Units that you almost never build

[Solomwi]

3. What size map do you play? The bigger it gets, the longer even blitz wars take. I typically play huge maps, which may color my views a bit. Aside from that, you're ignoring other methods of waging war. Do you ever put an early choke on an enemy? Furthermore, you're ignoring the main benefit of keeping control here: not avoiding the rebuilding of workboats (that's trivial in most cases), but being able to keep working those tiles, not matter what.

4. The point is that skillful use of a navy increases your relative production on an ongoing basis. If you build no fleet, the AI doesn't have to keep pouring hammers into his, and your shiny cannons are now facing his new shiny cavalry, the hammers for which could have gone into another frigate for you to sink.

 

[Siesta Guru]

3. What size map do you play? The bigger it gets, the longer even blitz wars take. I typically play huge maps, which may color my views a bit. Aside from that, you're ignoring other methods of waging war. Do you ever put an early choke on an enemy? Furthermore, you're ignoring the main benefit of keeping control here: not avoiding the rebuilding of workboats (that's trivial in most cases), but being able to keep working those tiles, not matter what.

4. The point is that skillful use of a navy increases your relative production on an ongoing basis. If you build no fleet, the AI doesn't have to keep pouring hammers into his, and your shiny cannons are now facing his new shiny cavalry, the hammers for which could have gone into another frigate for you to sink.

3. Usually standard sized maps (continents, hemispheres, fractal or terra). Im ignoring other methods of war because theyve proven to be less effective, a war of attrition generally seems to hurt me more then the opponent. Im horrible at open field fights since the colleteral damage is so important for me in fights and the ai usually sends in a few small stacks instead of 1 or 2 big ones. In attrition wars my lands get pillaged and I suffer from war weariness alot, sure it hurts him too but im not going into war to hurt myself, i want become stronger by war.
Working boats only provide extra food, while food is nice this isnt needed much during modern wartime (it is when whipping alot), hammers are way more important. I can live with a few citys losing 1 or 2 pop points during war if it means the war is easier.

Ive used the warrior/archer choke a few times and it feels kindda lame, its on the edge of exploiting a bug and it isnt that good either on monarch (my difficulty level), a simple warrior rush with 6 warriors might cost alot more hammers then a 3 warrior choke initially but you odnt get the reward instantly (a new capital) and warriors tend to die.

4. Its only changing the relative production during wartime, and the wartime is way too short when blitzing to make it worthwhile.
Some random numbers to back-up my point:

Spendings using my strat:
My spendings: If you dont have a navy youll spend 0 on a navy, youll lose a few workboats, lets assume 5. Thats 150 .

Enemys spendings: The enemy usually has around 8 frigates on the ocean, thats 720 .

The enemy spends 720 - 150 = 570 more.

Spendings using your strat while having the same tech level:

Your spendings: Youll need 8 frigates to kill the enemys 8 frigates + around 8 to be sure your able to kill them all and keep some extras, to kill the frigates the enmy is building, thats 16 frigates. Which is 1440 , lets assume your also able to destroy 5 workboats, youll have to rebuild these after youve won so thats another 150 . Totalling 1590 .

The enemy has has 8 frigates at the start and manages to build another 5 during the war thats 13 frigates or 1170 .

The enemy spends 1190 - 1590 = -400 more, or 400 less


Having approx the same techs and using some weird numbers that means the total hammer difference is 970 in favor of my strat.
The numbers could have been better and your left with some frigates but you should get the point. In addition, if you lose 1 and your direct enemy loses 1 you should feel bad since your not dealing with just 1 enemy, you might be equal with your direct enemy but your losing against all others which is bad, and your not spending much without navy while you are with no matter how much it costs the enemy.

Obviously the difference is much less when your using subs, but i dont have accurate numbers on those since i never use them Feel free to correct me if it makes such a major difference that it suddenly tips the scale alot in your strats favor.

 

[Solomwi]

3. My point with the choke was merely that there are multiple viable ways to wage war, and the usefulness of each depends on your war aims and the amount of investment you can/want to make for the war. Wars of attrition, for instance, can be great if you can properly set up killing zones. Let the AI pour troops into your land. Kill them before they have a chance to pillage much. You can eliminate his offensive capability without incurring any war weariness, and get double GG points to boot if you have the Great Wall. You can also choose the terms of battle before the war ever begins, and if a few tiles get pillaged, no big deal. That's what you have workers for.

If I've got an overseas enemy whose land I don't really care about taking, but who I want to ****** a bit, I can cheaply wage war by blockading his coastal cities. It won't eliminate him from the game, but it can eliminate him as a threat to win. I don't even have to destroy his workboats, since he can't use them with me blockading, which means if I eventually do decide to go take his cities, I don't have to replace the workboats.

4. You still seem to be missing the point of the hammer advantage. If you build 16 frigates to destroy his 8-13 frigates, you haven't used your navy to gain hammer advantage in the sense I meant at all. Attack subs are the best example of this ploy precisely because you can get them to 80% withdrawal chance. Build 10 of them (3 wolfpacks of 3 each, and one medic to lie offshore and receive/heal wounded subs). I don't have the numbers handy, so I'll make some up just to illustrate the point. If each sub costs 150 hammers, which means you've invested 1500 hammers. Because of the withdrawal chances, your investment stays right around 1500 hammers. With those 1500 hammers judiciously deployed, you can tie up an immense amount of enemy production by sinking battleships, destroyers and transports, because the AI will continue replacing them, while your original attack subs retreat, lick their wounds, then move in to fight again. What makes it work is that your investment is somewhat static and can be made entirely during peacetime, while your enemy's investment is ongoing and must be made during hostilities, when he'd rather be using that production for something more beneficial.

I know this post is incomplete, but I've got to get over to my stepson's school to pick him up. I'll try to fill in the holes later.

 

[Siesta Guru]

So what your basicly saying is that you like to be in war for hunderds of turns, suffering war weariness, less trade, bad diplo modifiers and hammer investments into ships just to let a ai waste hammers? You gain power against this one enemy, but youre probably fighting more then one enemy (especially on your huge maps) and youll be worse off?

Or am I missing the point again?

I hope I am since it sounds like a fun way to wage war.

 

[war_mchine]

Machine guns. My armies are almost always constructed for attack and I try to meet oncoming raid stacks in the open field... but despereate times call for desperate measures.

 

[Solomwi]

So what your basicly saying is that you like to be in war for hunderds of turns, suffering war weariness, less trade, bad diplo modifiers and hammer investments into ships just to let a ai waste hammers? You gain power against this one enemy, but youre probably fighting more then one enemy (especially on your huge maps) and youll be worse off?

Or am I missing the point again?

I hope I am since it sounds like a fun way to wage war.

Don't worry; it appears you are.

1. It doesn't require "hundreds" of turns to be effective. In fact, on huge maps at least, it's quite effective in conjunction with a blitz approach, since it ties up resources that otherwise would have been used for land forces to counter your blitz, and that blitz is going to take more than a couple of turns to make its way through the countryside.

2. The diplo modifiers with other civs are no worse than for a blitz war, and those with the enemy due to "This war spoils" go away after the war. Until then, who cares about the enemy's attitude? Also, you aren't razing any cities, so you avoid that penalty.

3. The war weariness in that kind of limited war is easily manageable, since (a) you're only attacking a few times in a given turn, and (b) you're only attacking when a target presents itself, which isn't every turn. You'll rack up far more WW in the first few turns of a land war on enemy ground than in the entirety of this kind of naval operation. By the time you're using attack subs, you should have Mt. Rushmore up and widespread jails, anyway. Before that point, it's not as viable an option, since there's no naval unit you can get to 80% withdrawal chance.

4. If you're fighting more than one enemy, it's a great way to hold Enemy A at bay while you focus on Enemy B, thereby allowing you to tackle the more immediate threat first. It makes Enemy A irrelevant militarily, since he can't get troops to you or to his ally's aid, and hurts him economically, if you use ships to blockade his cities and deny him both overseas trade routes and access to coastal tiles. If both enemies are on your continent, it's still that many fewer land units Enemy A can field against you, whether in defense or on the attack.

5. Were you getting much trade out of your enemy during/after the blitz war?

6. It can be fun. A low-cost, low-maintenance war that has the potential to cripple an enemy with relatively little impact on me is a situation I typically enjoy.

 

[Siesta Guru]

Don't worry; it appears you are.

1. It doesn't require "hundreds" of turns to be effective. In fact, on huge maps at least, it's quite effective in conjunction with a blitz approach, since it ties up resources that otherwise would have been used for land forces to counter your blitz, and that blitz is going to take more than a couple of turns to make its way through the countryside.

Well maybe i wasnt convinvig to you but i certainly convinced myself that this type of war is bad when doing a blitz attack.

2. The diplo modifiers with other civs are no worse than for a blitz war, and those with the enemy due to "This war spoils" go away after the war. Until then, who cares about the enemy's attitude? Also, you aren't razing any cities, so you avoid that penalty.

I ment declaring war on a enemy just to cripple him, this will give you some diplo madness.

3. The war weariness in that kind of limited war is easily manageable, since (a) you're only attacking a few times in a given turn, and (b) you're only attacking when a target presents itself, which isn't every turn. You'll rack up far more WW in the first few turns of a land war on enemy ground than in the entirety of this kind of naval operation. By the time you're using attack subs, you should have Mt. Rushmore up and widespread jails, anyway. Before that point, it's not as viable an option, since there's no naval unit you can get to 80% withdrawal chance.

Yeh i guess your right, skip war weariness.

4. If you're fighting more than one enemy, it's a great way to hold Enemy A at bay while you focus on Enemy B, thereby allowing you to tackle the more immediate threat first. It makes Enemy A irrelevant militarily, since he can't get troops to you or to his ally's aid, and hurts him economically, if you use ships to blockade his cities and deny him both overseas trade routes and access to coastal tiles. If both enemies are on your continent, it's still that many fewer land units Enemy A can field against you, whether in defense or on the attack.

A minor gain since your hurting yourself because you had to gain control of the city first. But I guess it can be usefull in certain situations.

5. Were you getting much trade out of your enemy during/after the blitz war?

I thought you were going into war earlier just to cripple them before the actual assault, this would have cost you quite a few turns of trade, and since were talking naval i assume a intercontinental trade.

6. It can be fun. A low-cost, low-maintenance war that has the potential to cripple an enemy with relatively little impact on me is a situation I typically enjoy.

The idea sounds fun, too bad i hate micromanaging though


Ah well lets drop it, were getting a bit off-topic here Ill try it for a few games to see if its as good as you make it sound.

 

[Solomwi]

Yeah, I'm just talking about reasons you might want to control the seas, and tools you may want to employ, rather than grand strategic reasons to go to war, though it is true that if you have a "toolbox" of more than one type of war, the situations in which you find war to be a good solution will probably be more numerous. Amazing how far off-topic you can veer in a few posts, isn't it?

 

[PreLynMax]

Scouts: I scout enough with the few warriors i have at the start to rush someone and i usually delay hunting a bit.

Triremes: ive had in my entire civ career around 5 fishing boats destroyed by ships before optics.

Explorers: well i do build them on terra maps and im the first to go to the new world but that hadly ever happens.

Musketman: Macemen are often better (with the city raider promotions) for attacking and longbowmen are only a little bit worse for defending. These get obsolote pretty soon aswell (I usually go straight to rifling after getting gunpowder)...

Ok, ok, stop. Just stop, newbie.
I understand a few units, but this is so rediculious, its newbie-like.
It's clear that you need to get at least Noble or Prince (or greater) to cancel all these "useless" units.
Come back and play on Prince and see how these "unless" units you end up with.

 

[killmeplease]

I like to play Marathon so i have enough time to use all this units.
the most useless i think are archer and longbowman

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You can't assign a hammer value on naval superiority. You can attack and they can't. You can also pick any coastal city and attack it. The AI will try to take it back of course, but for every city it takes back, you caused damage.

More importantly, not only can even frigates bombard defenses, but each time the AI tries to retake a city you can have it stocked with 2-3 CG troops so that it loses some of that stack...more units than you will lose. On top of that, it will siphon units out of its stack and revert them to garrison duty. Before long the AI can't take the coastal cities you took any more, and this is usually long before you run out of units and stop taking more coastal cities. The K/D ratio very much favors the attacker here, granting favorable peace treaties, high likelihood of capitulation, and less war weariness.

I never build ironclads though. Very short lifespan, and on top of that they can't go in the ocean AND they're slow.

Don't use explorers ever. Maybe as a medic but I usually just make a random axe or something a medic, then as I upgrade my troops it just stays an axe. Does the job just fine. Explorers even suck on terra maps, because they can't capture any of those guarded huts (even by warriors) or do anything but move a little faster than other units. I want an explorer UU that can attack lol.

I understand the power of jet fighters and stealth bombers...but I haven't used them in 5 or 6 months - games are pretty much over before those show up, or I'm racing towards space and that tech isn't part of the required tech path.

I ALMOST never build anti-tanks, but w/o oil that would probably change, assuming I let my opponents get to combustion or industrialism when they have oil and I don't (not likely, I'd probably take it or die trying).

Edit due to below post: I forgot airships. I built them once for !#$ and giggles, not much since. I guess they can monitor the sea if you don't mind painful micro.

In patch 3.17 Triremes are kind of essential with barbs on, or you lose your fishing boats or are forced to make 3x as many galleys as you'd need triremes. If you delay researching hunting warriors can be used for HR garrison duty, and they're dirt cheap for that. If you play below monarch they'll get you a quick capitol too . Hell, on some maps they can fogbust enough that barbs can't spawn in your area because it's all revealed. If this happens you can skip archery for a long time, maybe forever.

 

[Cytral]

-Explorer
-Trimines
-Warriors
-Airships

 

[Siesta Guru]

Ok, ok, stop. Just stop, newbie.
I understand a few units, but this is so rediculious, its newbie-like.
It's clear that you need to get at least Noble or Prince (or greater) to cancel all these "useless" units.
Come back and play on Prince and see how these "unless" units you end up with.

Dude I usually play monarch and I recently went up to emperor since monarch is getting a bit too easy.

Edit: On normal speed btw, i like to be able to finish some of my games.. I tend to quit games when im steamrolling the enemy and i know im gonna win.

 

[PreLynMax]

Dude I usually play monarch and I recently went up to emperor since monarch is getting a bit too easy.

Edit: On normal speed btw, i like to be able to finish some of my games.. I tend to quit games when im steamrolling the enemy and i know im gonna win.

You lie.
You are a very bad liar.
Theres no possible way you can even compete in Noble or greater with all those missing units you play.

I challenge you to a game... and only using the units you are missing, I will pwn you.
By the way... my median difficulty is Immortal (I only do Deity when I want to get owned).

Wait a second... did you just challenge Siesta Guru to a game?
You damn straight. I am gonna call his bluff...

 

[miked1991]

Siesta Guru is right... you can play Monarch without those units... him and me are evidence of that.

Trimere's are the only exception... but with no barbs on he wouldn't need them.

Hunting isn't a very useful tech, so its right to delay it and therefore scouting is done with warriors... who are more successful with it anyway when the barbs are about, get it to wood raider II and he goes just as fast too. Explorers are the same... and if your like me, I don't bother to scout the new world, I let the AI do it for me

Muskets, agreed fairly useless, they should be 10/11 strength, then I might use them. Either that or give a city defence bonus.

 

[J-man]

Siesta Guru is right... you can play Monarch without those units... him and me are evidence of that.

Trimere's are the only exception... but with no barbs on he wouldn't need them.

Hunting isn't a very useful tech, so its right to delay it and therefore scouting is done with warriors... who are more successful with it anyway when the barbs are about, get it to wood raider II and he goes just as fast too. Explorers are the same... and if your like me, I don't bother to scout the new world, I let the AI do it for me

Muskets, agreed fairly useless, they should be 10/11 strength, then I might use them. Either that or give a city defense bonus.

I play monarch too and I rarely build those units (including trireme's pre 3.17)
I do build musket men for city defense. They're stronger then longbow man (9 vs 6) and sometimes I want chemistry early so rifling comes late.

 

[PreLynMax]

Siesta Guru is right... you can play Monarch without those units... him and me are evidence of that.

Trimere's are the only exception... but with no barbs on he wouldn't need them.

Hunting isn't a very useful tech, so its right to delay it and therefore scouting is done with warriors... who are more successful with it anyway when the barbs are about, get it to wood raider II and he goes just as fast too. Explorers are the same... and if your like me, I don't bother to scout the new world, I let the AI do it for me

Muskets, agreed fairly useless, they should be 10/11 strength, then I might use them. Either that or give a city defence bonus.

Damn it... then I CHALLENGE YOU!

I play monarch too and I rarely build those units (including trireme's pre 3.17)
I do build musket men for city defense. They're stronger then longbow man (9 vs 6) and sometimes I want chemistry early so rifling comes late.

I use Solvers 3.17 patch so ha.

 

[Siesta Guru]

Umm go laugh but im using 3.0.something So well... good luck challenging me... I doubt youll win though if we did that, since you wouldnt be allowed to make setllers and workers and youd have to defend with spearman and scouts against catapults

 

[PreLynMax]

Umm go laugh but im using 3.0.something So well... good luck challenging me... I doubt youll win though if we did that, since you wouldnt be allowed to make setllers and workers and youd have to defend with spearman and scouts against catapults

No no, I meant militarywise. I'm still allowed to use scouts, settlers, and workers.
And you're not allowed to cheat and use the units you wouldnt normally use.

You have an advantage because you have more units to work with (or your selective few, that is) and I have an advantage because I play against a tougher AI than you would.

 

[Siesta Guru]

Hmm with setllers you might stand a small chance but untill the medieval ages (pikeman) your only using scouts and spearman as defense.. Youd have another advantage btw, ive never played a multiplayer game (well ive played a hotseat against myself but i guess that doesnt count)..

I cant stop laughing at the idea of ttacking with maceman and trebs against a city full of pikeman, thats going to be one hell of a war.