The least effective unit

[futurehermit]

I think medic 3 explorers are good since they REALLY won't defend. I had a medic 3 chariot the other day in a game I was playing. He was in a stack with some combat 1 axes. For some strange reason he was selected to defend against a longbow in the open field and was killed I was raging at my computer screen for a few minutes after that one

 

[cabert]

I think medic 3 explorers are good since they REALLY won't defend. I had a medic 3 chariot the other day in a game I was playing. He was in a stack with some combat 1 axes. For some strange reason he was selected to defend against a longbow in the open field and was killed I was raging at my computer screen for a few minutes after that one

The LB probably had shock promotion.
The explorer does defend in specific circumstances (like other being wounded, which is the point of a medic)

 

[futurehermit]

Really, I had no idea the explorer could ever defend when in a stack I take back what I said, the explorer is pretty useless

 

[vb1]

I vote for SAM infantry. Weaker than normal infantry, if you need to defend vs aerial attacks, fighters are better IMO. Maybe only against gunships, but I rarely fight wars by the time AI has them. And by that time i usually will have Mech infantry anyway.

 

[Dirk1302]

I agree with explorer not being useful, you can give it medic promotions though and be ensured that they never defend.

I like Horse archers but i never research HBR.
As for Crossbowmen and Ironclads they're not the most useful units in the game but sometimes they come in handy.

I don't think i've ever build a machine gun....

 

[futurehermit]

I like shock xbows for stack support and city defense (paired with combat 2/formation pikes)

 

[cabert]

same for MGs
I build a lot of MGs!

 

[Dirk1302]

Really, I had no idea the explorer could ever defend when in a stack I take back what I said, the explorer is pretty useless

Didn't know either doesn't help it's usefulness, it must be seldom though that he's picked as the defender.

I vote for SAM infantry. Weaker than normal infantry, if you need to defend vs aerial attacks, fighters are better IMO. Maybe only against gunships, but I rarely fight wars by the time AI has them. And by that time i usually will have Mech infantry anyway.

SAM infantry are essential in modern warfare. On higher levels AI's build loads of cavalry and guess what they're upgraded to after rocketry and flight.

 

[cabert]

Didn't know either doesn't help it's usefulness, it must be seldom though that he's picked as the defender.


SAM infantry are essential in modern warfare. On higher levels AI's build loads of cavalry and guess what they're upgraded to after rocketry and flight.

gunships die to many units
Sam inf are useful, for this, sure. But it's easy enough to cut of oil to prevent the gunships to appear, and I take cities full of gunships easily after a few bombings

 

[Ankh-f-n-Khonsu]

2. Crossbowman - a maceman is better than a crossbowman, almost as much as a war elephant is better than a spearman (but the same type of better-ness)

I'd rather face a maceman with a crossbowman than a maceman.

 

[Defiant47]

I'd rather face a maceman with a crossbowman than a maceman.

It would yield nearly the same results, whereas a maceman is better general-purpose than a crossbowman is.

 

[Elandal]

Xbow: S6, +50% vs melee, 1 FS. So effective S9 +1FS vs mace, somehing like 70-80% win probability I guess.
Mace: 50% win probability.

Agg mace is almost as good as xbow, and protective xbow blows mace out of the equation.

xbow is also cheaper (60 vs 70 hammers), and works as well as mace against any other melee unit. Generally xbow is better for stack defense (combined with anti-mounted defender), except against sieges - there raw strength (which mace has more of) is better.

I can't see how mace would be equal to xbow when it comes to anti-melee duty. Mace is a general purpose unit, has a bit higher base strength, and different promotion path (CR being the common mace-duty).

As I said, every unit has a place.
Why don't I build Ironclads? Because I don't seem to need frigate-busting net-protectors (only time an ironclad is reasonably fast is when it's built by Ragnar after winning circumnavigation bonus). If however you find yourself in post-astronomy pre-combustion naval war, you might want some to keep your nets up.
Why don't I build HAs? Because HBR is an expensive tech and I have other research goals. I might go for HBR if I have ivory and want stables to boost my elephants - then again I might research it when I get guilds and wonder why I can't build knights.. But if I don't have ivory or metals, then .. then I go for cats and longbows. Except if I'm playing Carthage

 

[czechdude]

Horse Archers. Expensive tech + common counter + city attck penalty = nearly useless. By the time you research HBR if you have no copper, iron, or ivory you're pretty screwed anyway.

Those whole live by the sword get shot by those who don't

 

[Shadzy19]

I would say explorers but since they arent really a military unit they dont count .
1) Horse archers > Expensive dead end tech and they really arent that good for taking city's , they are only semi usefull for some raiding and to defend vs some cat attacks , hardly ever build them .
2) Ironclads > I build them about 1/5 games and even then only 1/2 to protect my nets , slow speed and cant enter ocean tiles is a bad combo .
3) Knights > I know people will tell me im crazy but I rather have a army of maces + pikes(with formation) + 2 Xbows(with shock/drill) then build expensive knights , the only times I bother building them is because of the extra speed and need units at the front asap or because I cant take the city's and need them for pillaging duty .

 

[svv]

Speaking of gunships, I saw the AI try a tactic with them that was highly unusual.

I had a lightly defended city on the coast. There were railroads leading to it and plenty of strong troops around, so I figured I'd be able to reinforce it or counterattack any invasion force.

Well, the AI landed a small invasion force, but they also protected it by putting about a dozen gunships around them and the city, I guess to try to prevent me from getting at the invasion force or reinforcing the city.

Didn't work. I had enough forces to smash through the gunships and wipe out the invasion force. But I was impressed with the originality of the tactic.

 

[Shadzy19]

Good thing they didnt pillage all your raids/RR towards that city .

 

[uberfish]

This thread keeps recurring, and I always say submarine.

 

[lilnev]

Once in a while I'll pop HBR from a hut. Then a few HAs are reasonable open-field or pillaging units. But most games I avoid HBR to the end (I've gone to Alpha Centauri many times without it), or pick it up just before Cavalry.

My last game, I actually wanted Ironclads, for the first time in I-don't-remember-how-long. Archipelago, Nappy was technologically behind me, but he declared on me and wrecked about a dozen seafood resources with his Frigates. Alas, I had no Iron and had to tech to Combustion before I could fight back.

I vote for submarines, or possibly carriers.

peace,
lilnev

 

[Winston Hughes]

Returning to the earlier discussion, a charismatic leader can bust out Nav1 galleys (and other naval units) for +1 movement if running theocracy and vassalage.

I've used galley/trireme navies to outflank my enemies on several occasions. You can just lure the enemy's troops towards you, whilst shipping a smallish force to land at a choice spot and wreak havoc in the depths of their empire, razing poorly defended cities and pillaging vital resources (essentially the same approach the Athenians took in the early Peloponnesian War, for those Greek history fans amongst you).

As for the OP's question, I've found all of the units useful on certain occasions, but subs, nukes, explorers and muskets are the ones I very rarely have any use for. In terms of gameplay, though, it's got to be Horse Archers, just because it's so frustrating having to waste beakers or a tech-trade to get HR early on. Most of the time I don't bother with them, but every so often there'll be a situation where they're needed.

 

[Mutineer]

There was thouthand treads like that. I am tied of them.
Practically all units have good uses. If you do not know how to use unit or never run in situation when you need unit, it is your problem.

About Muskers, read this for example befor you claim muskets useless.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=192600