azzaman333
meh
The Camel Archer removes 2 resource requirements, and has a bonus 15% withdrawal rate. That's not useless.
Uniques Units: Some Seem Useless
- Thread starter Sreyas73
- Start date
The Camel Archer removes 2 resource requirements, and has a bonus 15% withdrawal rate. That's not useless.
Bandobras Took
Emperor
My last game with Saladin, I built about 10 of them before realizing that I had completely forgotten to research Iron Working. 
Infantry#14
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,601
The Camel Archer removes 2 resource requirements, and has a bonus 15% withdrawal rate. That's not useless.
They got nerfed. They used to have 25% withdrawl chance pre BTS.
obsolete
Deity
You're right, it's not useless, it just sucks.
You'd better god damn capture a source of Horses with it quick (and Iron), or you're quickly left with a very expensive hored of obsolete units that can't even be upgraded, nor can you build their replacements.
No thank you. I have no intention on building a billion stables then having idle right in their prime.
John Edwards
Chieftain
It's worth pointing out, for the laugh value at least, that Camel Archers get targeted and rocked by Ballista Elephants. I'm just sayin'...
<edit> Although I should also add that I do like camel archers.
<edit> Although I should also add that I do like camel archers.
obsolete
Deity
LOL!
Yes, it did make me laugh at least too.
Yes, it did make me laugh at least too.
vicawoo
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 3,226
You can draft samurai. Wall argument still holds, though.
azzaman333
meh
That's more of a flaw with knights, than Camel Archers specifically.
Wait, were you addressing me or the guy I was quoting?I also bet that you will not see any of the AI stats from that point on and that you get mauled to no end by enemy spy activitiesThat or you play a level where things are settled to your side as soon as you get Natio....
P.S And don't forget the WW.....
Back on topic, I think the Phalanx deserves a mention in single player. Having one spearman in a stack of axes gives the same effect. Better would be a general bonus against mounted.
HanzooznaH
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2010
- Messages
- 25
I also dont care too much for the Holkan
this is flawed logic. To produce, lets say, 10 immortals in your empire at that particular point would cost you nearly 100% of your city building time for x ammount of turns. To produce 20-30 red coats as well as some siege at that time in the game would take slightly less (once you factor in the ability to draft and upgrade obsolete units), and in the same ammount of turns. I think redcoats come a very easy second in the list of best UU (to praets).
obsolete
Deity
Another issue, is that a single spear-man doesn't stop a dozen Reds in their tracks, like it does a dozen Immortals
Immortals are probably a poor example for comparison with later UUs because of their extreme nature. They can allow an almost casualty-less rush against easy targets... but War Chariots are superior even against archers as soon as those have some bonuses (like defending a hill city or having a Protective leader).
Unlike Immortals, War Chariots aren't beaten too badly by Spearmen: when adjusted for hammer costs it's comparable to Swordsman vs. Axeman (slightly worse in the field, slightly better against cities with some defense). Really quite acceptable considering War Chariots are fast and solidly beat anything else.
*
Late units have one problem: They need to measure up to the early-but-long-lived ones. Praetorians are the obvious example. You get them 2 techs into the game, you may keep building them as your main cleanup unit after cannons. Long past their prime, they still remain incredibly cost-effective as discount Macemen. Often enough, I'd rather have Praetorians during the Medieval/Reinaissance age than a perfectly useful unit of that time... e.g. Janissaries.
Something similar applies to many of the good UUs although it may not be as obvious. I enjoy Quechuas long after rushes are over. Being able to build cheap garrison units without jumping through hoops, having a few tag along as disposable mini-siege for softening up entrenched archers and for upgrading with conquest cash (not really efficient but we get a free promotion and we can get whatever we need) isn't gamebreaking but nice.
Wars involving Horse Archers or their UUs tend to focus on speed rather than avoiding casualties... hence, cost-effectiveness matters more than power. This also means that we need to ask ourselves whether a dozen Keshiks/Numidian Cavalry would really serve us better than a score or more of War Chariots (same total hammer cost... but of course you can build War Chariots earlier, meaning you could start your war with more if you make concessions elsewhere, and you may have conquered several cities already).
Oromos are probably the best example of a 'late' unit with a similar characteristic: They are quite good when you first get them and worth early gunpowder. Later, you can upgrade them to an army of highly-promoted Riflemen or directly to infantry (Oromos + Cannons are often more than good enough for their age depending on what your opponents have).
*
I wouldn't say that late UUs are necessarily the worst. Some can realistically be worse than useless - Dog Soldiers, Jaguar Warriors and Samurai can all deprive you of your best can opener (Jaguars if you have iron, the others if you have copper but no iron). I don't mind Jaguars and Samurai but frequently wish I could turn in Dog Soldiers.
Others are simply outclassed by their competitors. With only moderate terrain/city bonuses, Skirmishers do better even against melee units than Bowmen. How good either is against melee in the open is unlikely to matter if you have copper.
Ballista Elephants get a lot of mockery for being an often marginal upgrade to a unit that requires a rare resource. Worse, if you do have ivory it's hard to beat Hwachas... your siege does double duty as anti-melee, your high-powered cleanup unit as anti-mounted and both do just fine against archery units.
Carracks lack a mapscript that allows them to shine - Archipelago maps usually allow colonisation with galleys, and Terra maps can be treated as a small, crowded Pangaea where a unit that allows you to wtfrush your neighbours is better. If you have a lot of small continents unreachable by galleys, Carracks could be downright broken.
*
Your playstyle and AI quirks also matter. Quechuas wouldn't be nearly as effective if the AI reacted appropriately instead of mindless spamming archers to be slaughtered. Panzers wouldn't suck quite as badly if the AI liked tanks better.
If a unit is attractive because of promotions that stick, your attitude towards upgrading matters: Is it a welcome ability to convert gold in hammers without Universal Suffrage, or is it wasteful and you'd rather build new units from scratch?
Unlike Immortals, War Chariots aren't beaten too badly by Spearmen: when adjusted for hammer costs it's comparable to Swordsman vs. Axeman (slightly worse in the field, slightly better against cities with some defense). Really quite acceptable considering War Chariots are fast and solidly beat anything else.
*
Late units have one problem: They need to measure up to the early-but-long-lived ones. Praetorians are the obvious example. You get them 2 techs into the game, you may keep building them as your main cleanup unit after cannons. Long past their prime, they still remain incredibly cost-effective as discount Macemen. Often enough, I'd rather have Praetorians during the Medieval/Reinaissance age than a perfectly useful unit of that time... e.g. Janissaries.
Something similar applies to many of the good UUs although it may not be as obvious. I enjoy Quechuas long after rushes are over. Being able to build cheap garrison units without jumping through hoops, having a few tag along as disposable mini-siege for softening up entrenched archers and for upgrading with conquest cash (not really efficient but we get a free promotion and we can get whatever we need) isn't gamebreaking but nice.
Wars involving Horse Archers or their UUs tend to focus on speed rather than avoiding casualties... hence, cost-effectiveness matters more than power. This also means that we need to ask ourselves whether a dozen Keshiks/Numidian Cavalry would really serve us better than a score or more of War Chariots (same total hammer cost... but of course you can build War Chariots earlier, meaning you could start your war with more if you make concessions elsewhere, and you may have conquered several cities already).
Oromos are probably the best example of a 'late' unit with a similar characteristic: They are quite good when you first get them and worth early gunpowder. Later, you can upgrade them to an army of highly-promoted Riflemen or directly to infantry (Oromos + Cannons are often more than good enough for their age depending on what your opponents have).
*
I wouldn't say that late UUs are necessarily the worst. Some can realistically be worse than useless - Dog Soldiers, Jaguar Warriors and Samurai can all deprive you of your best can opener (Jaguars if you have iron, the others if you have copper but no iron). I don't mind Jaguars and Samurai but frequently wish I could turn in Dog Soldiers.
Others are simply outclassed by their competitors. With only moderate terrain/city bonuses, Skirmishers do better even against melee units than Bowmen. How good either is against melee in the open is unlikely to matter if you have copper.
Ballista Elephants get a lot of mockery for being an often marginal upgrade to a unit that requires a rare resource. Worse, if you do have ivory it's hard to beat Hwachas... your siege does double duty as anti-melee, your high-powered cleanup unit as anti-mounted and both do just fine against archery units.
Carracks lack a mapscript that allows them to shine - Archipelago maps usually allow colonisation with galleys, and Terra maps can be treated as a small, crowded Pangaea where a unit that allows you to wtfrush your neighbours is better. If you have a lot of small continents unreachable by galleys, Carracks could be downright broken.
*
Your playstyle and AI quirks also matter. Quechuas wouldn't be nearly as effective if the AI reacted appropriately instead of mindless spamming archers to be slaughtered. Panzers wouldn't suck quite as badly if the AI liked tanks better.
If a unit is attractive because of promotions that stick, your attitude towards upgrading matters: Is it a welcome ability to convert gold in hammers without Universal Suffrage, or is it wasteful and you'd rather build new units from scratch?
starmanbeta
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 53
Terra, Earth2, Perfectworld (if you've dowloaded it)
All of these allow you to use Carracks to get a jump on your opponents in colonizing the new world.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Another issue, is that a single spear-man doesn't stop a dozen Reds in their tracks, like it does a dozen Immortals
A spear is lucky if it stops more than 2 basic chariots. If you have 1 spear and 9 axes the last thing you want to see is 12 chariots that can hit you on flatland.
Without any real in depth analysis Ill just say I like
Praetorians, phalanxes (obviously), and I havent seen much love for cataphracts or conquistadors... as well as impiis, and SEALs.
the UUs come in a certain age - for example Inca is a powerhouse beginning game, spain in the middle ages, and America in the modern age. This was by design and we should play so that our civ's strengths compound during that era.
I dont enjoy carracks tho, and as for samurai take em or leave em
Praetorians, phalanxes (obviously), and I havent seen much love for cataphracts or conquistadors... as well as impiis, and SEALs.
the UUs come in a certain age - for example Inca is a powerhouse beginning game, spain in the middle ages, and America in the modern age. This was by design and we should play so that our civ's strengths compound during that era.
I dont enjoy carracks tho, and as for samurai take em or leave em
True, but a single spear in a walled city on a hill eats chariots like nothing else. I really don't have problems with flatland wars most of the time, its cracking the cities in an efficient manner that stymies most of my failed early wars.
capnvonbaron
Democratia gladii
siege > all UUs.
In any case, I don't usually play a civ because of its UU (unless, say, I want to try for a super-early conquest game with Cyrus, for example). Its nice to have and it might affect how I play that particular game, but the argument is somewhat moot because in all cases the UU tops the unit it replaces, and at least for me 90% of games I win are done so without a UU playing a direct part in the win. In 99% of my games, siege is what ensures the W.
Comparing a Jag to a Praet is comparing apples to orangatans, just as badly as comparing a quecha to a panzer. The Praet is only > if you have iron nearby... otherwise you may as well quit the game. If I was Monty or Zara or half a dozen other civs, no iron is only a minor setback. Anyone here wish to argue that Rome is a superior civ without its beloved Praets? Is the quecha all that good on Monarch and above if surrounded by PRO civs (or Mansa or Hammi)?
In any case, I don't usually play a civ because of its UU (unless, say, I want to try for a super-early conquest game with Cyrus, for example). Its nice to have and it might affect how I play that particular game, but the argument is somewhat moot because in all cases the UU tops the unit it replaces, and at least for me 90% of games I win are done so without a UU playing a direct part in the win. In 99% of my games, siege is what ensures the W.
Comparing a Jag to a Praet is comparing apples to orangatans, just as badly as comparing a quecha to a panzer. The Praet is only > if you have iron nearby... otherwise you may as well quit the game. If I was Monty or Zara or half a dozen other civs, no iron is only a minor setback. Anyone here wish to argue that Rome is a superior civ without its beloved Praets? Is the quecha all that good on Monarch and above if surrounded by PRO civs (or Mansa or Hammi)?
Similar threads
- Locked
