The best unit in the game!

[kjaye]

For me tanks are the best units by far. I'm still playing on noble after having only bought the game a couple weeks ago but I've completed and won two epic games now.

Both times I've got tanks way before anyone else and cleaned up with them.

They manage to take out any cites I aim for, making sure the enemy is sufficiently beaten down for me to win an easy space race victory.

I've never got to modern armour, or used planes at all as I've already won before they come into play.

 

[Alraun]

Absolutely, the thing is that those units come well before catapults. So its not really an either or situation in my mind. Once you hit the medieval era though they're truly essential. Longbows are just too tough in cities if you don't at the very least bombard them. Though if I'm playing Saladin I'll use less suicide catapults as Camel Archers are rather nifty.

Uhm... knights and cavalry do not come before catapults.

 

[aelf]

I think he is referring to the chariots.

 

[Araqiel]

I think he is referring to the chariots.

And horse archers. But mainly chariots as they're cheap to build, require no expensive dead end technology, and have a higher withdraw chance.

By the time you've hit knights longbows are just too brutal if you don't bring seige. Cavalry it becomes viable again if your target doesn't have rifles.

 

[jimbob27]

I think out of the standard military units, catapults and cavalry are the most useful.

Catapults because they're needed for such a long period of the game, and cavalry because they're so easy to beeline too. Even if you're behind on tech you can get cavalry before the AI has riflemen, and they slaugher everything older with ease. You don't need to use siege units at all, they can just run across whole civs razing and pillaging with ease.

 

[pigswill]

There is no best military unit. There's best for their era but no single best unit. What you get the most benefit from will depend on wether you go for ancient,medieval,industrial or modern warfare (or all of them).
I'd go for city raider axes upgraded to city raider maces upgraded to city raider grenadiers upgraded to city raider infantry then tanks (possibly upgraded to modern armour).

 

[Alraun]

By the time you've hit knights longbows are just too brutal if you don't bring seige. Cavalry it becomes viable again if your target doesn't have rifles.

I have no problems with just knights.

 

[cabert]

I have no problems with just knights.

without catapults?
flanking 2 is good, but you'll lose a bunch!

 

[Alraun]

without catapults?
flanking 2 is good, but you'll lose a bunch!

Yeah, you do lose a fair amount, but you win the war.

 

[Araqiel]

Yeah, you do lose a fair amount, but you win the war.

But its a huge waste of hammers. The higher you go in difficulty the more you won't be able to assemble such a larger army than the AI. Why waste many perfectly good knights when one or two catapults will equalize the fight and make your army that much more efficient.

 

[aelf]

But its a huge waste of hammers. The higher you go in difficulty the more you won't be able to assemble such a larger army than the AI. Why waste many perfectly good knights when one or two catapults will equalize the fight and make your army that much more efficient.

Speed is the key here. Catapults encumber an army and siege warfare is long and tedious. While you should have some catapults to crack open tougher cities, some knights can independently attack a softer target and capture it. This will speed up your war by quite a bit.

 

[cabert]

Yeah, you do lose a fair amount, but you win the war.

how many knights do you need against 3 longbows and a pike (spear?)?

knowing that the enemy will start building more pikes, seeing you coming with knights, do you go for the copper/iron first thing?

how many do you lose?

how many different cities do you attack at once?

i've read many times some 2 moves units only attacks, but i never had any success with it (lost whole stacks against good defender )

 

[Naismith]

I have found the most limiting factors to war is war weariness and my ability to digest conquered cities without messing up my economy. Playing on a standard map, I often reach that point after taking somewhere between 2 and 6 cities. It varies so much because war weariness is connected with how many units you're losing, how many defenders you're killing, how many cities you are taking or razing, etc.

(Warmongers: Yes, I know you can keep the war going using various techniques, but they all come at a price. Most of the time, I'd rather not pay the price. Particularly, I don't want to have my tech pace to be very slow over a long period of time because I'm using my culture slider liberally, or because I'm trying to digest 10 recently conquered cities.)

Using fast units to wage war has no affect on the two most problematic limiting factors I mention above. In fact, war weariness would be racked up at a faster rate, especially if you are losing more units than you would if you were using slower units in your attacking stack (like cats). I've actually found myself in situations where I racked up war weariness so quickly that I wanted to declare peace 6 turns after I started the war (e.g. had to kill a mountain of defenders).

So, waging war more quickly doesn't buy me as much as I would like. So I've resigned myself to using siege and slow moving units for attacking cities.

 

[Gumbolt]

I love the ckn. It can dominate against mansa and Rome early game. Now thats saying something.

 

[Zombie69]

how much knights
[...]
how much do you lose?
[...]
how much different cities

Quick tip from one francophone to another : if you can count, use many; if you can't count, use much.

How many knights? 3, 4, 5?
How many do you lose? 3, 4, 5?
How many different cities? 3, 4?
How much time does it take? (you can't say 3 time, 4 time)
How much money is required? (not 3 money, 4 money)
How much happiness? (some, a lot, not a all)
How many points of happiness? (1 point, 2 points, 3 points)

Because it gets annoying after a while having to mentally replace every "much" in your post with the appropriate "many"!

 

[cabert]

Quick tip from one francophone to another : if you can count, use many; if you can't count, use much.

How many knights? 3, 4, 5?
How many do you lose? 3, 4, 5?
How many different cities? 3, 4?
How much time does it take? (you can't say 3 time, 4 time)
How much money is required? (not 3 money, 4 money)
How much happiness? (some, a lot, not a all)
How many points of happiness? (1 point, 2 points, 3 points)

Because it gets annoying after a while having to mentally replace every "much" in your post with the appropriate "many"!

that's something i like in the forums : can give my english some use.
Thank you, though a pm would have done the trick without pollution to the forum.
I'll edit my post accordingly.

 

[BadHorsie]

What's the point in saying workers or settlers - of course they're majorly important.

effecient use envolves all units

I disagree. I think that would be inefficient use. Why use all units if you an own everyone with one type of unit, or why bother building a unit if it will become obsolete quickly? Focus your production on buildings or something til you get the better unit.

 

[aelf]

I frequently encounter cities with 2 longbowmen defending them, especially if you've sent an SOD (where your siege is) at another city. You can use knights on those. Why wait for siege? The loss of one knight < the loss of a few turns in war.

 

[Sohan]

The fast worker. Now all they need to do is create an armed worker and we're good to go.

 

[Naismith]

I frequently encounter cities with 2 longbowmen defending them, especially if you've sent an SOD (where your siege is) at another city. You can use knights on those. Why wait for siege? The loss of one knight < the loss of a few turns in war.

I almost always use siege units, but I won't pass up an opportunity. I suspect that I build more 2 movement units than most people simply because it gives you the flexibility to find and take advantage of this kind of opportunity.

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.

This is a contrived example, but I regularly run into situations like this when I use fast units.