a city. Let's say the city has 12 defenders, is not on a hill, and you have already weakened them considerably using cats. Say your stack has 4 macemen, 8 knights, and a longbowman. You can probably take down all 12 defenders with your macemen and knights in that one turn, and then move your 8 wounded knights into the city, along with your longbowman. It's very unlikely you need to worry at all about losing the city to a counterattack the next turn. If your stack had 10 macemen and 2 knights instead, trying to take the city in one turn would be much more of a risk.

if you've got 12 attackers for 12 defenders, it's almost guaranteed that you won't have the city this turn! Even if every single attacker has 95% odds (which are hard to obtain!) you have a 46% chance of losing at least one combat meaning you don't take the city!
Well, the longbow may kill the survivor, maybe.
But it's something i wouldn't want to try. Even with overwhelming odds you need 2/3 more attackers than they have defenders.

 

[Naismith]

you don't want to go to war if your war tech is not researched yet, do you?

When the war starts, I'm teching at a normal clip since I'm not yet using the culture slider. I may be three techs away from MT, and decide I don't want to wait the 15 turns it would take to research it before launching the war. As WW mounts during the war, I increase the culture slider to combat WW, sometimes until I am not teching at all. When this occurs, I will often declare peace no matter how well the war is going.

If you haven't met all the Civ's yet, or if you are not ahead in the tech race, not teching for 20 turns or so could be a fatal mistake (e.g. you end up losing the space race). Unless you are close to a domination victory, you have to be very careful not to win the battle only to lose the war (the game).

if you've got 12 attackers for 12 defenders, it's almost guaranteed that you won't have the city this turn! Even if every single attacker has 95% odds (which are hard to obtain!) you have a 46% chance of losing at least one combat meaning you don't take the city!
Well, the longbow may kill the survivor, maybe.
But it's something i wouldn't want to try. Even with overwhelming odds you need 2/3 more attackers than they have defenders.

I think it is a good rule of thumb to have more attackers than I have in the scenario I outlined. However, with the 10 cats in the attacking stack, you often have some left over after taking the cultural defence down to 0, and using a couple of suicide cats to weaken the defenders. If you have two CRII (or even CRI) cats left over, they can also be used to take down the last couple of (very weak) defenders.

The situation I outlined could be very different, depending on how strong the defenders are. Obviously, I also wouldn't attempt to take the city in one turn if too many enemy reinforcements were nearby.

The main point I'm trying to make is that fast units can attack once, and occupy a conquered city in the same turn. That adds a great deal of flexibility.

 

[Pantastic]

Say your stack has 4 macemen, 8 knights, and a longbowman... If your stack had 10 macemen and 2 knights instead, trying to take the city in one turn would be much more of a risk.

Knights cost 90, macemen cost 70, and one would expect a stack costing more hammers to be better. Those 120 shields neatly buy a crossbowman and pikeman, which is a far better garrison than a bunch of injured knights (where even if you hold the city, you'll probably lose some). The key problem with mounted units is not really their raw abilities, it's cost-benefit.

 

[Naismith]

Knights cost 90, macemen cost 70, and one would expect a stack costing more hammers to be better. Those 120 shields neatly buy a crossbowman and pikeman, which is a far better garrison than a bunch of injured knights (where even if you hold the city, you'll probably lose some). The key problem with mounted units is not really their raw abilities, it's cost-benefit.

Indeed, injured knights are not much of a garrison. In the games I play at Prince and Monarch, they are almost always enough to discourage attack from the enemy reinforcements in the vicinity. If there were several enemy pikes within striking distance, I would never occupy the city with injured knights.

As I use them, fast units do not stay in the captured city. They heal and catch up with the main attacking stack. My own reinforcements will be a mix of fast units, cats, garrison (e.g. longbowman), and obsolete units I don't want to upgrade. The obsolete units garrison captured cities (and my own cities) as the front advances, and those cities are not in range of enemy units. The garrison troops free up my healed attacking units to move on in the offensive, the cats and fast units replace my losses. Sometimes the fast units have to be used to deal with enemy units that have slipped behind my lines.

That is, if I prepared properly, estimated resistance properly, and executed my plan correctly.

As for cost-benefit, that can be a tricky calculation to make. You could be right.

 

[janissary782]

Im going to get yelled at for this, but the best military unit in the game is a missionary. A MISSIONARY ISNT A MLITARY UNIT!?!?!?! while i know your all thnkin that let me explain...

missionaries convert other civs to your religion. those of your religon are less likely to attack you. i would say because of this avoidance of war and the chance to have wars which are so massive in scale it will be disgusting makes the missionary the best unit in the game...besides there spies...wats better then spies . but to satisfy you normal people out there i owuld say the best non-UU has to a combat I/cover axeman. the best UU is the jaguar warrior because of its resoureless production and coupled with an aggressive civ can come out with some sick promotions before even battling.

 

[Col.D]

Calvary and Bombers. I love attacking with masses of calvary, 1st line taking out the front cities, 2nd taking out all improvments. I also love bombers because I build masses of them so I can attack with 100% winning, infantry with 10 str ftw!

 

[Warspite2]

Aircraft Carriers with a load of aircraft