The ultimate UU ranking, including PTW!

[Park Ranger]

I have to say Grendel's analysis of the UU's is top notch, the rankings make a lot of sense to me when you consider them in general terms. Of course in the hands of a skilled player some of the mediocre UU's become deadly, or in certain situations (resources lacking, map settings) some UU's become better than others. But overall the ranking is well thought out and its easy to agree with most of it.

However, I have problems with the recommended changes. At this point, it's important to consider other factors, namely civ traits. For example, both the NuMe (Carthage) and the Musketeer (France) get mediocre ratings. But before we go changing them, we should consider the civ traits of both those civs: Industrious and Commercial. Both these civs start with the two most valuable techs (trade wise): Alphabet and Masonry. To me, thats an advantage that helps mitigate against difficult UU's. By contrast, the Iroquois have an awesome UU but start with the two cheapest techs: Pottery and Ceremonial Burial. I can almost always get both those techs in a trade for Alphabet alone or even Masonry alone. Another example: the Babylonian bowman is ideally suited to a building strategy, being a versatile defense/offense unit. Since the Babs get their culture improvements up in no time, it makes sense that by the middle ages they would be forced to build a bunch of pike from scratch while others could upgrade their spearmen.

I'm not saying that some of the UU's couldn't be altered to balance the game more effectively, but I think any balancing changes need to consider civ traits as well. Because the strangth of a civ is not in its UU alone, but in its traits and the starting techs those traits confer.

 

[Bismarck]

Originally posted by Park Ranger

I'm not saying that some of the UU's couldn't be altered to balance the game more effectively, but I think any balancing changes need to consider civ traits as well. Because the strangth of a civ is not in its UU alone, but in its traits and the starting techs those traits confer.

True, but the "official ideology" seems to be that civ traits are roughly balanced. At least, that's what the game's designers and many of the players seem to believe. I doubt that the game's designers realized the impact of, e.g., awarding civs different starting technologies; that's just a super-refinement that hard-core players have discovered after months of play.

But I digress. Like I was saying, the game's designers probably intended the civ traits to be roughly balanced. So, the best way to rebalance the game would be to rebalance the civ traits, not to award civs with "bad" traits "good" UU's, and vice versa.

 

[Rabid Pop Tart]

Some commentary of my own...

Iroquois Mounted Warrior - Seems as though I never have horses when I need them here. And plus the weak defense can be a killer. B or C here.

Greek Hoplite - Not quite as high, maybe a B- or C+...because I don't get in early wars too often. But yeah, they are cool.

Chinese Rider - Alright, I've never done China yet. But if the only improvement is its speed, then what do you have against panzers?

Japanese Samurai - I'd give an A. Perfect balance for the middle ages, minus a resource.

Russian Cossack - C- or D...I usually get Military Tradition after I enter the Industrial Ages, So the defense of 4 doesn't do it for me. Plus, the attack's no better, and I don't like the rifles they use.

German Panzer - B or A, easily! You've got bigger cultural borders later on, and you can't always get in with a tank to attack, or if you can, you can only attack once. Panzers can get an extra attack, giving you more bang for your buck (or shield)

Zulu Impi - Well if it's your defense unit, then you're not going to need the movement. But they can be fun in early wars - I pillaged 6 or 7 squares of enemy territory while their archer had to chase me around but they couldn't catch me.

Aztec Jaguar Warrior - "their main function is scouting – a function which essentially makes the Aztecs expansionist without protection from barbarian goody huts (a drawback on Emperor or Deity)." That's just it - the goody huts aren't in the least bit as good as if you're expansionist.

Egyptian War Chariot - D or F! They're worthless! I tried them once only to realize that I couldn't get around the massive expanse of jungle

Babylonian Bowman - Y'know, you'd think that as awesome Babylon is to use in a game, you think they'd have a cooler UU.

Indian War Elephant - These are really nice...Especially when you don't have resources. I really think that they should have an extra attack though. Maybe a C.

French Musketeer - Well, they've got a cool attack sound.

American F-15 - You can trigger a golden age, if the AI tries to bomb you and you pick them off. So maybe a D.

 

[[GoD]Toxic]

How can anyone give the bowmen a D They are great! I can not count the times i have made an early rush and thus given myself a start better than with any other civ

 

[Park Ranger]

Originally posted by Bismarck


True, but the "official ideology" seems to be that civ traits are roughly balanced. At least, that's what the game's designers and many of the players seem to believe. I doubt that the game's designers realized the impact of, e.g., awarding civs different starting technologies; that's just a super-refinement that hard-core players have discovered after months of play.

I agree that the traits are pretty balanced, at least each has the opportunity to be used well. But I guess I'm thinking in terms of fit: certain UU's fit certain traits better than others. This is probably an unforeseen by-product in most cases, but maybe not. For instance, the Indian UU confers absolutely no advantages other than being resource free. But for a commercial & religious civ, this allows a player to send settlers far and wide, scooping up luxuries and strategic locations and still being able to produce a major offensive unit. Given that now, with all the experience that all the players are bringing to these forums, we start to see how some UU's are better than others, I just think we should consider the UU in the larger context of the civ they belong to before "tweaking" them.

But hey, I like the idea of myself being a "super-refined hardcore player". Thx!

 

[Rabid Pop Tart]

Originally posted by [GoD]Toxic
How can anyone give the bowmen a D They are great! I can not count the times i have made an early rush and thus given myself a start better than with any other civ

Hmm...you've had success with bowmen? Their extra defense doesn't do much for me since you don't always see counterattacks in early wars. As for defending cities, just build spearmen! They can upgrade to something worthwhile. And also, the Golden Age is just too early for me. And finally, I do Babylon to win cultural, not conquest.

 

[ICBM]

imo, legions are superior to immortals because since in ancient times, being 3/3, legions have an almost zero death rate. immortals on the other hand, die quite often with only a defense of 2. swordsmen will make short work of them, and even archers have an even chance of victory. same theory holds true for the sammari.

 

[lz14]

ICBM, legions don't die as often when they are doing nothing, but they die more often when they attack. And the criteria of a good offence unit is not die on the offence. I guess the logic is since legions is an offence unit, it is not as good as immortals.

 

[lz14]

sorry, did a double post.

 

[ICBM]

Originally posted by lz14
ICBM, legions don't die as often when they are doing nothing, but they die more often when they attack. And the criteria of a good offence unit is not die on the offence. I guess the logic is since legions is an offence unit, it is not as good as immortals.

i play on emperor, and i have never seen the ai not have a counter-attack though

but since the immortal is 10 shields cheaper than the med infantry, and isnt replaced since it has the same stats, thats a nice plus.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This has been a very intereating thread and forced me too rethink some of the UUs. AT Regent and Monarchy where I usually play, the Persian Immortal is my first choice and the Celtic swordsman next. The biggest disappointment for me with PTW is that there was not a new religious industious civ. That is my favorite combination, but the War chariots don't really cut it.

 

[Sirp]

I really don't understand this hatred of War Chariots. In my opinion they are the most underrated unit in the game.

What would you say about a unique unit that was a horseman with 2/1/2 but that cost 20 shields? In fact there's already something of a precedent:

in Grendel's analysis, he gives a Rider a B, and an Ansar Warrior a C+. Now an Ansar Warrior is essentially a rider with one less defense, and which costs 6/7 of the price. Just a puny 1/7 discount, for a 1/3 drop in defense, and it slips only from a B to a C+. Surely if it got a 1/3 of the shields off, it'd be considered alot better than the rider.

What's more, in Carbon's Analysis at the end of the menagerie game, he ranks the three best middle ages unique units as "Ansar Warriors, Beserks, and Sipahi". That's right, not samurai, not riders, but Ansar Warriors. The menagerie players found them more useful than Riders, and all for the 1/7 discount.

If 1/7 discount means that much, how much more should a 33% discount mean! Think how many more war chariots you can build than horsemen.

Furthermore, you don't have to worry so much about high maintenance with hordes of cheap units going around, because war chariots will be about while you're still in despotism, meaning you get lots of free maintenance. Yes, you'll change to republic about half way through their lifetime, but still, that is a decent low-maintenance period.

Anyway maybe I'm missing something, but personally I'd probably give war chariots a B or a B+. *shrug*

-Sirp.

 

[Darkness]

Very interesting analysis, Grendel.
I have to agree with Sirp though on the war chariots....

 

[Phantom Lord]

Grendel took the extremely early GA for war chariots into account, so I'd agree with his rating. Same problem with the jaguar warrior: Great unit, but gives a superearly GA.

I don't agree with the A+ for berserks, because you need additional units - ships - to operate them perfectly. Of course you can say that other units need a transport too if they want to attack different islands, but then I'd probably point out that the amphibic trait is also useful for attacking cities on the same continent. A standard "A" would be fine though.

 

[troytheface]

in mp the criterea for the ratings are not as valid.
Early Ga? in a 2 hr game that can be good.
Numideans? The number one rated ladder player won 22 times in a row with them- they are always chosen by someone- why?
Zulu and Aztecs, again, early uu's early ga, early lead
Elimination games? see three civs above
Persia remains strong in sp and mp in spite of ptw expansion.

 

[[GoD]Toxic]

Why is everybody overlooking bowmens Sure they will give you an early GA but taking out an entire nation almost from the start makes up for it (sometimes i can even take out 3 ).

 

[Cartouche Bee]

I think early Golden Ages are way under rated. That early boost of production aids you through the entire game because of the quick early build up.

The War Chariot is a great unit, I've smoked out the Greeks in BC times with them and the Greeks have one of the best rated UU.

 

[Sirp]

Firstly, in the original analysis, Grendel says, "Since this is a ranking of units, I looked at them purely in terms of their military usefulness, not how opportune a time their triggered Golden Age is."

Secondly, you don't have to use war chariots very early. Not nearly as early as Jaguar Warriors. You can use them the same time you use Immortals and Mounted Warriors. In fact a good strategy is to rush to republic, revolt into it in one turn, and then generate your golden age with a war chariot, proceeding to wipe your enemies out.

The mistake with War Chariots is assuming that they have to be used in a 'rush'. This is generally true of Jaguar Warriors, since they are almost obsolete by the time Bronze Working is developed. War Chariots aren't obsolete until Feudalism, so I don't see why everyone obsesses over having to 'rush' with them to be successful.

Of course, War Chariots get the best of both worlds: If you do happen to want to do a rush, War Chariots are one of the best units to do them with. But that's a player's choice, explicitly deciding that they want to trigger a very early golden age in exchange for getting a good rush in.

-Sirp.

 

[Rabid Pop Tart]

Taking what eveyone has said into account, people still haven't said how to work around the no mountain and jungle problem. The only solution that I've found with chariots is to load them into galleys (gallies?) and tote them around, but that is quite unruly. And if you play on Wet/3 billion years old as I have done in the past, you're in a lot of trouble

 

[Cartouche Bee]

Originally posted by Rabid Pop Tart
Taking what eveyone has said into account, people still haven't said how to work around the no mountain and jungle problem. The only solution that I've found with chariots is to load them into galleys (gallies?) and tote them around, but that is quite unruly. And if you play on Wet/3 billion years old as I have done in the past, you're in a lot of trouble

In the few times that terrain was a real issue, I built roads. Use defensive units to protect the workers as they build roads to the front. I have to admit that I don't place a high early priority on AI jungle and mountainous cities but if that is the best pickings then I'd build roads, you need them anyway.

The wheel is a first rung tech and you don't lose the ability to built the War Chariot just cause you get horseback riding (as far as I know they do not upgrade to horsemen they upgrade to knights). Plus, they can retreat so you cut loses and prevent defenders from gaining experience in rushes. Not to mention they get into good positions to generate Great Leaders. Also, they arrive before the Iroquois get their grade A unit and for 2/3 the cost, since they are only 20 shields they can be pop rushed as fast as you can produce food in corrupt cities.