The most important unit

[unknown_spirit]

Originally posted by jtb
who agrees that caravans are bad units?

Me. I never build them or freights unless I'm bored stupid by my game style (see Warfare the Unorthodox Way). I mass-produce stuff like Howitzers, Mech. Infantry, Armor, Paratroopers, Marines, Alpine Troops, Cruiser/AEGIS Cruisers, Battleships, Stealth Fighters, Helicopters and Nuclear Missiles. There.
I agree with an earlier post that settlers are the most important, but I think that's not what Sethos meant. As Sodak said, every unit (except Warrior, Chariot, Cruise Missile and Fanatics) has a place. It's all about gaming style, my sons...

 

[jtb]

agreed
i never build warriors
who does?
I discover elphants before chariots so whats the use of EVER building a chariot ( which i cant because chariots go into elephants)

 

[unknown_spirit]

One thing I would like to know: Why do Warriors not become obsolete when Phlanx, and even Archers come along? They are obsolete in real terms, but you have to wait till Legion to get them off the Build menu. Same with Riflemen. Surely when Amphibious Warfare is researched, Marines should make Riflemen obsolete? Has anyone else been a little worried that a unit that has a much better, more powerful alternative, can still be made? Come on, a 5,5,1 vs an 8,5,1? I know which I'd choose.

 

[Darius]

Simple: One takes more shields than the other, and you might want the cheaper one. This is useful in Monarchy, for instance. On your borders you might want strong phalanxes to defend against attack, while deep in your civ, where there are few threats, you only need troops for martial law. In this case, you want to build warriors because you need three per city for unhappiness, and it's a waste of shields to build a bunch of phalanxes or archers when you don't need the good defense. Warriors are also very useful because you can build Leo's and a crapload of warriors, and then study Gunpowder. Then you've got a whole lot of Musketeers that only cost you ten shields each. I've said these things in another thread or two, and the point is, warriors are great units.

Same thing with marines (I've never built a single marine in my life): they take more shields. It's also a matter of what their abilities are. Riflemen defend cities, and marines attack. Would you tell the U.S. Army never to build any army divisions merely because amphibious and harder-charging marine divisions can be built? There's no need for that "8" when you're defending cities with them, so why waste ten shields on them? I just have veteran riflemen and/or fanatics to hold my cities, and then tanks, howitzers, etc. to destroy my enemies far from my cities.

Also, chariots can be useful when they're early early early game goody-hut NON units, and in king I always win before 1 A.D. using that strategy, even if they're only horsemen. That's king though; in deity that strategy can only kill one civ or two.

 

[jtb]

i like rifle men and i think they should never be replaced by an ATTACKING unit. but warriors .. i agree.



are hit points times defence a units defence
are firepower times attack a units attack

if not... wut are hit points and firepower???

 

[sethos]

Have you ever bought 100 howitzer a turn ...
That's only possible with caravans and freights.
I had games where I made about 70.000 gold a turn (more than 200 cities).
Trade is the baseline.

 

[seb144]

I thought that was what defence and attack were. If that's true, then why do they have seperate numbers for attack and firepower, and defence and hit points?

...sorry, this is in response to one of the last posts on the previous page.

jtb... look at the post I mentioned for an answer.

 

[Sodak]

For a full explanation of hit points, firepower, and all combat, go to the War Acadamy and read my Combat paper. All is there!

 

[Old n Slow]

Finally after eight years, I built my first marine. Needed to tkae out Rome which was surrounded by rough terrain. The marine vs musket was the new version of legion vs phalynx. Needed the single unit to stand tall & then be able to do something when it got there.

Lesson learned -- there are advantages to be had with time, space & economy. Different units have different specializations, but it may come down to what units, pound for pound have the most relative power (all the peaceful units rank highest here IMHO) and which have the greatest flexibility in the relative timeframe.

 

[Marlos]

Armor! By far! Granted, the original question is vague, because you don't start the games with armored vehicles. But if I had to choose just one unit out of all... Armor are fast, powerful, and supply adequate defensive power.

I also like cruise missiles. They are only single-use, but they rarely leave the job unfinished!

And there certainly is nothing quite as beautiful as a veteran battleship!

Howitzers?!? The game should be decided by then. Adding them is usually an afterthought.

Caravans?!? Trade is important, but not THAT important. Normally I'll just trade with myself (despite the lower cash component) since trading with other gives them trade that helps them! Basically, I'll use caravans/freight to explore enemy territory and see how they've (over)developed their lands.

 

[JuicyCivNewbie]

I don't know how any of you can say warriors and caravans are bad units. They're two of the most useful units in the game.

 

[ArmOrAttAk]

Spies are my fav unit, Freights are also nice. As for combat units I think any that you can bring up to a city to make them pay you gold, and tech are nice

 

[bellisaurius]

Although I'm a huge fan of combined arms ( I don't like to invade without some engineers, spies, marines, cav or armor, and arty or howies, air and sea units).

Still, I am partial to the aircraft carrier. I've laid many a civilization low with a fleet of bombers and fighters (just keep the subs and counterattacking bombers far away! Once again, some combined arms).

 

[Darius]

Armor! By far!

Howitzers?!? The game should be decided by then.

I don't buy that. How do you do on science? I usually have robotics within about 10-20 turns of when I have mobile warfare, so it's worth waiting.

I doubt you consistently take over the world with armor between the two techs, unless your science was slow. Or if it's because you have already almost won before you have mobile warfare, then the tanks aren't so great.

 

[unknown_spirit]

Yeah. I never finish my game that early. Why would you? You don't get many points in your demographcs. The war just dosen't feel the same without a good balanced army. I mean, what fun are Armor alone? It is more fun to see how best you can use a variety of the modern weapons. I always have at least 5 of every available modern unit. I always build more of my favourites, but it adds a more...strategic feel. Trying to wipe out the world with as few losses as possible is very good fun. I like to play it as a real-life war. As in, what shall I do here as I've only got a couple of units here? I know, hit them with the Howie, then move in with the crappy Rifleman or Alpine Trooper. A battle with Armor, Armor and only Armor would be dull to fight, and dull to look at. A continent smothered in your own Armor? It looks so boring. That ain't to say I don't like Armor, it just means that I like a broad set of units, rather than getting cheesy and building only one unit type ad nauseum.

 

[starlifter]

Caravans?!? Trade is important, but not THAT important. Normally I'll just trade with myself (despite the lower cash component) since trading with other gives them trade that helps them!

Hehe.... True, you can win without any trade at all. But a single freight can buy you 5 or 6 Veteran Battleships, or a dozen Vet Stealth fighters in one turn. Pretty powerful, in a Power Demcracy or Power Fundy govt!

Government Strategies

PD - the Power Democracy
PF - Power Fundamentalism

 

[seb144]

A couple points I'd like to make.
Most units have thier uses. Whether it's because of low sheild cost, powerful attack, defence, or combination of the two, versitality, movement, etcetra, there is usually some purpose for every one out there.
People have said cruise missiles are bad- I love them! They are extremely useful, almost never failing to destroy the target.
People have also said fanatics are bad- I, personaly, would never use them, but someone under a fundimentalist government could build as many as they wanted without any support.
Partisans- I never actually build these, but they are a good backup for a captured city.
Chariots and warriors have been covered already.
Anything else- I'm sure there is come explination.

Also- I use ships a lot, and when attacking enemy civs, marines are great. I can keep cruisers near enemy cities, then move in with marines without having to wait a turn on land and vulnerable. Then they can defend the cities until I get some better defenders in there.

 

[jtb]

origanally posted by: Juicycivnewbie... I don't know how any of you can say warriors and caravans are bad units. They're two of the most useful units in the game.

maybe caravans are a little useful but how can you say that WARRIORS ARE GOOD UNITS?

 

[eyeball]

Warriors are only useful in the very start of the game.

 

[Ace]

On the contrary, warriors are useful right up to the time Leo's Workshop converts them into cheap Musketeers. When you need a quick unit to supress unhappiness in a city, a cheap warrior is the best way to go. The only time warriors loss their appeal is if you fail to build Leo's Workshop, and even then they still provide cheap units for martial law uses, And you can still salvage one half of their shields when you disband them.