The FORTH worst UU

[Sukenis]

Why are so many people down on the bowman and conquistador? They both have there place, and when you need them they are great.

Early arch rushes with bowmen are devistating. A no reasorce versitile unit (for its age) means that if you must war for early reasorces, you will do well.

I have yet to find a better support unit than the conquistador!! Running into enemy territory and capturing settles/workers can be priceless. Running in and pillaging reasorce tiles (without using the exploit) will hurt your enemy more than you can with a large attack force.

I voted Musketeer. They have no real use (that I have found) over the unit they replace. They doo have a sweet golden age time, but that is not what the poll is about (at least I think so).

 

[Grille]

Originally posted by Yndy
Voted for War Elephants. I always get horses by Chivalry so the unit has no special feature.

... you mean horses plus iron?


Musketeers & epecially War Elephants aren't that bad because of a probably well-timed GA.
On maps w/ fewer opponents with a -most likely- lack of resources, War Elephants can eleminate this disadvantage.

Playing vanilla, the worst UUs ever are Bowman and Man-o-war. It's because I even try to avoid to build them! I'd prefer a warrior/sword- or chariot/horse rush over a bowman rush, if I have iron or horses.

So the third (vanilla: "third" = "fourth" in PTW I guess...) worse UU would be the F-15.

 

[Gengis Khan]

Great sig sukenis! I need to get that on DVD!

 

[farting bob]

conquistador. useless in attack. useless in defence and no goodfor exploring because a] youve doen alot of explorign by the tiem he come along, and so apart from the tundra squares you never bothered to looka t, he's wasted b]as far as i know, he gets told to move out of enemy territory since he hasa attack value, im noto sure if its true or not, but its happened to me on the few occaions ive actauly built them.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Farting bob: As plenty of people have already stated, the Conquistador's strength is pillaging resources during war-time. It can reach five tiles into enemy turf and then remove access to a critical resource - why should you care that it'll die on the AI's turn?

 

[America444]

i think the fourth worst UU after H'wacha, Man-O-War, and F-15 has to be the conquistedor. It's meant for exploring but by then everything has been explored. So it's really an upgraded explorer and I never use those anyway.

 

[Coorae]

I would have voted musketeer, but the bowman makes a despotism GA, so I voted that the worst.

 

[SirPleb]

Originally posted by lz14
other than the big three, who is the next in line?

I'd have called them the big four - I'd have automatically included Musketeers

And I'm not 100% sure yet that Hwach'a belong in the list, I haven't tried playing them. So maybe I'd call it three after I try them

To my way of thinking all other UUs (all except F-15, Man O War, Hwach'a, and Musketeer) can be used to advantage. It is one of the fun parts of the game for me, finding a playing style to maximize the advantages of each Civ's UU. I think that many players (including me) will find some UUs easier to use and others apparently less useful depending on how the UU's strengths match the player's style. And some UUs are clearly more powerful than others, either by getting a bigger boost or by enabling a wider range of strategies. Still, I think that for every UU other than those four a strategy can be found which capitalizes on the UU.

For F-15, Man O War, Hwach'a (probably), and Musketeer, I haven't found any strategy to take advantage of them. They seem like dead weight to me. It might be said that the Musketeer can at least be used to trigger a Golden Age at a nice date but I don't think they're even much use for that - by the time Musketeers can be built France has good options for triggering a GA via some of the desirable wonders.

About the timing of a Golden Age: Some UUs may seem downright negative because of when they trigger a GA. I think that when you find this it is worth reconsidering the strategy - there are options! For example, I think Egypt's War Chariots are a very nice UU. I've played them two ways and both worked well:
1) Fight early and trigger GA in Despotism. There's nothing wrong with this. The GA doesn't add as much as it would in a later government, but what it adds is being added earlier and you can use that for leverage. Small gains made early in the game can have as much impact as big gains made later. You just have to be careful to use the early GA to gain a long term positional advantage.
2) Stock up War Chariots, promote them against barbs, research quickly to Monarchy, switch to Monarchy, and attack with swarms of WCs, triggering the GA right after learning Monarchy.

A unit which comes later than you'd like your GA doesn't have to be a problem either. In this case, plan from the outset for a combination of wonders to match the Civ's traits and plan toward triggering the GA that way.

 

[lz14]

Farting bob: As plenty of people have already stated, the Conquistador's strength is pillaging resources during war-time. It can reach five tiles into enemy turf and then remove access to a critical resource - why should you care that it'll die on the AI's turn?

A normal explorer can pillage as well and is only 20 shields. Conquistador is better because he can capture workers and he can attack cavalry(especially low HP ones, but not Cossacks) However a normal explorer can move into enermy territery in peace time. I think this is legal. With Conquistador, you can't do that any more.
And whatever you do, you don't need to build more than 2 or 3 conquisadors, Man O war shares the same feature, that's why it's bad.

 

[Zamphyr]

I can't believe more people haven't chosen the War Elephant.

I know so many people who never play as India because of this unit. Almost always worthless.

 

[JMK]

It is hard to say.

Bowman, it is a very good unit for early war. Using your GA in order to expend your territory towards your opponents even during Despotism it's to my opinion very valuable, furtheremore with a little luck you may have a GL to rush your Forbidden Palace.

Keshik, you loose 1 defense compared to knight but get it for 60 shields instead of 70 (not sure about it but I think that Keshik has a zone of control that could help in defense).

War Elephant, exactly the same data than the normal knight beside that you can build it without resources. I remember one day having played Japan and having my Iron ressource going away a few turns before Chivalry. Yes I know now I should have disconnected it! But it is great to know that you will be able to build knights without any ressources, you just have to stay alive until chivalry comes in.

Musketeer, who is going to use this unit for attack?
I can only refer to Sukenis above quote. But not the worst to my opinion.

Cossack, have you ever tried to fight against cossack? the defense 4 is a real bonus not as much as the 8 attack of a Sipahis but with defense 4 the Cossack has the best defense for this period.

Conquistador, can only be used on pillaging suicide mission attack and defense useless. Why not using normal explorer that costs 20 sheilds instead of Conquistador that costs 70 sheilds (a bit expensive for suicide mission!) My Vote.

Panzer, a few payers quoted that it comes too late, well it depends at which level and which map size you are playing.
Play large map on Deity, Panzer may come at the right time for you of course if you are still alive.

 

[The Last Conformist]

lz14: The difference is that the Conquistador is faster than the Explorer, which means that the later does not pillage as well.

SirPleb: It's trivially easy to concoct a strategy that capitalizes on the Hwach'a - wage a medieval trench war with Musketmen, Medievals and Cannon/Hwach'a. Now, you're likely to prefer a quicker offensive with Knights/Cav, but there'll come the odd game where you lack Horses. But even when relying on Cav as the offensive arm, Hwach'a improve on Cannon where it matters, which is more than can be said of Cossacks or Musketeers.

The only thing that really annoys me with the Hwach'a is that it can't launch a GA.

 

[lz14]

Sorry man, they have the same speed. And as I said, a normal explorer can go deep into enermy territery before the war, so they actually pillage better than conquistadors.
As for bowman, there's nothing bowman can but archer + spearman can't. (other than trigger a bad GA)

 

[The Last Conformist]

OK, for some reason I was convicenced the explored had a movement of one, but the Editor disagrees.

Actually, there's one thing the Bowman can do that Archer + Spearman cannot - being built without Bronze Working. Not much of an advantage, granted. The nice thing about Bowmen is that two Bowmen offers more flexibility than one Archer and one Spearman.

(In case you think this means you need explain again why Bowmen suck, please do not. I've already voted for them as worst in the list provided.)

 

[JMK]

Originally posted by lz14

As for bowman, there's nothing bowman can but archer + spearman can't. (other than trigger a bad GA)

What's wrong with an early GA as far as you use it to expend towards the AI ?
Archer + spearman that makes two units and a total cost of 40 sheilds instead of 1 unit and 20 sheilds.

 

[Arathorn]

Numidian merc, definitely. Extra shield cost early, when number of units is the most important factor? Offensive boost for a defensive unit? Despotic GA? Not even clearly better than the unit it replaces? Yes to all. The NM would be even worse than the h'wacha, if the latter could somehow trigger a GA.

The benefit of bowmen vs. archer/spear pairs is that you don't have to guess on the ratio of units to send. Send too many spears and you might not have enough attack to get the city. Send too many archers and you might lose the whole stack to the AI's offense. Send bowmen and you're covered either way.

Since I can't vote for the 4th worst, nor probably, the 5th worst (Gallic), I guess I'll go with the other contender for 5th worst and vote conquistador. Just not enough extra benefit, from what I've seen, in being able to off cavalry/workers/settlers behind the lines, at 70 shields.

Arathorn

 

[Akka]

Well, I think that Musketeer is the ABSOLUTE WORST of the UU in the game, so guess which one won my vote

 

[Gogf]

Now that C3C is out, I think we to replace the Man-o-War with the Chasquis scout.

 

[troytheface]

hittite chariot is worse than any of those mentioned, but i have used all - including the hittite chariot- to good effect. Its all in how u use them that matters (Hittite chariot u use like a tank and make sure u have lots) Conquistidor comes before calavary and after knights so its niche is actually kinda nice...if u tear up a civs ability to reach u and to produce and reduce population to nothing....it is much ez'r than trying to bludgeon thru...

 

[Goober]

War Elephant is the worst in my experience. I can never get BOTh iron and horses, VERY annoying. When I do, it is outdated. I have used it once, I believe, and I play India fairly frequently as it is religious, and I very often play religious Civs.