UUs are useless!

[Willem]

Originally posted by Park Ranger
Japanese samurai is an AWESOME UU, IMO. Attack and move of a knight, defense of a musketman. Get them out before anyone has gunpowder, and watch the AI's crumble and cower!

Yes, I've had a few run ins with the Samurai, and quite often got thoroughly kicked in the butt.

 

[Exile_Ian]

The effectiveness of the Unique Units is of course dependant on you building enough of them and using them to their specifica strengths.

I'm currently playing a game as Japan, and it took me a while to work out that I couldn't send out Samurais and expect them to stand up to attacks by Knights. But once I started using them as hit and run attack units - backed up with pikemen defenses they became very valuable.

Similarly, I didn't rate F15's too highly until I got into a game where I'd (almost by default) built a lot of them in each city and set them to Air Superiority. They had a blast shooting down incoming Bombers and seemed to have a very high success rate.

I still like Cossacks too - if you can get enough of them before your opponent has got to Infantry (or only has a handful of Riflemen) you can sweep through their lands.

 

[Ozz]

The English should have longbowmen for a UU, and the americans
Rifleman (frontiersman)

 

[royfurr]

Originally posted by rev063


Hint: build more than 1 of your UU. Like all units, they're more effective in concert than singly.

- rev

THAT wasn't my question. OF COURSE you build MANY of ANY unit, natually you build MANY UU units and use them en masse, and obviously many UU can capture more then 3 citys in a turn. BUT the original poster made it sound like he could, with a single UU, capture 6 cities, and that was what I asking him about. Sorry rev063, but your answer kinda insults my intelligence a little. Now perhaps I misunderstood cephyn's point, and he/she DIDN'T mean ONE Panzer could capture 6 cities in a turn. But thats different then tellng me to build more then one! NEVER should ANY unit be used alone- single tanks get wasted far to easiely by spearmen, swordsman, pikeman, bowman etc etc.

ANYWAY I DID agree in my post with cephyn's general position that the UU Panzer was a good UU. It is. Some downside being later but thats ALSO an advantage, too. I just took exception to the (possibly inadverdently percieved) implication that a single panzer could take out 6 cities in one turn. Cephyn can clear up the point pf what was meant- its really a communication issue I suppose.

Anyway rev063 YOUR point to build multiples (I would say Conehead quanitites) of units is a good point in general, and a very basic one for any player of the game to realise. I call this the "russian realization" and have employed mass quanities since civ I. God IS on the side with the biggest army (and navy and airforce). The ai certainly follows this prescription.

Civ on, rev063. Take care.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by royfurr
I call this the "russian realization" and have employed mass quanities since civ I. God IS on the side with the biggest army (and navy and airforce).

Did you refere at Stalin question : "The Pope ? How many tank divisions he had ?" ??

 

[Alc0p0pz]

Here's my UU league table.

Worst four ...

• F-15 - too late in the game, air battles very rare, F-15 still sucks at bombing, no point using bombard when already have the far superior Bomber
• Man'O'War - Age of Sail way too short, cannot stand up to Ironclad, bombard +1 but still too low to be useful
• Cossack - 6/4/3 instead of 6/3/3 largely insignificant - Cossack still die easily when counterattacked by Cavalry
• War Chariot - Horsemen without Horseback riding. Big deal. Way too early in the game.

Best four ...

• Rider - as mentioned, perfect time for GA, right before lots of nice Wonders come up for grabs. 4/3/3 instead of 4/3/2 is very significant at a time before railroad.
• Samuari - same time as Rider, but IMO 4/4/2 not quite as useful as 4/3/3. (And if u don't have Horses by now ... well. )
• Panzer - Tanks with the speed of Modern Armour.
• Hoplite - keeps Greece safe in Ancient times. Same as Pikey men, require no resources, and since Greece are scientific they can be built as soon as yer first Settler's backpack hits the floor.

 

[wohmongarinf00l]

depends on objective...

early UUs are great when u want perpetual dominance in the game.

my best four:
1) immortals - that's probably because i've played persia long and often enuff to use them effectively. swordsmen (and especially immortals) are the dominant units of ancient and early middle ages. 10 of them flanked by horsemen will walk thru any civilisation. once ur GA kicks in, u can built hordes of them

2) mounted warriors - apart from swordsmen, horsemen are the next best unit of the ancient times. the most important thing is that they are in the horsemen upgrade path. build 30 of them and use them till tanks arrive. (upgrading of course).

3) war chariot - u can effectively start building them before anyone has horsemen. and they are in the horseman upgrade path.


4) impi - tough defenders who can withdraw. they are in the mech inf upgrade path. u effectively have defenders and attackers(horsemen) who can withdraw.

worst:
f-15 - too late in the game and the game is not structured to employ air war usefully.
bowmen- no specific strength except kicking in an unwanted early GA

 

[cephyn]

Originally posted by cephyn


F15s are useless, but the Panzer is NOT. First off, I always trigger my GA with a wonder if i have a late-game UU, so the argument that theyre useless because they trigger the GA too late is just weak. Get a leader, rush the right wonder, bam -- GA.

Now, the Panzers rock. That extra point of movement makes the difference between capturing 2 cities and capturing 6 cities in one turn -- absolutely crucial to crippling the enemy FAST.

Hey, no need to fight, healthy misunderstanding -- lets see if i can clear up my post.

Why did i say 2-6 dichotomy? because its happened. depending on the map, city placement, and number of panzers you have, it could be any pair of numbers. maybe that extra pt of movement might not help at all (rare)

Here's how i do it -- send the panzers in, take a city...then, use those newly captured rails to send more panzers (free of charge) deeper to the next city, rinse, repeat.

With tanks, it doesnt work as well since cities can often be spaced just far enough apart that the tank chokes on a hill somewhere in enemy territory -- but the panzer still has a movement left!

Drilling into enemy territory in this manner is incredibly easier if you have panzerS instead of tankS.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by royfurr



THAT wasn't my question. OF COURSE you build MANY of ANY unit, natually you build MANY UU units and use them en masse, and obviously many UU can capture more then 3 citys in a turn. BUT the original poster made it sound like he could, with a single UU, capture 6 cities, and that was what I asking him about. Sorry rev063, but your answer kinda insults my intelligence a little. Now perhaps I misunderstood cephyn's point, and he/she DIDN'T mean ONE Panzer could capture 6 cities in a turn.

what he meant was that the Panzer has the firepower of a tank but mobility of the Cav - thus, for the same upkeep that gives you enough tanks to take two towns in one turn you can throw them Panzer into battle far faster and more effective, resulting in a "TOT" (time on target) attack against more cities, thus splitting up defences - about three times as effective. 2 * 3 = 6!

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

my UU preferrence: the Legionary!

Attack 3, Defence 3, relatively cheap - WOW!

I just make sure I only build veterans, then I rarely loose more then 1 per two towns captured.....

 

[royfurr]

Originally posted by Killer


what he meant was that the Panzer has the firepower of a tank but mobility of the Cav - thus, for the same upkeep that gives you enough tanks to take two towns in one turn you can throw them Panzer into battle far faster and more effective, resulting in a "TOT" (time on target) attack against more cities, thus splitting up defences - about three times as effective. 2 * 3 = 6!

HiYa Killer how ya doing?
Perhaps my intelligence deserves to be insulted (ie I'm a dummy) as although I will agree with you that the UU Panzers greater MF of 3 certainly lets them hit another city then a Tank does for the same upkeep cost, and that means a greater cost effeciencey, I still don't see how ONE panzer can capture 6 cities in one turn, as I thought rev063 was saying. (Yup, it is 50% more efficient then Tank, on that I certainly agree.)

rev063, is that what you meant (6 cities by one Panzer in one turn) or was I misunderstanding you? I just cannot see ONE panzer capturing 6 (defended!) cities in one turn. 3, yes. Unless, of course- Does it take less then one movement pt. per attack if the attack is from a tile that has a road or RR? If so then clearly more then 3 (defended) cities could be conquered sequentially by a single Panzer. (If 1/3 of a MP cost for the advance after victory when the tile is connected to the city by road ... NO COST if by RR?????) This perhaps is the crux of the matter, I have been presuming the Panzer/Tank/Modern Armor units used up one MP per attack/advance after victory-occupation of conqured tile. (Most of my games have been won or lost long before Tanks become available, so I haven't exactly been practicing blitzkreig a lot.)

If yes, could you please expain exactly how this is done for this dummy? DOES it take less then one MP to advance if a road or RR is involved?

Do not worry about insulting my alleged intelligence, I already have proven I don't have any many a time over- sorry if I sounded testy earlier.

And we Thank You for your Spport.

 

[etj4Eagle]

I don't believe he meant one panzar getting 6 cities, as that is impossible. What he meant was that by having panzars instead of tanks he could take two layers of cities in one turn due to their extra movement point. With tanks, they second wave of tanks will not be able to get to the next layer of cities and attack in the same turn. This is assuming railroads existing on the routes, and a two square buffer around the next target.

With panzars you get to the 2nd layer of cities with one movement point left and hence attack. With tanks your turn is over when you get next to teh city.

 

[royfurr]

Originally posted by etj4Eagle
I don't believe he meant one panzar getting 6 cities, as that is impossible. What he meant was that by having panzars instead of tanks he could take two layers of cities in one turn due to their extra movement point. With tanks, they second wave of tanks will not be able to get to the next layer of cities and attack in the same turn. This is assuming railroads existing on the routes, and a two square buffer around the next target.

With panzars you get to the 2nd layer of cities with one movement point left and hence attack. With tanks your turn is over when you get next to teh city.

Now, this, I understand and fully agree with (ie about getting to the next ring of cities due to the extra movement point)- its obvious from having the extra movement point. I guess I just misunderstood his statement. Well 'nough said. Thanks etj4Eagle and also you, Killer.

Civ on, all.

 

[Jandor]

The Immortal really does rule the ancient age. the only unit that can stand up to them is the Legionarys and even there not equal to them.

 

[JoeM]

My favourites are the Immortals as they kick butt early on, but I must admit that even the Greek hoplites are quite good but neccesitate a different strategy as they are defensive.

How I laughed as the Romans declared war with superior numbers and Legionnaires and the watched as they battered dozens of units to death on my shields!