the worst unit's.

[luke2345]

warior's are the worst because anybody can kill them

 

[luke2345]

someone vote right now

 

[Duckboy7]

Obviousely Its Warriors

 

[Ace]

The Warrior is one of the most useful units in the game! It is the only 10 shield cost unit. When you want to partially rush buy or incrementally partial rush buy a unit, the warrior is the ONLY unit you can use to buy just one row of shields. In addition, it is a cheap unit to use for early exploration and martial law in cities. With the acquisition of Leo's, warriors can be upgraded to riflemen giving one a 40 shield unit for the original 10 shield cost.

The Legion is the worst unit for its cost on your list. Its expensive, can't move any faster than a warrior and has the same defense factor as a phanlax for twice the cost.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

someone vote right now

Yes, SIR!

I voted for the Legion. I never use them.

 

[Magic_gorter]

The Warrior is one of the most useful units in the game! It is the only 10 shield cost unit. When you want to partially rush buy or incrementally partial rush buy a unit, the warrior is the ONLY unit you can use to buy just one row of shields. In addition, it is a cheap unit to use for early exploration and martial law in cities. With the acquisition of Leo's, warriors can be upgraded to riflemen giving one a 40 shield unit for the original 10 shield cost.

The Legion is the worst unit for its cost on your list. Its expensive, can't move any faster than a warrior and has the same defense factor as a phanlax for twice the cost.

I totally agree....

Of the 4 units the legion is the one I never build. As Ace mentioned a warrior is a creat unit for early exploration and yes it can be beaten easily (but fortified on a river mountian it's not that easy anymore). It's even possible to win (at all levels) with only warriors (as Peaster and I found out more then a year ago).....who need other unit....

 

[Peaster]

I agree with the previous 3 posts. Legions are overpaid phalanxes. They rarely get to attack because of their slow movement. If Archers had been on the list, they'd also be near the bottom.

 

[luke2345]

explorers are bad to

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Now that I must disagree with. What other unit, so early in the game, gets to move 3 spaces regardless of terrain? They get to ignore ZoC, go off and on a ship on the same turn (very handy for popping a hut in the arctic regions!), and enemies tend to not bother killing them.

 

[Ace]

explorers are bad to

V. D'UR is correct. Used properly, almost every unit in Civ2 has a purpose. If you really want to get the most out of this game, you need to learn and understand the special abilities of each unit, not just look at its combat factors.

 

[Peaster]

I've seen some amazingly fast conquest games based on popping huts with a few fast explorers. With decent luck, you get tons of gold and advances and advanced tribes, before you pop barbs. And even then, the barbs may actually help you against the AIs. Explorers are one of my faves on a large land mass.

They are also great for "diplo-guiding" and for entering empty AI cities.

 

[jonel1111]

diplo-guiding. That's a use that I hadn't thought of. Thank you Peaster.

jonel1111

 

[luke2345]

V. D'UR is correct. Used properly, almost every unit in Civ2 has a purpose. If you really want to get the most out of this game, you need to learn and understand the special abilities of each unit, not just look at its combat factors.

even legion's.

 

[Ace]

even legion's.

Yes, even Legions. They do make excellent counter-attack units in your cities if you are approached by barbs or AI units. But they are too expensive for their usefulness. Elephants or Crusaders are better with their two movement factor, or Knights, which cost the same as a legion and have the same combat factors, but do move two hexes too. Why spent 40 shields for a legion when you can get a Knight and an extra movement point? I have not actually built a Legion this century, but I am not above using one if it pops out of a hut or comes with a city I have bribed.

In Civ2, defense is a losing proposition. Attack and outmanovering the AI is the way to victory. Timing is also a key factor. For example, the Elephant and Knight are great attack units, but both are superceded rather quickly by Dragoons and Crusaders. And Mech Inf, Tanks, and Howitzers are great units, but by the time they become available, the AI should be reduced to one pet city, so they never really get into the game, ditto with stealth fighters and bombers.

"worst unit..." is a relative term. Every unit in the game has a use and for its "time period" in the game, maybe the best unit available. Also, many of the units are "specialist" units that have a particular and unique function, like Marines, Paratroopers and Nuc missiles. And by having so many units in the game, it increases the game's appeal to more players.

 

[Peaster]

I agree with Ace, but go a step further vs legions. When I get them from huts, I usually disband them for 20 shields towards a more useful unit, such as a Settler. Since they can't move very fast, they are only useful in defending a small area, and as Ace said, you really don't want to defend anyway. The only reason I can think of to keep them is that they can help you get tribute from the AI (who consider them to be as scary as elephants and knights).

 

[mpescatori]

I have long ago edited my "rules.txt" and "units.gif" files, and corrected the "mistake" of having too many units/improvements requiring a build cost of 50 or 100 shields. Most units/improvements will cost a multiple of 20, thus allowing for less "waste" of shields during construction.
(i.e., if a unit costs 50, and my production per turn is 6, 7, 8, 9 shields, I have a huge waste factor because I will gradually stack 48, 49 shields and still require one more turn for completion)

In editing my "cost to produce", I have also edited the military efficiency of fighting units, so that the phalanx is (as was) actualy stronger than the pikemen, horsemen are light cavalry and move 3spaces_x_turn, see two squares, and work as light cavalry should - as scouts and to "poke" and "tease" the enemy's flanks.

Warriors upgrade to pikemen who upgrade to musketeers, but phalanx stay and will only upgrade to riflemen when all infantry upgrade to riflemen.
Similarly, chariot upgrade to elephant (although this is a historical mistake, as the two are contemporary) who upgrade to crusaders who upgrade to knights, but it is only when l;eadership is discovered that light horsemen upgrade to dragoons along with everyone else.

Partisans being citizens in arms, they have been converted to "settlers in arms", i.e. they will build roads, found new cities AMD still be able to defend themselves from enemy attack (their defensive posture having been edited to be better than their attacking posture) This means that I can exploit partisans to fortify around a city I have recently lost, in order to recapture it (I generally buy it back, unless the occupying civ has democracy)

Partisans, alpine troops and explorers can all move 3 squares (meaning, all squares count as road) while spies actually move three squares PLUS I have checked the "explorer" box so in the end the actually move a maximum of nine squares per turn. This is to allow them to "pop up unexpectedly" deep into enemy territory.

I only wish I could load diplomats and spies onto a submarine...

Most useless unit ? Nuclear missile, it creates havoc in your own cities if you have democracy and if you inadvertently build the Manhattan Project one then everybody more or less can build one !!!

 

[luke2345]

I have long ago edited my "rules.txt" and "units.gif" files, and corrected the "mistake" of having too many units/improvements requiring a build cost of 50 or 100 shields. Most units/improvements will cost a multiple of 20, thus allowing for less "waste" of shields during construction.
(i.e., if a unit costs 50, and my production per turn is 6, 7, 8, 9 shields, I have a huge waste factor because I will gradually stack 48, 49 shields and still require one more turn for completion)

In editing my "cost to produce", I have also edited the military efficiency of fighting units, so that the phalanx is (as was) actualy stronger than the pikemen, horsemen are light cavalry and move 3spaces_x_turn, see two squares, and work as light cavalry should - as scouts and to "poke" and "tease" the enemy's flanks.

Warriors upgrade to pikemen who upgrade to musketeers, but phalanx stay and will only upgrade to riflemen when all infantry upgrade to riflemen.
Similarly, chariot upgrade to elephant (although this is a historical mistake, as the two are contemporary) who upgrade to crusaders who upgrade to knights, but it is only when l;eadership is discovered that light horsemen upgrade to dragoons along with everyone else.

Partisans being citizens in arms, they have been converted to "settlers in arms", i.e. they will build roads, found new cities AMD still be able to defend themselves from enemy attack (their defensive posture having been edited to be better than their attacking posture) This means that I can exploit partisans to fortify around a city I have recently lost, in order to recapture it (I generally buy it back, unless the occupying civ has democracy)

Partisans, alpine troops and explorers can all move 3 squares (meaning, all squares count as road) while spies actually move three squares PLUS I have checked the "explorer" box so in the end the actually move a maximum of nine squares per turn. This is to allow them to "pop up unexpectedly" deep into enemy territory.

I only wish I could load diplomats and spies onto a submarine...

Most useless unit ? Nuclear missile, it creates havoc in your own cities if you have democracy and if you inadvertently build the Manhattan Project one then everybody more or less can build one !!!

no it's the best unit ever because it can destroy all the unit's in a city and with a armor
nearby you can capture that city

 

[rrhal]

Warriors are one of the best units in the game. For the cost of one phalanx/Horseman you get 2 units with a total of two offense and two defense, will always explore two squares no matter what the terrain, keep one more citizen happy in an early Deity game.

 

[luke2345]

the battle's in civ 2 go like this, a archer attaks a warrior fortify on a plain, the archer has a attak of
3 and the warrior will defend at 1.5 so for every hit the warrior does to the archer the archer will do 2
and the archer is stronger so it does more damage for each hit it get's so you can waste your time trying to defend agant's a archer or get an archer to kill the other archer

 

[Duckboy7]

I got to tell you if you put a fortress on a mountain and put about 10 or 20 warriors in it i will almost be inpossible to atttack and kill em