The ultimate UU ranking, including PTW!

If you used a lot of chariots, you should know it indeed upgrades to horsmen.
War Chariot is a cheap horseman, but the fact is horsemen is not that much of a great unit itself. That's why most people rush with swordsmen instead of horsemen. A bunch of warriors can kill you.
And making roads in jungles and mountains is not an easy and worthy job at all.
Ansar warriors are not the same as riders, they are slower, which is crucial to the riders. Not to say they have lower defence too.
 
Originally posted by lz14
If you used a lot of chariots, you should know it indeed upgrades to horsmen.
War Chariot is a cheap horseman, but the fact is horsemen is not that much of a great unit itself. That's why most people rush with swordsmen instead of horsemen. A bunch of warriors can kill you.
And making roads in jungles and mountains is not an easy and worthy job at all.
Ansar warriors are not the same as riders, they are slower, which is crucial to the riders. Not to say they have lower defence too.

Even the civilpedia in 1.29 says war chariots upgrade to knights. PTW civilpedia does say that also regardless why upgrade them to horsemen? I upgrade them to knights, thanks! Warriors, if they ever catch you can kill you if the units don't retreat, I think your not speaking from experience.

Most people do swordsmen rush? Then they should join up for the tourney cause the best players use horsemen for a fast conquest or domination game cause swordsmen are too slow unless you play tiny maps all the time.
 
Wow. :eek:

Sheesh, I make a simple post, go away for the weekend, and what happens? Tons of people read it and post very well-thought replies. Bravo, everyone! :goodjob:

I agreed with a lot of what people said, and it really made me think. I'll try to do justice to the replies, and put in one giant plug for the Viking Berserk, all in one shot:

First, though, I have to point out another limitation (it's not a bug; it's a feature!) of my ranking that wasn't immediately apparent to me: Early on, when I gave each unit an off-the-cuff ranking, I was amazed at how even my distribution was. I took that nice distribution all the way to the bank, and cast all the units in a rock-solid grade distribution that looked like this:
3 A's (one A+)
5 B's (one B+)
8 C's (two C+, two C-)
5 D's (one D-)
3 F's (one F-)
Although this was really cool and I gave myself a nice pat on the back for it, the distribution had a lot of drawbacks. First was the crunch around the C+ area -- there were a lot of units I wanted to give a B to, but couldn't. A full third of the UU's in the game got a C, which sounded like I was blowing them off, but I really wasn't. I just couldn't think of which B unit they would take the place of.

Also, a big thanks to the people who pointed out my factual errors (I said the F-15 couldn't trigger a GA and the War Chariot was made obsolete by researching Horseback Riding). I guess my playing experience failed me -- I was America once and remember specifically trying everything imaginable to trigger a GA with an F-15. Maybe I never fully killed an enemy bomber, and I guess I was never intercepted on a bombing run. (Go figure! I wasn't using my air superiority fighter for bombing missions! ;)) But, man, I'm the Egyptians in my current game -- you'd think I'd know their upgrade path!

I was going to respond to everyone, but since there were so many replies I'll just hit the biggies...

German Panzer (I gave it a C) -- Man, does it look like I've dropped the ball on this one! In retrospect I think I did underrate it, but it does have a few drawbacks that, in my mind, keep it from being ranked with the elite UU's. First, in just about every game I've played, I've basically either won or lost by the time Tanks come around. The Panzer just comes too late to swing the game either way for me. Second, even if you've beelined for Motorized Transportation, Modern Armor is only five techs away (I'm counting Rocketry), which gives the Panzer a short life span. True, they really do knock the living daylights out of Industrial Era units, but so do Tanks, in my experience (especially if you cut off that rubber supply). I think I did underrate the Panzer, but not by a lot. It's a really cool unit; I just wish the timing were a little better.

Arab Ansar Warrior (I gave it a C+) -- This was a notable casualty of my rock-solid distribution. It's basically a cheaper Rider with one less defensive point, a trade that I feel makes the Ansar Warrior slightly less well off. Since I gave the Rider a B, I gave the Ansar Warrior a C+ -- slightly less than the Rider.

Carthaginian Numidian Mercenary (I gave it a C) -- The plugs by phizuol and others almost made me rethink my position on the Numidian Mercanaries, but then Sullla's post made me stand my ground. Their cost is just too prohibitive for being the only Ancient Era defender. More importantly, though, I argued that they're not as good as either the Legion or the Hoplite, both units that got a B (and the Legion's grade was contested at that). Thus, the Numidian Mercenary gets a C.

Ottoman Sipahi (I gave it a B+) -- Just that little bit of encouragement has pushed me over the edge. The Sipahi should have gotten an A.

Roman Legionary (I gave it a B) -- I always thought the Legionary (I prefer "Legion," too) was overrated by many, and it seems I've overrated it myself! Sullla and Bismarck did a very good job convincing me of this, though I agree with Sirp's assessment: the Legionary is a good unit, but not necessarily deserving of top honors.

Egyptian War Chariot (I gave it a C-) -- This unit is kind of like my anti-Legionary -- I always thought it was underrated, and I've underrated it myself! I wouldn't give this unit more than a C or C+, though, because using War Chariots seems like an all-or-nothing proposition: you either take advantage of their cheap cost and crank them out like crazy, or you scoff at them. Or, like Psychlone, you keep them around for a later GA. I'll take the middle ground on this one, though I certainly see jack merchant and Sirp's pro-Chariot perspective.

Heck, I'm thinking the Mongols might be even worse than the English. At least I don't sit there thinking "I don't want these man-o-wars, give me back my precious frigates!"

All I can say is, :lol:

Okay, now for the ultimate plug for the Viking Berserks. And I thought I gave these guys too much attention in my original post...

Viking Berserk (I gave it an A+) -- I won't even talk about what this unit does on a map with a lot of water. Try it just once and tell me with a straight face that the Berserk is not the most insanely overpowered unit in Civ3.

But let's imagine the worst possible scenario for the Viking player: you have no coastal cities. Heck, the whole map is one big block of land, so your opponents don't have any, either. So you're left with a 6-attack, 1 movement shock troop near the beginning of the Middle Ages. Move a few of your favorite defenders or artillery in-step with a stack of Berserks, and what do you have? An Immortal-like advantage over Pikemen (6 attack vs. 3 defense). And as Sirp pointed out, if the enemy has Musket Men, you can choose whether you use Berserks (a la Swordsmen) or Knights (a la Horsemen) to attack. Using one or the other might just be a question of style, but the Berserk is the only unit that even gives you that choice! Remember, Berserks have the same attack as Cavalry and can be researched as fast as Knights! But let's fast forward a bit to the Infantry Era, as I call it, when the best attacking strategy is generally carting around stacks of Artillery and Infantry. Heck, man, throw those Berserks in there, too -- many of them will likely be elite by now, and a bunch of reduced-HP Infantry are like cogs in a Great Leader factory. Keep in mind, this is the absolute worst case scenario for Berserks (in terms of circumstance, not how well the game is going in general). What about the worst case scenario for Persia? No iron = no Immortals! Or what if the Ottomans don't have Saltpeter? Or the Iroquois horses? The Berserk is still a good unit, even if there is no water in sight.

Now let's consider the average scenario: continents and 70% water (or whatever's standard). Sirp hit the nail on the head when he said "without the amphibious assault ability, they really aren't *that* great." He's right -- without it, I would give them a B or so. But with it, an attacking Berserk force is literally invincible. Invincible! Never mind their low movement -- you'll be moving them in ships! Never mind their low defense (which is still higher than the unit they replace, Longbowmen) -- they cannot be attacked. The only vulnerable Berserk is the one that wins the final battle to take the city, and if you want to keep that city and/or Berserk, just unload some defensive units from your ships. You can easily take or pillage every enemy coastal city with Berserks. Every single one. While this might not utterly destroy a civilization, it will certainly cripple it, and after a few turns of suffering from your incessant raiding parties, your enemy will be more than happy to give you whatever concessions you desire. Go look at any given Civ map (minus, perhaps, the super-pangea ones) and imagine taking every coastal city with minimal casualties. It can be done, easily, with Berserks. Yes, you have to build some ships, but you can plan this from the beginning -- and what better to build in the interim between Map Making and Invention? Other than upgradable Archers, I mean. :satan:

Look, there's a reason Marines attack like pansies. The amphibious attack capability is really powerful, and introducing it into the early Middle Ages and giving that unit a higher attack than any of its contemporaries is just asking for some serious, serious Viking whoop-ass. If somebody had put this unit into a mod, I wouldn't have downloaded it. Well, maybe I would, but only because it's cool... :)

*phew* I think I'm done for now. I don't really have much to say about all the editing suggestions, so maybe I will get to those later.

Everyone, thanks again for all the thoughtful insights!
 
Hey folks, if we're looking to replace the F-15 with a historically accurate American UU, why not a super-ironclad? Say a 5/4/5 or 6/4/4 that would allow them to dominate until electricity. And America could trigger a GA in a useful era.
Take it further, and get rid of the ironclad from all the other civs, and only allow it as an American UU (4/4/4). I always find Steam Power/RR a pretty hectic time anyway, and rarely build ironcalds, but now there'd be an extended age of sail that so many people want.
Just a thought...:hmm:
 
Like the idea about getting a new ironclad UU for America, but not the idea of not letting anyone else build ironclads
 
I don't know; America's ironclad supremacy lasted for all of 2-3 years. Shortly after the end of the Civil War, the British navy was already producing much larger ironclads. Some of these British IC's were the direct precursors of the first battleships.

It's not easy to think of a good UU for America. Possibly improved bombers, given America's historical fondness for big bombers. A better bomber would actually be useful (unlike the F-15's).

Maybe nuclear carriers (say, with move improved to 6, and capacity improved to 5-6 planes). That would still be a pretty weak UU, though, given that carriers are basically transport ships, so their stats don't matter that much.

Maybe an improved marine unit; though I haven't actually seen evidence that the US marines have been historically superior to other nations' marines. It's just that, for some reason, US marines are much better-known (and possibly more frequently deployed).

The trouble is, American military superiority came in an era when successful military innovations are immediately copied by other nations. Hence, a "unique" unit does not remain unique for long (unlike, say, Rome's legions, which remained easily the most disciplined and structured armies in the ancient Mediterranean for several centuries).
 
I think its hard to give only one UU to a civ during the whole history.

In my opinion a civ should have a UU for each age =)
 
Bismarck: Well the Iroquois hardly had better horse-warriors than other nations, but it's just a vaguely known thing that the American Indians were kinda good with horses, and the Iroquois are American Indians so let's give em better horse guys!

A better US Marine unit would be cool: 10/10/1 maybe.

Alternatively, I don't see what's wrong with the Minuteman. A cheaper musket man perhaps. Musket men are fairly expensive, so if you could get them cheaper it would be a substantial advantage.

Meanwhile, Musketeers typically rode around on horses, sooo they should be made to require horses, but be able to move 2 spaces!

-Sirp.
 
Well, we've been bashing Bab bowmen for awhile, and I want to apologize.

I like them now!

I put a stack to attack a few cities, and what I found is that the enemy doesn't retake the cities as often as normal archers. Because of the extra defense. It's like stacking speramen with archers, but a heck of a lot better because bowmen can go both ways.

Just thought you'd like to know of my epiphany
 
dont mess w/ teh german panzers! :P i love those! cities fall really easy, the extar movement and the blitz allows me to strike many tmes deep into theyr heartland, the panzers are well worth it, very well worth it.
 
Panzers are good units, but they come too late to be of real use. Your GA should be fired off well before then for optimal benifits, and getting an extra move on a Rider give the same benifits of movement, but at a much more pivotal time.

I still think Riders are with the best, they deserve an A++!
 
Why give the Samurai grade B and the Keshik grade D? They're both 4/4/2 knight-variants, one needs no iron, the other needs no horses. I haven't ptw, but I think I'd rather give them both a C.
 
Originally posted by Bismarck
I don't know; America's ironclad supremacy lasted for all of 2-3 years. Shortly after the end of the Civil War, the British navy was already producing much larger ironclads.
The trouble is, American military superiority came in an era when successful military innovations are immediately copied by other nations. Hence, a "unique" unit does not remain unique for long (unlike, say, Rome's legions, which remained easily the most disciplined and structured armies in the ancient Mediterranean for several centuries).

That's true of German Panzers too - they kicked ass in '40/'41, but the Allies had caught up by the end of the war - partly from starving the Germans of fuel, but also in tank warfare tactics.
All in all, Civ3 mimics that quite nicely - Panzers can be great for cutting through people, but everyone gets MA not too long after, so the Germans have to make their brief advantage count.
doesn't solve the American UU problem though... I still want to take Ironclads away from everyone else.
 
Originally posted by Dr Jimbo
That's true of German Panzers too - they kicked ass in '40/'41, but the Allies had caught up by the end of the war - partly from starving the Germans of fuel, but also in tank warfare tactics.
This belongs in the World History forum, but AFAIK Panzers were always head and shoulders above the competition. They were faster, had much more armour, and fired bigger shells.

The only better 'tank warfare tactics' I know of used by the Allies was getting a ratio of better than 10 to 1 on the battlefield, primarily from the USA's tank factories, and those tanks were lame, just lots more of them.

Anyway, I agree that Panzers in the game are good units, but by the time you crank out tanks you should be able to out manouver the AI. Faster units are better earlier when you can't outnumber the AI so easily, and need the mobility more.
 
Originally posted by anarres
This belongs in the World History forum, but AFAIK Panzers were always head and shoulders above the competition. They were faster, had much more armour, and fired bigger shells.

The only better 'tank warfare tactics' I know of used by the Allies was getting a ratio of better than 10 to 1 on the battlefield, primarily from the USA's tank factories, and those tanks were lame, just lots more of them.

Are you sure? I seem to recall reading a memo by a German commander complaining about the Panzers' inferiority in armor and firepower to the Soviet tanks.

Granted, they may have rectified these problems in a later model, but at least at some points, I think, the Panzers were inferior to some of the Allies' tanks in some respects (how's that for an excessively qualified statement?)
 
My thoughts were based on a vague memory of John Keegan's analysis of tanks in WWII - his most illustrative example of a tank battle was an allied victory in france after D-Day
 
I am not sure, and I am happy to be wrong. I was operating on conversations I've had with WWII gaming enthusiasts. If I find the time I will check it out...
 
The panzer 1 was a machine gun carrier, no "big gun" at all. The panzer 2 had a 37 mm cannon. They had lots of trouble with "infantry tanks" like the Matilda of the English that were heavily armored, needed to maneuver to get a side or rear shot.

The German tanks had superior tactics, and radios (most Russian tanks didn't) and they outmaneuvered the opposition. They did get ahead of the curve, from time to time with the Panzer III/IV and again with Panther/Tiger tanks, but turned out many fewer of these than those of us who play miniatures would believe. When I see the Germans on the wargame table, no-one fields the average tank, everyone wants Tigers, and the Russians are all T34s. The reason the Germans wiped the floor with most armies they faced was their superior training and morale, and good doctrine. On the average, German Tanks were not as good as Russian ones, and it seems possible to me the French tanks were better than the German ones they faced in ghe conquest of France (1940). The french and british used theirs in penny packets, a few tanks to stiffen a batalion of infantry. The Germans massed theirs and hit hard, where they hit, and kept going and rolled up the support troops in the rear. Its called Blitzkreig. It didn't hurt they had the only effective tactical air support from Stukas. Doctrine, again, won the day. The French and English had lots of Fighers, they just didn't use them as well.
 
Originally posted by barron of ideas
it seems possible to me the French tanks were better than the German ones they faced in ghe conquest of France (1940). The french and british used theirs in penny packets, a few tanks to stiffen a batalion of infantry. The Germans massed theirs and hit hard, where they hit, and kept going and rolled up the support troops in the rear.
Thanks Barron. I couldn't remember the details. So the Germans invented the 'Stack of Death'
 
Back
Top Bottom