Unique Unit Elimination Thread

[Lyoncet]

Aha, I didn't realise Mongolia was considered DLC.

Yeah, it can be considered vanilla since it was released pretty quickly and for free, but Mongolia definitely fits in pretty well with the DLC civs in terms of power since non-vanilla civs tend to be near or at the top of the pack.

 

[Ciek]

-Ballista 12
-Companion cavalry 6
-Camel archer 18
-War elephant 20
-Mandekalu Cavalry 27
-Cossack 22
-Immortal 21
-Legion 28
-Foreign Legion 21
-Jaguar warrior 13
-Longbowman 29
-Naresuan elephant 24
-Chu-Ko-Nu 33
-Samurai 38
-Janissary 45

 

[Randall Turner]

You know, I've got to criticize this thread a little.

I was very impressed with the Civ elimination thread. I thought it gave a very good view of how effective civs really were.

This one? The results are just wonky unless you're looking at it from an early-game only perspective.

I spend most of my time at war Industrial and later. (I intentionally avoid early wins.) When you do that, the units that impress (even given early-game units maintaining their unique abilities after upgrading) are the units that went out early.

Panzers are a (Edit: female doggie), upgraded Modern Armor Panzers with mature promotions are defense-crackers. Two or three will dominate a front.

Zeros? To be honest, I didn't even realize the optimal promotion sequence for fighters until just recently. Zeros, with double-intercept and sortie, can shut down your airforce over an entire front. There's really no reason to build SAM's if you're Japan.

The American units, ie, B-17's upgraded to Stealths and Minutemen upgraded to Mech Infantry, are twice as effective as an equal number of "baseline" units. Particularly the B-17's, they're so cheap to get to x2 attack and nearly invulnerable to interception. They also combine well - a fast-moving terrain ignoring ex-Minuteman Mech Infantry is a wonderful spotter for airstrikes.

That these four units were some of the first to get eliminated is just wrong. And that the Minutemen lasted the longest of the bunch makes it worse. I had to do it again, I'd rate B-17's and Panzers as some of the best UU's in the game.

Disclaimer: I down-voted the Zeros early too, btw. I'm now getting a "lesson" from Nobunaga as to why they should be more feared than their Samurai compatriots.

 

[Sparthage]

Randall, I agree. I however, usually am able to deprive my foes of Oil before they can build the Zeroes. They are useful if you have to fight enemies with fighters, but are otherwise fairly useless. To try and get experience with late-game warfare, I've been playing a lot of Industrial Age starts on Deity recently and am having a blast with Panzers and with the Russians' double-Uranium UA.

 

[Randall Turner]

Randall, I agree. I however, usually am able to deprive my foes of Oil before they can build the Zeroes. They are useful if you have to fight enemies with fighters, but are otherwise fairly useless. To try and get experience with late-game warfare, I've been playing a lot of Industrial Age starts on Deity recently and am having a blast with Panzers and with the Russians' double-Uranium UA.

They're only effective against fighters directly, but they have an indirect bonus against bombers.

A range-upgraded Jet Fighter can cover a 25-hex swath when set on "intercept". Again - I see no reason to build other than the occasional SAM as Japan. So - The ONLY way to clear this out and allow your bombers through unmolested is to "sweep". It just doesn't work against Zeros. All you do is lose a bunch of expensive fighters. (I've got some specialized purpose-promoted fighter units dedicated to trying to do sweeps, works great against everyone else, marginally successful if fully buffed up against Japan.)

Aside - your mention of the Rooskie x2 Uranium implies nuclear weapons. Nukes dominate vanilla late-game strategy. If you want to have any sort of late-game conventional war fun, you have to do something about the nukes. (But that's a different issue...)

Edit: oil-starvation - well, that's true, and it (along w/alum starvation) is the way to crack a Zero-Jet defense, but the same can be said for any resource-using unit.

 

[cccv]

-Ballista 12
-Companion cavalry 6
-Camel archer 19
-War elephant 20
-Mandekalu Cavalry 27
-Cossack 22
-Immortal 21
-Legion 28
-Foreign Legion 21
-Jaguar warrior 11
-Longbowman 29
-Naresuan elephant 24
-Chu-Ko-Nu 33
-Samurai 38
-Janissary 45

hit jags, heal camel archers

 

[Sparthage]

Aside - your mention of the Rooskie x2 Uranium implies nuclear weapons. Nukes dominate vanilla late-game strategy. If you want to have any sort of late-game conventional war fun, you have to do something about the nukes. (But that's a different issue...)

I actually try to avoid nukes, but will build them if the AI finishes their own Manhattan Project. I like me some good GDRs.

 

[Randall Turner]

I actually try to avoid nukes, but will build them if the AI finishes their own Manhattan Project. I like me some good GDRs.

Yep, plus, let's face it, the GDR animation is just cool.

I'd rate a promoted Stealth as better than a GDR, by the way. Mostly because of flexibility - the GDR takes forever to get anywhere, the Stealth's can attack 2x a turn from the other continent.

Edit: and as I've noted elsewhere, I've edited Nuke resource requirements so that each country only has 1-2 stockpiled. Still dominates strategy and placement tactics, btw. (Don't bunch up!)

 

[TPQ]

-Ballista 12
-Companion cavalry 6
-Camel archer 19
-War elephant 20
-Mandekalu Cavalry 27
-Cossack 22
-Immortal 21
-Legion 28
-Foreign Legion 21
-Jaguar warrior 11
-Longbowman 27 (-2)
-Naresuan elephant 25 (+1)
-Chu-Ko-Nu 33
-Samurai 38
-Janissary 45

 

[Ciek]

Randall, every time you post, it makes me at least try to enjoy late game combat more, but in all honesty I can't give a good analysis on late game units because at that point I'm actually just trying to finish the game as soon as possible, because I find the late game in civ V just downright annoying at best and torturous at the worst. And I try to stay out of late game war mostly because of the chance that one of my enemies will suck the fun out of the game by nuking my army and nuking his army which was right next to mine , or just nuking one of my cities, or at least in one fun game where I had captured an enemy city-state ally, he then proceeded to nuke it, and then for peace I gave it back to him , and that was at immortal or emperor even, (i don't remember which) and since the last patch too.

My opinion here is very honestly biased towards all of this, but I never have understood why so many people hate the Panzer (or in general cavalry upgrade class units), they work fine in actual combat where you're killing more units than you are taking cities, you can easily use tanks to take down units that have already been weakened by your infantry or artillery, it just seems that people want them to be fast moving infantry units.

Regarding aircraft, i have to be honest I've only built the B17 in a few games, and I have only had rare chance where I've actually let the game continue into the industrial as Japan .

In summation I just simply get annoyed by many aspects of the late game in Civ V, which for me is eerily reminiscent of Civ IV warlords or vanilla, Civ V needs a rehaul of the late game akin to BtS for me to find it enjoyable. But in striking contrast I find Civ V far more enjoyable in the early to mid game compared to previous civ titles IV and even III. In BtS when I get assembly line/railroad and start mass industrialization, I say to myself "Oh! Now the real fun can begin!!!" in Civ IV i say "Well.. let's finish this up quickly, the enemy will have nukes soon" and the standard city build up doesn't seem to change much. But ultimately this is all subjective to my experiences.

And just to be clear, I respect the way you play Randall, and indeed many times I've read your posts and said to myself "Wow, that sounds like fun, maybe I'll try that in my next game" but ultimately I find myself playing huge marathon games as China, Spain, Denmark, Greece, or England, and massing myself huge overseas empires and then winning the game either by science(less common) or domination in the industrial era. I just don't seem to have the patience to hold off on attacking it seems.

 

[vexing]

-Ballista 12
-Companion cavalry 6
-Camel archer 19
-War elephant 20
-Mandekalu Cavalry 27
-Cossack 22
-Immortal 21
-Legion 28
-Foreign Legion 21
-Jaguar warrior 12
-Longbowman 27
-Naresuan elephant 25
-Chu-Ko-Nu 31
-Samurai 38
-Janissary 45

 

[Randall Turner]

Ciek, I also think that the designers didn't put as much "love" into balancing the late game as they did the early game. I totally understand where you're coming from.

I made a thread about some late game unit modifications, and mentioned to someone who said "good job" that no, really they were just obvious things the designers should have caught.

The only reason I got into late-game conflicts in the first place is that I'm essentially a builder, ie, a "peaceful" playstyle, even though I mostly play Songhai. At the end, though, I want to use my "toys". It was initially very, very frustrating, for many of the reasons you mention and more.

After finally addressing the most egregious of the late-game imbalances though, there are some very "fun" things.

First of all, the unit interactions are much more complex. Setting up a sound air-defense system is in and of itself a rewarding challenge, and you have to treat a fluid naval air-defense system completely different than you do a land-based one.

Second, you (and the AI) can support much larger armies, you have so many more units to play with.

Third, you interact with everyone, on every continent. (I mostly play continents now.)

And finally, you can have a fun war, sit back for 20-30 turns, and voila! the AI will completely rebuild their armies, and you can go at it again!

Nerfing nukes is a "must".

Huge downside == takes a lot of time. Totally agree with you there. (Actually, I agree with you on pretty much everything you said.)

Frankly, I'm finally about burnt out on Civ 5 now, I think this current game I'm playing might be my last, maybe time to go check out "Pride of Nations". It's a shame, really, I just figured out how to tactically employ many of the late-game units properly.

 

[aatami]

-Ballista 12
-Companion cavalry 6
-Camel archer 20
-War elephant 20
-Mandekalu Cavalry 27
-Cossack 22
-Immortal 21
-Legion 28
-Foreign Legion 21
-Jaguar warrior 12
-Longbowman 27
-Naresuan elephant 25
-Chu-Ko-Nu 31
-Samurai 38
-Janissary 43

 

[elprofesor]

-Ballista 12
-Companion cavalry 6
-Camel archer 20
-War elephant 20
-Mandekalu Cavalry 27
-Cossack 22
-Immortal 21
-Legion 28
-Foreign Legion 21
-Jaguar warrior 13
-Longbowman 27
-Naresuan elephant 25
-Chu-Ko-Nu 31
-Samurai 36
-Janissary 43

 

[lordsurya08]

-Ballista 12
-Companion cavalry 6
-Camel archer 20
-War elephant 20
-Mandekalu Cavalry 27
-Cossack 22
-Immortal 21
-Legion 28
-Foreign Legion 21
-Jaguar warrior 13
-Longbowman 27
-Naresuan elephant 25
-Chu-Ko-Nu 31
-Samurai 36
-Janissary 44

 

[Lyoncet]

I think where your (Randall's, that is) experience differs from most players is that IMO, most people here are voting based on how much leverage they get out of a unit, not based on how good the unit is. Let me explain the difference, since that sounds like splitting the hair pretty fine. There are some units (B-17, especially upgraded to Stealth Bomber), Panzer, etc. that are excellent units; Panzers IMO are one of the best UUs out there if measured by how much better than the base unit they are, and how good they are at what they do. However, since most people play on ancient starts, and since a small advantage on turn 100 can snowball into an insurmountable lead by turn 250, you're probably going to get a lot more out of a smaller advantage, but one that comes 150 turns earlier (or 200-300 turns if you're talking something like Jaguars or Immortals). And of course a lot of those UUs will be upgraded into stellar mech infantry later too, so even though you're not building more, you're still leveraging the unit for most of if not all of the game.

So I agree that some late UUs are pretty damn good, even stellar, but I'd ascribe them lesser value just because I always play ancient starts, and in those games, I'll get more value out of earlier but also very good UUs than I'll get from a better unit that I can't use until my victory is all but assured anyways (or, in some cases, until I've already won). So they basically come down to "win more" units in that if I've played well, those units may shave a few turns off my victory, but they're never going to win any games for me like, say, Mandekalu Cavalry will.

Anyways, point is, I think it's mostly* a good representation of how much use people get from the units if not a "which UU is the biggest upgrade over its base unit," which I don't think it should be.


*This is obviously not entirely true, as evidenced by people who vote down Janissaries when War Chariots are still on the list to make things more fair (I assume). I'm not knocking anyone's vote or opinion, since they're certainly entitled to them, but it makes me believe that not quite everyone is using the same set of criteria for their votes.

 

[vexing]

these votes (and the end results) only slightly relate to how powerful the things are.

 

[sabs050]

-Ballista 12
-Companion cavalry 4
-Camel archer 20
-War elephant 20
-Mandekalu Cavalry 27
-Cossack 23
-Immortal 21
-Legion 28
-Foreign Legion 21
-Jaguar warrior 13
-Longbowman 27
-Naresuan elephant 25
-Chu-Ko-Nu 31
-Samurai 36
-Janissary 44

 

[MadDjinn]

-Ballista 10 -2
-Companion cavalry 4
-Camel archer 20
-War elephant 20
-Mandekalu Cavalry 27
-Cossack 23
-Immortal 22 +1
-Legion 28
-Foreign Legion 21
-Jaguar warrior 13
-Longbowman 27
-Naresuan elephant 25
-Chu-Ko-Nu 31
-Samurai 36
-Janissary 44

take that ballista!

 

[Randall Turner]

I think where your (Randall's, that is) experience differs from most players is that IMO, most people here are voting based on how much leverage they get out of a unit, not based on how good the unit is.

We're saying the same thing. ie, I said that many people don't even get to the point where they're using the later unique units. Whereas, I typically play far into the Industrial age or later.

I get massive benefits from Mandekalu Cavalry, for instance. But, I don't stop the game there (though I could**) - so I also have a visceral feel for how good the later units are, while a person who votes down Panzers or Zeros (and their upgraded successors) just hasn't had the opportunity to get raped by them because of their play style.

Understand that what you're saying amounts to many people voting out of ignorance. It's also bundling "civ effectiveness" into "unit effectiveness", because regardless of how many Germanophiles whine about their favorite civ, it's much harder for Washington to survive into the late game than it is for Germany.

** - I had to make a house rule against Mandekalu Cavalry rushes, or all my games would end in the Renaissance era.