useless units?

[Thalassicus]

Submarines simply should be immune to battleship attacks, but only be able to do like 10-15 points of damage per fight

You know, that's actually a great idea. They could give subs a Torpedo Strike order, like Air Strike for aircraft: one attack, ends the sub's turn, and can be "intercepted" by Destroyers. This would likely be better than their current withdraw chance mechanic...a sub or two could be used to Torpedo an enemy ship, then your own destroyers kill it off.

It seems rather unrealistic and weak for gamplay purposes that when attacking a battleship with two or three subs, the first two come away with 2 health while the third one kills it.

 

[Tholomeo]

Explorers=crap. When they appear, there are no tribal village left. They are useless because they CANNOT pillage.
The ultimate pillaging device is a gunship.

As for subs, I use them for carrying spies, and almost never for combat. What pisses me off, is that subs, even upgraded ones, withdraw from combat very rarely, and always lose combats. What I would propose to game creators is to make subs more expensive but to provide them with 90% withdrawal ability.

And finally, here is my opinion about the completely worthless unit. It is an ARTILLERY. I've already written it in some thread before, but I couldn't get an answer from anyone. Why on earth you guys love artillery so much? In a modern world, when speed is a key to success, how can we operate such sluggish thingies? We have modern armors (speed 2), mechinfantry (speed 2), airplanes (huge speed), helicopters (speed 4 over all terrains), ships (big speed) - and we are supposed to wait until these snail artilleries reach their combat position to bombard some city? You know, guys, the slowest link in the system slows down the whole system - so, using artillery, we reduce war speed by HALF! Isn't it a real squandering of time in the face of war weariness and rival spaceship construction?

 

[Thalassicus]

Those that use artillery use them on the defensive, to soften up enemy SOD's and make them easy targets to mop up.

Explorers are only useless on Pangaea or other maps with no new landmasses. On Continents, you can build a few explorers before you have Optics, load them onto your two caravels while circumnavigating the world and offload on the new continents to explore rival territory quickly (after signing open borders). They're especially good on Terra maps, which are very popular.

 

[mgdpublic]

When I do use machine guns they are a godsend. I love my grenadiers and often go right into steel for cannons. I always mistake railroad for actually being actually able to build a railroad so I usually make due with the machine guns. I've seen 2 machine guns fend off a 10-stack of earlier gunpowders. First strike with 27 power is brutal.

I don't know if they're useless but I tend not to use:

Chariots: I tend not to need the mobility nor do I tend to pillage this early. I'd rather subdue.

Explorer- for all the reasons cited. They suck root.

Marines: Don't really need them. Always seems to be something better for the job.

Iron Clads - I usually skip these and move to something that's ocean bound.

 

[chewbaccad]

Chariots: I tend not to need the mobility nor do I tend to pillage this early. I'd rather subdue.

I didn't think much of War Chariots either, until my most recent game where I ended up with ShotPut. You get them early, and unless you're facing a ton of catapults there's no reason to even bother with Horse Archers. The War Chariot may be slightly weaker than the HArcher (5<6), but they have a withdrawal chance and are only half the cost! (25<50) They kept Genghis in his place early and often...

 

[Kaleb]

Pikemen are awesome. They're cheap and they kill those raiding knights and elephants.

Ironclads are great for sea resource protection, that's about it. Their one saving grace is that they upgrade to destroyers.

Explorers... yeah... useless in Civ3 and still useless in CivIV. I guess -maybe- on a New World map. Still, I'd rather just land a Knight or Cavalry. They can kick some butt while they're exploring.

agree about pikemen. was surprised by the AI in one game I was playing as Arabians, was rampaging all over the Indians with my Camel Archers but then he started building pikemen (didn't have any before) and started killing all my camels!! I had to change tactics and bring some macemen along to protect my camels. nice to see the AI being clever...

only use I have found for explorers is roving medics that can quickly nip across a battlefield to where they are needed. that and being a pillaging nuisance

Ironclads, never built any! but perhaps I should look at this defensive idea...

I find that in each game I have played either the rifleman OR the musketman has been useless depending on which way the tech tree has been leaning as one of them normally gets skipped entirely.

I think the problem here is not with the units but with the tech tree! perhaps the new patch slowing down tech in this era will give both units space to actually be useful.

 

[eiseike]

Kaleb , try playing the game on Epic speed , you'll have much more time before units are outdated.

 

[Kaleb]

yes, good tip - I'm playing a game now and it gives each unit a chance to shine in it's own right a bit more. I think slowing the game down in general gives you an advantage over the AI because the AI can build well but isn't so good at moving units! so the more moves you get the better for you

 

[DangerousMonkey]

I hear a lot of people talking about how crappy Explorers and Ironclads are, and they certainly arn't the most generally useful units around. Still, I think it's important to distinguish between units that are not very useful in certain games, and those that are not very useful in any game because better units tend to appear at the same time, or slightly before or after them.

Two prime examples of units that are highly useful under the right conditions, and for a fairly long period of time, are the Explorer and Ironclad. The Explorer is a dandy little guy in games where oceans make major landmasses unreachable until the mid-game, such as terra maps or island maps with spares floating around. They can be carried by caravals, and as such might be the only land units you can get across the ocean for a good 50 turns or so, and with woodsman and geurilla II they sure do explore fast.

Ironclads can also be pretty useful in games where costal waters are heavily contested, such as close islands or pangea-type maps whith lots of inlets. The difference between power 8 Firigates and power 12 Ironclads may not seem impressive, but that translates to about a 90% win rate for the Ironclad. If you stealth-build a little stack of these guys while your opponent waits for oil-based navies (which are probably a good 20-30 turns away) you'll rule those coasts for a some time.

Two prime examples of units that arn't useful because they appear around the same time as better units would be Musketmen and Machine-Guns.

Musketmen are a good unit when taken on thier own, but the problem is that you'll almost surely research chemistry next to get grenadiers (which are pretty freakin' awsome) after gunpowder, at least if you're under any sort of threat. As a result Musketmen dont' make a big footprint, which is a shame I think.

Machine-Guns are usually obsolete before you can even build them. In most games (well, just about any game I can think of) you are going to research assembly line before you get railroad. The choice seems pretty ovious as assembly line is at about the same area of the tech tree as railroad, and it provides you with Infantry and Factories/Coal Plants, which are all must-haves. Sure, railroad is pretty great too, but compaired to line it's hard to justify researching it first.

As a result you'll probably be able to build infantry before machine-guns (which doesn't really make that much sense). Sure, machine-guns have a decent edge in modified power over infantry, but not against any other units, and not enough to make up for the fact that they can't attack (in my opintion). Also, by this point tanks arn't that far away, which render machine-guns a complete waste of production. So in the end you are unlikely to get much milage out of machine-guns.

I feel like these sorts of problems would be worth Firaxis fixing, as I think just about all the units included in Civ4 were very useful in history, and I think that should be reflected in the game.

 

[antracer]

I like build a boatload of grenediers with ctiy defense I & II and stash them away, then upgrade them to Machine Gunners, which can't get those promotions... This makes the Machine Gunner a whole different animal... They can stand up for quite awhile, allowing you to concentrate on building offensive units. Plus, when finally upgraded to SAMS, they have the bonus too. I especially find them useful to hold "annexed" enemy cities....

 

[Fanaza]

Usually when I am in the period where machine guns are valid I am starting mass warfare and finishing up in taking over the world. Machine guns work wonders for amphibious attacks, let me explain why.

Usually when I am starting the conquer of an island nation or a new continent, and I see they have gunpowder units, I always drop off one transport full of machine guns on the launching spot, which can be a city, a hill, or something else. The AI will launch their infantry to try and attack my machine guns and usually this ends up destroying almost DOUBLE the amount of units I had for the AI's end with minimal losses for me. That 50% plus against gunpowder units is damn powerful.

The use for machine guns is if you want to make a strong defense against gunpowder units during this period, these will give you just that. Give them first strike chance, or two, and that just increases the odds greatly. I'll admit if you're ahead in the world machine guns are poor. I find it VERY stupid that a knight can damage a machine gun more than an infantry. The 50% handicap should go for all melee units and gunpowder units for it to make sense.

(Note that I either use epic, marathon, or even a modded speed, so I have more time to use these 'useless' units before they are obsolete.)

 

[DaviddesJ]

I find it VERY stupid that a knight can damage a machine gun more than an infantry. The 50% handicap should go for all melee units and gunpowder units for it to make sense.

That wouldn't help against knights, which aren't melee units either.

 

[Thalassicus]

Knights are actually 10 strength when up against a machine gun, Infantry 13, and Riflemen 9 (vs the MG's 18).

You don't want to make new units too powerful over old ones though, or it would give the person a few technologies ahead an unbeatable advantage.

Besides, the straight odds of a knight beating a machine gun (both at full health, no other modifiers) is 0.0291%, with an average 12 str remaining on the machine gun.

Of course, the odds of a knight beating a 12 str machine gun is 53%. Two knight "units" attacking a machine gun unit would be like several thousand going up against a few dozen nests...they've got to run out of ammo sometime.

 

[Wodan]

I like build a boatload of grenediers with ctiy defense I & II and stash them away, then upgrade them to Machine Gunners, which can't get those promotions...

Excellent idea. I knew I read the boards for a reason....

Plus, when finally upgraded to SAMS, they have the bonus too. I especially find them useful to hold "annexed" enemy cities....

Thought Machine Gunners couldn't upgrade anymore, that's one of the down sides.

Wodan

 

[DaviddesJ]

Thought Machine Gunners couldn't upgrade anymore, that's one of the down sides.

Machine Gunners can't upgrade to Infantry, but they do upgrade to SAM Infantry when you get Rocketry (as do the Infantry also). There are a couple of different upgrade diagrams in this thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=135395

 

[Napo981]

Still, I think it's important to distinguish between units that are not very useful in certain games, and those that are not very useful in any game because better units tend to appear at the same time, or slightly before or after them.

I feel like these sorts of problems would be worth Firaxis fixing, as I think just about all the units included in Civ4 were very useful in history, and I think that should be reflected in the game.

Most/all units are useful if properly used. Many units aren't useful for their raw power but instead by forcing the enemy to adopt another strat. Depends also on which level you play. On lower levels when you're need to find a way to break the front line of your enemy without great risk of counter-attack, subs and machine guns aren't useful.

However, in a defensive condition at the infantry era, machine gun can only be beaten by tank or marines, which can be more than 4 tech away, specially if the enemy beelined for infantry.

Sub aren't very powerful, but are cheap and hard to detect, and fit well to scout the sea. When you need to control a lot of coast that would be to costly to defend with battleships and destroyers at each 2 squares, subs are good recons to allow you to intercept a possible invasion.

Explorers are a modern version of the scout, essential to know what your "open-border" friends have in military strengh.

 

[Xenocrates]

I was loaded one game and I decided to upgrade all of my axemen to machine gunners. Now I have machine gunners with two city raider promotions. ACE!

The promotion and upgrade system is one of the best aspects of the game IMO and takes a while to learn.....

 

[Sahkuhnder]

I was loaded one game and I decided to upgrade all of my axemen to machine gunners. Now I have machine gunners with two city raider promotions. ACE!

The promotion and upgrade system is one of the best aspects of the game IMO and takes a while to learn.....

Interesting. Can your machine gunners attack? If not then the city raider promotions would be meaningless.

 

[ZippyRiver]

That early archer also upgrades to a machine gun. In my current game I have a number of lvl3 city defence MGs. I don't know how they would stand up, as the AI won't attack those cities. lol

And subs are not as weak as you might think. Out of 5 battles with BB, I lost one sub. 2 of the 5 my sub took no damage at all. 2 my sub was quite hurt and 1 took about 50% damage. I have them with a mix of flanking/movement and pure first strike. One of the no damage battles was my sub with 2 first strike promos. I know the odds calculator shows I should have lost, but perhaps against BB there is something else working behind the lines, like FS works better with stealth units (perhaps)... or I just got lucky. I was only planning on using the subs to damage the BB then mop up with destroyers but that plan failed again and again lol.

I am not impressed so far with spys though. Costs too much gold to ruin anything. Good I guess for looking into a city before capturing it, to see if it has any wonders. then decide to raze or not. I am just a little ticked off at spys in my current game. It's the first game I went that far. I build the required wonder, and also the one that gives a free medic promotion. I figured a medi-spy would be usefull even if it can't steal techs. No dice. The medic promo does not get applied. So the next turn I built a fighter in the same city.............LHJGDA"IHC:UKGAD:JKBND. no dice. Fighters don't get that promo either. So now I have fair production city devoted to building none other than explorers. I KNOW those can get the medic promo so I pump out a standard explorer with woodsman1, guerilla1 & 2, Medic 1 & 2. Yippie. I was quite fearfull at that point, that for some ungoddly reason explorers would be ineligible for airlifts.

 

[Thalassicus]

Thus the rolling eyes...