UUs that feel too "normal"

[Higher Game]

Praetorians feel average. Or, in other words, swordsmen are weak, very weak. Siege is so necessary for a decent war that I don't really think this UU is truly exceptional in its era; the base unit is just poor. Going for catapults to support axemen/spearmen stacks (and perhaps picking up calendar on the way) and putting off iron working for later just feels like a better tech path.

Janissaries are in the same boat. They feel like an ordinary unit, nothing special, but that's because musketmen are lightweights.

Landsknecht are also unremarkable; being good against melee and mount is countered by their vulnerability to bows and siege, and even muskets. They're especially bad because the Holy Roman Empire is so poor in most other regards.

 

[Kawalimus]

Praetorians vs archers is the same as macemen vs archers. It's a total mismatch. They're two whole points higher than swordsmen. Praetorians with CR bonus will eat cities alive in the archers/axemen/swordsmen era, little to no siege needed.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Respectfully disagree about the praetorians. Although swordsman do feel weak (although some do rush well with them), Praetorians are among the best UU's. 8 instead of 6. Key is to go for iron working ASAP. If you catch an opponent without axemen, he's got a problem. I always rush with praets, especially Julius (organized with praets = more land = land is power).

Agree with the others. I also find the Ballista Elephant not much. Might be useful at immortal in dealing with large invasion stacks.

Navy Seals. First, game is usually over or decided by then. Second, I'll usually be getting tanks at that time if I need it.

Jaguar Warrior. If you have copper (or later, Iron), you'll probably wish you had regular axemen. I prefer Medic III to Woodsman III for healers.

Panzer comes too late.

 

[Kawalimus]

Jaguar Warrior. If you have copper (or later, Iron), you'll probably wish you had regular axemen. I prefer Medic III to Woodsman III for healers.

I prefer both. This is obscenely powerful, I had it one time with Jaguar Warriors and I consider them great because of it.

Ballista elephant is unremarkable of course because it's so situational. You need ivory, your opponent needs to be using a good number mounted units, you need the stack to not be in a city, you need to have a good number of the elephants. I've never used it to that potential because that opportunity has never arisen. They did use it one time to kill my medic III chariot though, which was hilarious when I figured out what it was. "HOW DID MY CHARIOT DIE?!"

 

[duckstab]

I have to echo the general consensus about Praetorians. They eat pretty much everything alive until Crossbows/Longbows show up. At that point you need to support them with siege units and throw more protectors into your stacks, but they're a lot cheaper than Macemen and as good or better at attacking cities. Especially if you've put them to a lot of use and they're heavily promoted.

But as for the original question, I've never been able to leverage Bowmen or War Chariots into a decisive advantage, so they feel pretty "ordinary" to me.

 

[Sisiutil]

Redcoats and Cossacks, since Firaxis nerfed them...

 

[Orzio]

Redcoats and Cossacks, since Firaxis nerfed them...

I miss owning the entire world with them

Balista elephant or whatever they called just feels stupied and almost worse than a normal unit.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Yea, Bowmen are hard to leverage. They are a little better than standard archers, but not enough to mount an offensive with them.

War Chariots, though, I've had very good luck with. I love it when I roll the egyptians. I get horses a lot and animal husbandry is a quick, useful worker tech. They're 5 instead of 4 and immune to first strikes. I actually like them better than immortals. I haven't done the math, but they're probably about as good against archers as immortals.

 

[Absolute Zero]

In response to the original post, I don't find Swordsmen to be weak units. They can do quite well without siege. On flatland they have good odds vs. Archers - something around 60% IIRC.

Ballista Elephant's special effect is so rarely seen that it might as well not exist, when the human player is using them (since human players are almost always on the offensive side of wars).

Same with Cossack's bonus - +50% vs. Mounted. How often do you find mounted units defending cities? And when you do find one or two, they're probably so weakened by siege that a bonus against them is unnecessary. (Vanilla Cossack was a different story - 18 strength...)

But as for the original question, I've never been able to leverage Bowmen or War Chariots into a decisive advantage, so they feel pretty "ordinary" to me.

Agreed on the Bowman - same with Holkan and Impi, they're too "defensive."

War Chariots are strong, though. Regular Chariots are good rushing units, and War Chariots are even better.

Edit: I basically just echoed Ataxerxes on that last part. -_-

 

[Sisiutil]

• War Chariots = teh awesome.
• Swordsmen are decent units. They get +10% without promotions just for attacking a city, and the AI rarely defends cities with Axemen, their counter.
• Ballista Elephants and Cossacks are decent for "active defense"; the AI usually loves mounted units, especially harassing you with them by pillaging, so having a unit with a bonus against them can help protect your lands (especially your cottages).
• Bowmen, like the Protective trait, is generally more formidable in the hands of the AI, which plays a defensive game. Going up against Babylon, Mali, or a Protective leader even with Praetorians can be painful. Not insurmountable, but painful.

 

[say1988]

Ballista elephants can be VERY powerful in the right situation, but it is so rare to find the opportunity. It can be quite useful to get rid of powerful mounted units without having to chew through defenders. But the times where it is actually useful are so few and far between, at least with the AI, it is virtually pointless.
I always wondered if it might have more use in multiplayer (the human being unable to protect mounted units with pikes and maces, or as Kawalimus getting their fast healer out of the picture)?

 

[Absolute Zero]

It would probably be more effective in multiplayer, as the players would actually have to defend against attacking stacks. In single player, the AI is most often on the defensive, so their units tend to be fortified in cities, which happen to be the one location that ballista elephants' effect doesn't work.

 

[Sincro]

I'd like to echo the general feelings on Praetorians as well.

However... I think I found the civ best suited to deal with them and that civ is... Native Freaking America! Not only will Sitting Bull build a lot of G3 archers, his Dog Soldiers match up with Praetorians surprisingly well. 4 power and +100% vs melee makes them a resourceless (and cheaper to build) counter.

 

[conception]

I'd like to echo the general feelings on Praetorians as well.

However... I think I found the civ best suited to deal with them and that civ is... Native Freaking America! Not only will Sitting Bull build a lot of G3 archers, his Dog Soldiers match up with Praetorians surprisingly well. 4 power and +100% vs melee makes them a resourceless (and cheaper to build) counter.

The most recent time I played as the Romans I was flush against Sitting Bull from the get-go. It was a frustrating existence and my praetorians felt like I was attacking cities with normal archers. By the time I finished my rush I swear it seemed like it was The Renaissance.

 

[Sisiutil]

I'd like to echo the general feelings on Praetorians as well.

However... I think I found the civ best suited to deal with them and that civ is... Native Freaking America! Not only will Sitting Bull build a lot of G3 archers, his Dog Soldiers match up with Praetorians surprisingly well. 4 power and +100% vs melee makes them a resourceless (and cheaper to build) counter.

Yeah, playing as Rome and starting next to Sitting Bull is a royal pain in the a**. It's bad enough he's protective, but when the effects of Totem Poles and Dog Soldiers come into play--and SB loves his UU and UB, by the way--well, let's just say it's one of the closest experiences I've had, as a man, to what childbirth must be like.

 

[sabo]

I always have a hard time with Numidian Cavalry, I'm expanding and building at first and I usually don't start going to war until just before Knights

 

[Sisiutil]

I always have a hard time with Numidian Cavalry, I'm expanding and building at first and I usually don't start going to war until just before Knights

Well, I usually find the best use for NCs is to upgrade them to Knights (and, later, Cavalry) with that free Flanking I intact. So that might work for you...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Ballista elephants can be VERY powerful in the right situation, but it is so rare to find the opportunity. It can be quite useful to get rid of powerful mounted units without having to chew through defenders. But the times where it is actually useful are so few and far between, at least with the AI, it is virtually pointless.
I always wondered if it might have more use in multiplayer (the human being unable to protect mounted units with pikes and maces, or as Kawalimus getting their fast healer out of the picture)?

Nope, BE still suck even then.

If mounted is part of a big stack, it tends to be collateral'd to death (and lacking defensive bonuses, mounted is not so great vs contemporary collateral). This is assuming the opponent isn't using elephants of its own and for some reason opts to use mounted against you (idiots in MP, or the AI otherwise). But the AI is bad and defensive wars in this era aren't common unless you screw diplo. EVEN AFTER ALL THAT, you still require a rare resource.

It would probably be more effective in multiplayer, as the players would actually have to defend against attacking stacks. In single player, the AI is most often on the defensive, so their units tend to be fortified in cities, which happen to be the one location that ballista elephants' effect doesn't work.

So, you're going to attack Khmer in MP. He has ivory. Would YOU build mounted to attack him? Why assume anyone else would? If you're playing someone bad enough to attack you with a mixed stack of mounted (not a great move to begin with) when you're khmer, you don't need the UU to win. You beat that person when he/she joined.

If mounted is by itself, the BE is a normal elephant. It is hard to put it above bottom 3 UU, if not #1 worst.

Prats are very good and can handle most defenders alone in their era.

Bowmen are annoying to attack but pretty bad otherwise, and completely normal vs mounted.

Landsknecht is admittedly bad.

Janissary is average in that it makes good stack cover for cannons and will beat everything below muskets in the field. On slower speeds you can probably off non-deity AIs with it.

Panzers plain suck vs the AI (As in their adjusted value over tanks, tanks are good in general vs the AI but panzers don't offer much extra at all) and aren't terribly common in MP unless you start in that era...at least tech parity tank warfare where no naval implications exist isn't super common in MP ancient starts...

SEALS are in a similar boat ---> with air cover they're a moderate boost to the naval raid stack, but not quite good enough go to on their own cost-effectively...and given that they're late...!

Redcoats used to be good and people still overate them because of that. They're not good enough to take cities defended by rifles w/o siege, and they're not good enough to handle pinch cavalry or siege + whatever in the field.

Cossacks are a little better. Cavalry charges are solid in BTS (not as good as 18 str rape though). The thing about cossacks is that you can take pinch and still dominate defending mounted, and will be odds on against contemporary field stacks. Not great, but an average-above average UU instead of a top 3 one it used to be.

I'm also not a big fan of NC despite liking general HA's a lot. NC is gimped vs archers and those are very, very common defenders. It is also gimped vs other mounted. The AI doesn't build a lot of spears. In MP i'd rate it a bit higher, but as it STILL doesn't beat spears consistently and is more expensive than one, I'd not be especially eager to use it.

 

[Cusanus]

Praetorians feel average.

I don't know how anyone can even seriously write in a thread that starts like this.

Praetorians DO feel average. When used in renaissance wars.

- - -
After the first sentence, I was almost shure the OP was trolling, but the rest of his post of course sounds sensible.

Janissaries do feel like the basic muskets a lot.
- - -

I really don't understand why people complain about UU's that simply have higher base strength. Isn't that exactly what you want?

 

[3drawegroeg]

Musketeers: They aren't much use in the first place and if I'm playing a game where I really need to build military they'll be obsolete in around 20-30 turns (if that) when rifiling is teched.