Uniques Units: Some Seem Useless

[Ghpstage]

Is the quecha all that good on Monarch and above if surrounded by PRO civs (or Mansa or Hammi)?

Quenchas are certainly still good even if your not able to rush with them! They are extremely effective barb killers and they have an impressive economic side in that you can still build them till you get maces so they can perform very well with HR.

 

[capnvonbaron]

Don't they go away if you hook up a metal resource? ie as soon as bronze comes in you can only build axes/spears... works that way with every other civ anyways. In either case an axe is better, and axes+cover are way better than a quechua.

They kill barbs well, but with HC you're almost better off building the GWall if barbs are going to be a nuisance (1 GWall = about 7 quechuas... 4 quechuas if you have stone).

I guess in the worst case scenario where you have no metal and no stone and get beat to the GWall by someone (cough cough Qin) on a higher difficulty level, then yes HC is probably the best bet to have to beat back those annoying barb archers. Otherwise, still not that special IMO, especially since you will get eaten if you are neighbors with Alex, Monty, or anyone else with some extra axes they'd like to march over. HC seems to be unpopular with most civs for whatever reason

 

[Iranon]

You can still build warriors if you have bronze, provided you can't build spearmen or pikemen (if you avoid hunting and you really want garrison warriors you could disconnect your iron to make pikes unavailable).

Quechuas have a changed obsolescence date though - you also need Macemen before they become unavailable.

 

[mirthadir]

Don't they go away if you hook up a metal resource? ie as soon as bronze comes in you can only build axes/spears... works that way with every other civ anyways. In either case an axe is better, and axes+cover are way better than a quechua.

They kill barbs well, but with HC you're almost better off building the GWall if barbs are going to be a nuisance (1 GWall = about 7 quechuas... 4 quechuas if you have stone).

I guess in the worst case scenario where you have no metal and no stone and get beat to the GWall by someone (cough cough Qin) on a higher difficulty level, then yes HC is probably the best bet to have to beat back those annoying barb archers. Otherwise, still not that special IMO, especially since you will get eaten if you are neighbors with Alex, Monty, or anyone else with some extra axes they'd like to march over. HC seems to be unpopular with most civs for whatever reason

Grabbing the GW can come at the expense of settlers and say 10 cottages with that lovely FIN trait.

As importantly quecha make for extremely cheap and quick ways to take down barb cities. It is far quicker to get out quecha than to get swords or even axes.

And yes quecha are still good vs PRO civs and the like. Warriors are just so insanely cheap that even pro archers go down with 3 quecha.

The only place where I think quecha really struggle vs the AI is normal/fast speed deity; of course this is also where you stand to lose the GW and need the best anti-barb units with the least tech diversion to survive the barbs ... so I still think quechas rock on deity.

 

[EsaKo]

I'd like to point out that based on my limited experience (I play Noble regularly) most UUs aren't that good. Well, obviously they're (mostly...) better than their standard counterparts, but I value UBs and leader traits a lot more than UUs. I'm not going to dispute the effectiveness of praetorian/immortal butchery in the early game but apart from these special strategies, UUs seldom make the difference in warfare. Of course, if the odds against the enemy are pretty much even, having Reddies instead of Rifles or Samurai instead of Maces can help solidify your upcoming victory, but in my opinion, UUs are more like a small extra bonus than a game-altering superweapon (ignoring special pratorian/other UU strategies).

 

[vicawoo]

Most UBs aren't that good either.

 

[Traks]

Janissaries are bad. Not bad by themselves, but I got riflemen 10 turns later so made 6-8 Janissaries and then they became obsolete. On other hand, UB - Hammam rocks.

 

[Windsor]

Janissaries are bad. Not bad by themselves, but I got riflemen 10 turns later so made 6-8 Janissaries and then they became obsolete. On other hand, UB - Hammam rocks.

Riflemen are worse. Not bad by themselves, got I got infantry THE SAME TURN so I made 0 rifles since they became obsolete.

 

[EsaKo]

Most UBs aren't that good either.

Well if you ask me (you shouldn't, I'm pretty lousy) many UBs have a lot more potential, although as with UUs, none of them is a real game decider. The best ones in my opinion the ones that produce happyness [sic] such as hammam and ball court. They keep my empire running when everyone else is busy abolishing their slaves. Also, I've thought about CRE leader + Chinese pavilion unrestricted combination, as that would have a good potential for culture victory.

 

[azzaman333]

Well if you ask me (you shouldn't, I'm pretty lousy) many UBs have a lot more potential, although as with UUs, none of them is a real game decider. The best ones in my opinion the ones that produce happyness [sic] such as hammam and ball court. They keep my empire running when everyone else is busy abolishing their slaves. Also, I've thought about CRE leader + Chinese pavilion unrestricted combination, as that would have a good potential for culture victory.

Creative leaders are pretty lousy for Culture wins. PHI/FIN/IND are all much better.

 

[obsolete]

Well, as a rule of thumb perhaps. But Zara is pretty decent for culture, and he breaks all those points.

One thing that really gets me, is watching people get dealt leaders like Boudica or even Churchill, but yet decide to go after a culture win at the start.

Hahaha!

 

[catfish99]

siege > all UUs.

In any case, I don't usually play a civ because of its UU

I play traits, not UUs. I like to experiment with different play styles, and the UU is something that comes along with the deal. It will affect timing of my advance (targeting different research, and war planning) but the leader comes first.

 

[JTMacc99]

Well if you ask me (you shouldn't, I'm pretty lousy) many UBs have a lot more potential, although as with UUs, none of them is a real game decider. The best ones in my opinion the ones that produce happyness [sic] such as hammam and ball court. They keep my empire running when everyone else is busy abolishing their slaves. Also, I've thought about CRE leader + Chinese pavilion unrestricted combination, as that would have a good potential for culture victory.

The thing is, EsaKo, both UBs and UUs are not supposed to be game breakers. They're just flavor. If you play 20 games in a row as Egypt, in a few of those games, War Chariots will be the best part of the whole game. In other games, you won't even get horses. And there might even be a game or two when they would have been perfect, except your nearest neighbor is Shaka who decided to build nine million of his UU, which renders your UU practically worthless.

It's fun to debate which UU is great and which one is useless, but this game is far too complex for the little extra bonus you get from a UU to be THAT important in every game you play.

OH, and the other thing I meant to say, the usefulness of a UU does in fact vary with the difficulty level you are playing. The fact is, as you go higher up, strategies become different. What seems fairly unimportant at Prince or below becomes the tiny little advantage you need at Immortal.

 

[kosiosko 1]

Just used the UU hawcha? (Korean Catapult) for the first time,rarely use cats normally, no metal, so just archers but got cb1 as an event 10 exp vs barbs so all my archers have 6 promotions, promoted cats with first strikes 1-2 each

they just rock against swords, axe even pikes the AI has mostly promoted with cover, shock and city raider

just rolling up cities at a cost of 1-2 archers at most--- big problem is garrion captured cities and the fact its all goning to end with the apperence of horse archers. hope to find mace or pretts before then as i'm just pilling on exp

 

[EsaKo]

The thing is, EsaKo, both UBs and UUs are not supposed to be game breakers. They're just flavor. If you play 20 games in a row as Egypt, in a few of those games, War Chariots will be the best part of the whole game. In other games, you won't even get horses. And there might even be a game or two when they would have been perfect, except your nearest neighbor is Shaka who decided to build nine million of his UU, which renders your UU practically worthless.

It's fun to debate which UU is great and which one is useless, but this game is far too complex for the little extra bonus you get from a UU to be THAT important in every game you play.

OH, and the other thing I meant to say, the usefulness of a UU does in fact vary with the difficulty level you are playing. The fact is, as you go higher up, strategies become different. What seems fairly unimportant at Prince or below becomes the tiny little advantage you need at Immortal.

Well I know they're not supposed to be game breakers and that would be just plain silly. If it was so Immortals would be immortal and Cossacks would have not been nerfed that much . But that's my whole point really, people are arguing a lot about something that hasn't got such a big impact after all.

Sometimes UUs do make a great difference - I remember a very bloody encounter where an enemy stack composed of catapults and various melee units was not just damaged but ABSOLUTELY 100% PWNED by my Chu-Ko-Nu! Well, crossbowmen are awesome in many cases anyway but one's gotta love that collateral damage and added first strike. I've also had very good experiences about Hwacha, which, coincidentally, has a rather similar role to the Chuko as an anti melee weapon.

In many cases UUs have their own strategic elements associated with them, but most of them are just a bit improved versions of their base unit, a small bonus. And I don't think the UU period for any civ is a boom time as some people seem to think, apart from praet rushing and similar strategies.

The UBs, on the other hand, while certainly not game breakers either, are a lot more important factor when I'm choosing a civ to play. And what people say about UUs is true here: The good ones are those that come early. What good is that 2 free scientist lab since once you get there, you're already tickling the heels of Future Tech? On the other hand, I find monument UBs a little short-lived (correct me if I've misjudged them). The best UBs are the ones that support my strategy - happiness buildings to nullify non-emancipation (they wouldn't be as useful to the Emancipators among us) and general benefit - extra hammers, commerce, trade routes or promotions...

 

[CivMcNut]

One thing that has been touched upon but not really discussed is finding the resources for your unique unit. In the early game your empire is hopefully smaller than in the lategame, and finding resources with reduced land area can be troublesome sometimes.

I'm in the middle of a game with Persia where I didn't have horses in my 4 initial cities. I declared war on the Ottomans, and made quick work of them with swordsmen and axemen. They were like one of the largest empires, and got their horses, but by the time Immortals were available, there were already irrelevant as my new enemies were building macemen and war elephants, and horse archers were widespread. For me the Persian UU wasn't a big help that game. Maybe next game if I play the persians again I will have a very different outcome.

Sometimes units go obsolete too fast based on how you research the tech tree. I think a good unique unit is one you can use effectively pretty easy. I played like 6 games in a row with the Ottomans, and each game I found the Janissary to be a likeable unit to have. I'm sure there are other UUs I would enjoy, I imagine the redcoats would be pretty good after reading about them on here.

And yes! Cossacks were the bomb on Vanilla!

 

[UWHabs]

One thing that has been touched upon but not really discussed is finding the resources for your unique unit. In the early game your empire is hopefully smaller than in the lategame, and finding resources with reduced land area can be troublesome sometimes.

I'm in the middle of a game with Persia where I didn't have horses in my 4 initial cities. I declared war on the Ottomans, and made quick work of them with swordsmen and axemen. They were like one of the largest empires, and got their horses, but by the time Immortals were available, there were already irrelevant as my new enemies were building macemen and war elephants, and horse archers were widespread. For me the Persian UU wasn't a big help that game. Maybe next game if I play the persians again I will have a very different outcome.

Sometimes units go obsolete too fast based on how you research the tech tree. I think a good unique unit is one you can use effectively pretty easy. I played like 6 games in a row with the Ottomans, and each game I found the Janissary to be a likeable unit to have. I'm sure there are other UUs I would enjoy, I imagine the redcoats would be pretty good after reading about them on here.

And yes! Cossacks were the bomb on Vanilla!

And it all depends on the map and situation. I've played a game as the Romans where without Praets I would have been screwed. With them, I took out a protective neighbour, whose capital founded a religion, and was on a hill, without using catapults. I'd like to see you try that with anyone else.

But then, I had another game where I literally built 4 Praets the whole game, since I didn't need to hit my opponents (I built one blocker city, and from there could expand to 2/3 of my continent while 3 neighbours shared the other third). That game they were almost useless, and I could easily have gotten by without them.

 

[Traks]

I played like 6 games in a row with the Ottomans, and each game I found the Janissary to be a likeable unit to have. I'm sure there are other UUs I would enjoy, I imagine the redcoats would be pretty good after reading about them on here.

And yes! Cossacks were the bomb on Vanilla!

As I said, I got Infantry few turns later. So I am not valuing them highly.
Next time I will try some earlier units, maybe they will not become obsolete in 10 turns.

 

[ilikepies]

I don't usually play to a specific part of the civilization. Some civs have better UUs and UBs, some have better Traits, some are good with both. For example, as, say, Mehmed, I play more to traits (though Janissary is good), and as Charlemange I play all to UU and UB (because Protective is useless for him and Imperialistic synergizes with the UU and UB more than it does anything else), and as say, Genghis Khan, I do both (Agg/Imp plus super cavalry and 4 xp stables? count me in). It all depends. For Janissaries, if you obsolete them immediately its because of your specific tech path. They can last more or less as long as you are ahead in technology.

 

[mirthadir]

I don't usually play to a specific part of the civilization. Some civs have better UUs and UBs, some have better Traits, some are good with both. For example, as, say, Mehmed, I play more to traits (though Janissary is good), and as Charlemange I play all to UU and UB (because Protective is useless for him and Imperialistic synergizes with the UU and UB more than it does anything else), and as say, Genghis Khan, I do both (Agg/Imp plus super cavalry and 4 xp stables? count me in). It all depends. For Janissaries, if you obsolete them immediately its because of your specific tech path. They can last more or less as long as you are ahead in technology.

Pro actually syngerizes with the UU to a limited extent, cheap castles opened by engineering make for a nice economic boost; particularly if you go take some stone.
Further, you can eat an AI stack for lunch with pro LBs/XBs in a castled hill at the start of the war. It can be extremely handy to have easy CGIII/DI LBs running around with those nice Landsneckt/Treb armies.