The Immortal is a Walking Death Machine

[nzcamel]

It would also hobble an infantry unit to make it unable to capture cities, and functionally one would almost always use the ranged attack instead.

I don't disagree. It would force you to have another melee unit on hand to take cities. Not the worst outcome considering the OP. What would you do instead?

 

[Sagax]

I don't disagree. It would force you to have another melee unit on hand to take cities. Not the worst outcome considering the OP. What would you do instead?

Nerf those eagles and donkeys first.

 

[nzcamel]

Nerf those eagles and donkeys first.

Oh they're brutal alright... But they don't have the melee-ranged combo going on. That is really a step too far.

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

Why do you need 10?

 

[Ferocitus]

Why do you need 10?

1. Any fewer and the awesome attack might peter out.
2. There's no point in explaining the benefits of metric system because those
from you know where will hijack this thread.

 

[MarigoldRan]

10 is a nice round number. Really anything 6 or above is fine.

Immortals are the jack-of-trades and they're kind of good at everything.

1. As mobile as a horsemen (with surprise attack)
2. Same range and attack as an archer.
3. And it can defend itself like a swordsman (a bit weaker, but it gets to use terrain bonuses on def).

As a result in the classical era you don't need anything else.

 

[Pietato]

Taking that away again may make them less O.P. The original design sounds more balanced.

But then they would have to take cities with Scouts, if they lack Horses.

 

[MarigoldRan]

Of course, without surprise war, they're a slow moving expensive archer that you wonder why you have. That's what I'm discovering with this unit.

With surprise war, a group of them is invincible in the classical era. Without the movement bonus from surprise war, they suck. The ability to move into a forest or a hill and shoot afterward is CRITICAL to this unit.

 

[Trengilly]

Of course, without surprise war, they're a slow moving expensive archer that you wonder why you have.

Exactly - and since all your units get the surprise war movement bonus there doesn't seem to be much point in building (production cost too high) or upgrading (too expensive) more than a few. It cheaper to just build archers/warriors/chariots and do an earlier rush war and pave the way for knights.
You will always have some warriors that should be upgraded but Professional Army comes too late for them to take advantage of.

Immortals fall in the "neutral" category of unique units and don't really add much. They are fun to play around with even if they aren't that practical however!

 

[Jackanape]

As to the talk about removing their melee capability, given that they are a replacement for swordsmen, I think that would be crippling punishment for a player saddled with Persia and no strong infantry unit for the classical age. So that would mean ancient warriors through to musketmen? That was part of the main problem before Firaxis fixed them...

 

[Morningcalm]

I don't disagree. It would force you to have another melee unit on hand to take cities. Not the worst outcome considering the OP. What would you do instead?

To weaken the Immortal the damage on its attacks could be reduced, and their tankiness emphasized instead (given that historically they always numbered 10,000 and given their appropriate Immortal title). I note that their ranged attack is already fairly weak though.

 

[TheArchduke]

Sounds like you need to play MP.

 

[MarigoldRan]

Exactly - and since all your units get the surprise war movement bonus there doesn't seem to be much point in building (production cost too high) or upgrading (too expensive) more than a few. It cheaper to just build archers/warriors/chariots and do an earlier rush war and pave the way for knights.
You will always have some warriors that should be upgraded but Professional Army comes too late for them to take advantage of.

Immortals fall in the "neutral" category of unique units and don't really add much. They are fun to play around with even if they aren't that practical however!

No, no, no, see. You do an early rush with warriors and archers. Then with the 6 or 7 warriors you upgrade to immortals using the money you got from the first rush and the accumulated from your Unique Improvement. And then you do ANOTHER rush after that with the immortals.

Due to their range, Immortals beat legions and the Macedonian Hypapist and Heitaroi in a 5v5 fight. And they cost equivalently. I would argue that Immortals are the strongest Classical Era UU in the game because they don't take any damage when they attack, and multiple immortals can easily focus down a target in a turn. They also get Oligarchic bonuses.

Immortals are damn good at defense on their own. But the synergy also makes immortals deadly on the offense.

They can just sit on a hill and chip away at you. If five of them get within range of a city in the classical era, it's a dead city. They also mean that you don't need battering rams to take cities with walls.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

10 Immortals are great in early times. The problem is how soon you can get them.

Also, don't only compare with AIs, they barely know they're in troubles. Try PVP.

 

[MarigoldRan]

I would like to. How?

I really wish Firaxis would just make a dedicated server like battlenet for multiplayer games. NVM. It works.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Due to their range, Immortals beat legions and the Macedonian Hypapist and Heitaroi in a 5v5 fight. .

In fact I'm against this. It seems that this only happens when Persia being the first one to declare war. Also, Legions have a chop chance so that they're actually much cheaper(about 50%) than they look like if you take the chop chance into consideration

 

[MarigoldRan]

You don't have to declare war on the Romans. To get the Surprise War bonus, you just need to declare surprise war against ANYONE.

Even in MP you can just DOW on some random dude on the other side of the continent. Won't make you popular, but whatever. It's not like they can do anything about it in the early game.

 

[Frostburn]

I've never played with Persia since I always found the "Surprise War" bonus to be kind of boring. I don't care about declaring surprise wars that much, even though I'm a warmonger, so I don't think it'd be that much of a bonus. Besides the Immortals, are they really that good?

Yes, they are really that good. Free trade route at Political philosphy + the trade bonuses are good. The +2 movement after surprise war is huge combined with reduced warmongering for surprise wars. Their Unique improvement is very good too. Persia excels at war, gold generation and culture. In terms of overall strength relative to other civs I would definitely put them top 10, maybe top 5

 

[Lily_Lancer]

You don't have to declare war on the Romans. To get the Surprise War bonus, you just need to declare surprise war against ANYONE.

Even in MP you can just DOW on some random dude on the other side of the continent. Won't make you popular, but whatever. It's not like they can do anything about it in the early game.

In fact in MP games I always declare on Persia as soon as I meet them. I guess all experienced players will do this so you won't have a chance.

But, yes. If there exist just one inexperienced player, or a quitted player whose control being taken by AI, that bonus will work.

It's not immortals that are powerful, but the +2 movement is. Persia archers, horsemans and knights are actually stronger.