The WORST Unit!

[GoldBerg]

Okay, how about this. Computer Lcav starts walking on your developed land (around the outside edge) and plundering. ... ...

chariot attack on other AI (tribes) plundering Lcav unit (in lower levels)
or
buy the (barbarian) Lcav with a diplomat (in higher levels) ...?

 

[Craig_San]

I usually build roads on land before I irrigate. I can get my catapult out of my city and attack any unit in its zone with two thirds of the catapult attack. Two thirds of 6 is four, chariots only have attack four. If you are trying to attack a unit right outside your city then the catapult attacks with 6, the chariot still only attacks with 4.

Go the catapults! Charge!

 

[Craig_San]

I have changed my avatar in honour of the mighty all-conquering catapult!

 

[Zwelgje]

@Craig San
I gather from your tactics that you don't play at a high level, if you do: you probably never won a game.
At higher levels you need to encounter the enemy and destroy them as they are completely committed to destroying you. When you are on the same island it's impossible to let the other civ live as all your effort will go into defending your empire.
Also to expand, you need to clear the land from enemy units before you go in there with your settlers. Usually they are no match for legions, cavalry or chariots.

On-topic:
I think legions are the worst unit, I can't remember ever building one once I understood how to play and win civ.

 

[Pikachu]

I haven't played in at least five years, but I generally think the legion fits the bill of worse units. I'm sure there are more experienced etc. players who can outline why other units are worse for various details, but really, a 30 shield 3/1/1 unit available at around the same time (generally after, in my games) as a 40 shield 4/1/2 unit just cannot be justifiable in any circumstance.

Legion cost only 20 shields. You can build twice as many legions as chariots. That could be very useful if you start up close to a rivaling civ.

Two legions are stronger than one chariot, and more units reduce the chances of extreme bad luck. If I have done my calculations right you have about 11% chance of loosing two chariots against one fortified phalanx, while the chances of loosing four legions against one fortified phalanx are only about 3%.

In the beginning of a game you cannot afford to build many chariots anyway, so legions is an excellent option if you want to take out the rival as soon as possible.

But if there is no rival civ nearby it is not worth building legions and of course your legions have to be consumed before maintenance start to cost resources.

 

[Craig_San]

@Craig San
I gather from your tactics that you don't play at a high level, if you do: you probably never won a game.
At higher levels you need to encounter the enemy and destroy them as they are completely committed to destroying you. When you are on the same island it's impossible to let the other civ live as all your effort will go into defending your empire.
Also to expand, you need to clear the land from enemy units before you go in there with your settlers. Usually they are no match for legions, cavalry or chariots.

On-topic:
I think legions are the worst unit, I can't remember ever building one once I understood how to play and win civ.

Zwelgje,
Please don't misuderstand my last posting as a claim that you can win by sitting back and defending. It was a description of how the multi-talented catapult can be used in defence. (in response to a previous post)

I agree that the way to win is to expand and that even if the belligerance of your neighbour doesn't make it essential to anhiliate them. Your neighbour is usually a relatively easy conquest (as opposed to going half way around the world to attack someone). In any case, the mighty catapult is the right tool for the job and a herd of them strolling across the map is a comforting sight.

 

[searcheagle]

Ok, I'll admit it. I haven't played Civ I for years. I've upgraded and to be quite honest, I'm happy with that those so I have returned to Civ I. And possibly I am confusing versions of civ.

So, with the that disclaimer out of the way.

I've be looking over this post. And I'm confused by something. Why has someone NOT defended the fighter? The fighter has 14 moves (or something like that). The bomber which has a high attack value and after it attacks it is done with its turn.

However, the fighter has 14 turns and can ATTACK ON EACH AND EVERYONE OF THEM. And its attack is not limited just to attacks on bombers. THerefore, it can attack up to 14 units a turn.

When I played Civ I, I would use fighter to wipe out a tons of weak units. They can work wonders! How many other units can attack so units in one turn?

 

[Zwelgje]

I've be looking over this post. And I'm confused by something. Why has someone NOT defended the fighter? The fighter has 14 moves (or something like that). The bomber which has a high attack value and after it attacks it is done with its turn.

However, the fighter has 14 turns and can ATTACK ON EACH AND EVERYONE OF THEM. And its attack is not limited just to attacks on bombers. THerefore, it can attack up to 14 units a turn.

When I played Civ I, I would use fighter to wipe out a tons of weak units. They can work wonders! How many other units can attack so units in one turn?

You've missed this post in which Licentia tells why he likes fighters over bombers.

The computer doesn't build many bombers so you usually don't need them. What they are good for is killing enemy settlers or scientifically backward nations. They are cheaper than bombers and can wipe out a bunch of lcavs and chariots and almost any barbarian units that come your way, and the advantage is that they can attack over and over (Until they lost movement points), in case you have any of those huge barbarian attacks with like 8 cannons, they can wipe out half of them in one turn.

 

[searcheagle]

Oops I guess I did.

 

[Licentia]

Oops I guess I did.

For shame!

 

[Licentia]

I've changed my opinion on LCavs and Legions. Often in the game the AI would declare war on me because I didn't have as many units as them. I would usually win the wars because of superior tatics, not because I had more units. However, instead of working so early in the game on a 40 shield unit like Chariot or Catapult, I decided to build 1 LCav and 1 Legion along with my 3 Phalanx. Suprisingly to me, the AI Mongols left me alone, although they had conquered all of Asia and the Middle East, and I only had 4 cities. Then later when my cities had more production I upgraded to a Chariot and a Catapult. Submarines are still useless in my opinion, as are Frigates. I've never seen a need for Frigates, but I guess if you are conquering the world, they could come in handy. I usually get transports first or not long after though.

 

[bkwrm79]

Definitely Knights... dead-end tech, and not much better than Chariots. (I never build Knights in Civ II either.) For mid-game, I really wish I got to keep Cavalry instead! Half the cost, and what I really want is a fast cheap scout to complement my Musketman/Rifleman and Cannons. If it was possible to mod Civ I I'd have made Cavalry not expire until Mobile Warfare.

I love fighters, for the multiple attack capability. And if you've almost conquered the world and have enormous production abilities but can't research worth crap, 20 or 30 Fighters can sometimes take a city that has city walls. (Yeah. I still remember that game. One city left, but it had city walls, I just kept throwing Fighters and Cannon at it.)

I've been frustrated with Cruisers... I had some keeping an eye on things, on an Earth map. I was the Americans, the other big power was the Russians. A couple of my cruisers observed a Russian fleet of battleships escorting transports to Australia. I could do nothing! My cruisers just watched as Russian armor seized the whole continent. It was over before my expeditionary force was ready to leave port... cruisers are too weak to engage either battleships or armor, so I was helpless.

On the other hand, my battleships, transports, carrier, bombers and armor captured Australia back even faster than the Russians had taken it the first time. And once I did that, Delhi (in its historical location) defected from the Russians to me and I spent the rest of the game defending India against Russian attacks, until I built my spaceship.

 

[Zwelgje]

Cavalry is worthless IMHO.
OK, it's cheap and it's got 2 movementpoints. But when you discover another tech you can't attack, you need chariots to come in and do the job. For me cavalry and legions are in the same league: units never built. Why would you build such units when you can go for the real stuff. Same goes for subs and cruisers, why build them when you can have battleships, it's just a waste of shields (to build and for upkeep) and it makes the citizens unhappy.

 

[civ2]

There is NO such thing as bad units but there ARE bad PLAYERS!
But I also agree that Legions are quite stupid.
Actually I almost always play to be the first in advances and also switch to Democracy as soon as possible.
So I just research and build few Tanks and the game is mine!
It happened at least 10-12 times that I could defend my city with JUST one fortfied Phalanx against ANYTHING including Knights!!!
Sometimed even a Militia IS enough!!!
So I use those weak units only for regaining stability (happiness) in the city.
And only in the beginning.
And (for some strange reason which is a mistery to me) I NEVER use marine units except for loadable ones.
I wrote a lot in the Tactics threads.
On-topic: Legion; Knights; Submarine...

 

[Licentia]

Cavalry is worthless IMHO.
OK, it's cheap and it's got 2 movementpoints. But when you discover another tech you can't attack, you need chariots to come in and do the job. For me cavalry and legions are in the same league: units never built. Why would you build such units when you can go for the real stuff. Same goes for subs and cruisers, why build them when you can have battleships, it's just a waste of shields (to build and for upkeep) and it makes the citizens unhappy.

If you are playing for science though... LCav is fast to build, which could be the difference between the AI thinking you are strong or weak.

 

[EquinoxOmega]

I've only played CIV a few times with a friend before i got CIV2 but I also think that the legions are the worst units in the game.

 

[Zwelgje]

If you are playing for science though... LCav is fast to build, which could be the difference between the AI thinking you are strong or weak.

I doubt the AI looks at what kind of units you have, they look at the sheer number so with that tactic I'd go for building a lot of militia. Also better for keeping your citizens happy to have many militia in the towns. Not too many though. You don't want to hamper production.

 

[Marx]

Militia are very cheap (in means of shields) so they are very usefull to satisfy your first citizens. As my production is increasing I use this militia to explore the world.

 

[Licentia]

I doubt the AI looks at what kind of units you have, they look at the sheer number so with that tactic I'd go for building a lot of militia. Also better for keeping your citizens happy to have many militia in the towns. Not too many though. You don't want to hamper production.

Good point... I often wondered - in the past - how the AI calculates my strength. I think I might have seen occurances to the contrary though... This would be a good thing to test. Get tons of Militia and shut off the science research. Get as many militia as the strongest AI has of modern weapons and see what happens.

 

[punkbass2000]

AFAIK, actual unit strength has only been taken into account in a patch of Civ3, so I'd be very surprised if the AI does anything but count units in Civ2. In most games that would probably be a reasonable approach if the player is playing a level appropriate for their skill.