Judge_Deadd
No, I'm not back
What unit in Civ is the Worst?
Legion, of course, because Chariots and Knights are much better. bwahahahahaha
Legion, of course, because Chariots and Knights are much better. bwahahahahaha
The WORST Unit!
- Thread starter Judge_Deadd
- Start date
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
Ever built a cruiser?
addiv
Hero of our time
I certainly built cruisers and submarines. I agree legions are bad. I almost never build militia either. Or knights. Or cannons. Or carriers.
HAND
Armchair Philosopher
Fighters i never built, so i'd say they are the worst.
I never build the big sea-going hardware. Too expensive and too vulnerable. Since it's so easy to win without, why bother?
Battleships are very easy, Stormerne! You can bash great armies with them... (Until you meet that veteran phalanx. )
I never build legion and submarines. Cruisers are handy for exploration; it's the fastest ship.
)I never build legion and submarines. Cruisers are handy for exploration; it's the fastest ship.
And I can build 8 phalanxes in the time in takes to build your battleship (of course they'd be 5 riflemen by then). One of them will take out your battleship!
Sure they're strong but they're a waste of time. I've never needed one to win at Emperor level.
Sure they're strong but they're a waste of time. I've never needed one to win at Emperor level.
Well, I've never won at emperor, so that shut me up. 
Marx
Warlord
There are a several units that I build seldom:
*Fighters (I only use bombers, armors, mech infanteries and artilleries in modern age)
*Submarines (I`ve fought only one big sea-war in the ten years I play civ)
*Legions (I use a combination phallanxes and Chariotes.. (Chariots are faster, and have one attack point more) The weakest point are the costs of building Chariots.
*Fighters (I only use bombers, armors, mech infanteries and artilleries in modern age)
*Submarines (I`ve fought only one big sea-war in the ten years I play civ)
*Legions (I use a combination phallanxes and Chariotes.. (Chariots are faster, and have one attack point more) The weakest point are the costs of building Chariots.
Marx
Warlord
Battleships are nice ships.. I use them to hold my enemies on a continious attack... And in later times I send a couple of carriers loaded with bombers with this ships.. And the last step is sending my transports with landunits.. (Armors, Mech`s and sometime artilleries)
Cilpot
Pretentious Schmuck
Havent played Civ I in a while, but must say I never really built many horsemen. Simply because I didnt bother inventing Horseback Riding.. IIRC Horseback Riding did not lead to any new technologies, and thus I would stay clear of it..
Judge_Deadd
No, I'm not back
Horseback riding leads to chivalry, actually.
I'd say calvary. Thier attack strength is too weak to make an impact and they get killed easily. Knights and chariots flat-out outclass them.
It's not worth learning three more technologies to build a knight unit that has a measly one extra defense point.
It's not worth learning three more technologies to build a knight unit that has a measly one extra defense point.
Ace
Emperor
Right, a dead end. I have played many a game without researching those two advances. Just never needed them and since neither of them is a requirement for other advances, why bother unless your going for future tech.......
IIRC, the navy is more important in civ than in civ2. In civ2, most of the time you can just use transports and run them from coastal city to coastal city and ignore the warships. In 7 years of playing civ2, I have build exactly one carrier!! But in civ one I used to use them and battleships all the time. (yeah, I concede that 8 phalax will beat a battleship most of the time. just the odds in the lousy combat system. But it was fun blowing away those little guys until the "dice" came up snakeyes.
