UUs that feel too "normal"

[kochman]

6. navy seal and panzer - uselles, by the moment they show up you are already a winner or looser

Not necessarily... I am currently involved in an immortal game against Lizzy & her vassals (I played the British for my 1st time) and I really slugging it out while we also try to build our spaceships... we are well into the future era... her damn vassal, America, just took a coastal city using the SEALs...
This game is getting ugly, multiple nukes have been launched... I razed 2 spanish coastal cities PLUS her capital which was inland (it was like a triangle of cities that I razed)...
The bonus is, she still doesn't have FUSION, and I am 1/2 through with building both my engines...

It will get uglier before it gets better though...

 

[Orzio]

Navy seal can be really good and they dont come that late. Panzer I dont really see much use for or have I ever needed them. They AI dont build to many tanks and there citys is defended by gunpowder units and not tanks most of the time. Might have some use in a defensive war fighting of a tank invasion or in MP I guess. If the game last that long without a winner already with I guess is rare not that I ever really played MP.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Panzers are trash considering when they come and their value-over-base. You still build them though, because they're still tanks. Same with SEALS. SEALS are significantly better in value-over-base than panzers, but still suffer from being late and the fact that they're not better by enough to use without support, meaning their returns are nice but frequently somewhat marginal over stock marine-based strategies.

 

[Orzio]

Tbh one of the major problems with civ is that most late game things dosnt matter to much if you compere it to early game same goes with late UU and UB that are often way worse than the earlier once.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Tbh one of the major problems with civ is that most late game things dosnt matter to much if you compere it to early game same goes with late UU and UB that are often way worse than the earlier once.

Agreed, but it's a little discouraging that no attempt was made to balance the uniques such that later ones offer a more impressive advantage over the base unit.

Instead we get the counter-intuitive and arguably less balanced current state: early UU's are often MUCH better than their stock units (immortals, war chariots, prats, vultures, skirmishers).

A panzer is a lot like a sword that only gets 50% vs other swords ---> not super great...but then you have to wait all game for it!

If we were to tack on the same kind of power the prat gets over the base unit, we'd see a 32 strength navy SEAL and a 37 strength panzer. And WHY DON'T we see these? You can argue they'd be unfair, but no more so than the prat, which comes earlier and is seen more consistently.

It was a major head scratcher and a sign of the times when they yanked the good versions of redcoats/cossacks and left the early game stuff (which was and is arguably better in terms of value-over-base).

 

[kochman]

This is a good point. Early UUs often leave you unable to expand due to your economy not being able to support yet further conquest... How many times have I had my Praets just sitting there polishing their swords because I was already at 10% science with a deficit...

Later UUs often still die wholesale because they aren't that unique other than their name and art...

 

[pi-r8]

Agreed, but it's a little discouraging that no attempt was made to balance the uniques such that later ones offer a more impressive advantage over the base unit.

Instead we get the counter-intuitive and arguably less balanced current state: early UU's are often MUCH better than their stock units (immortals, war chariots, prats, vultures, skirmishers).

A panzer is a lot like a sword that only gets 50% vs other swords ---> not super great...but then you have to wait all game for it!

If we were to tack on the same kind of power the prat gets over the base unit, we'd see a 32 strength navy SEAL and a 37 strength panzer. And WHY DON'T we see these? You can argue they'd be unfair, but no more so than the prat, which comes earlier and is seen more consistently.

It was a major head scratcher and a sign of the times when they yanked the good versions of redcoats/cossacks and left the early game stuff (which was and is arguably better in terms of value-over-base).

I definitely agree with this. If you're not going to get any advantage until the end of the game, then you need that advantage to be a really big one, in order to balance a small advantage that someone else gets at the beginning.

On the other hand, I'm starting to like the late game UUs a lot more than I used to. When you're playing on immortal or deity, a lot of the time you're still involved in heavy duty fighting late in the game, and you might not be able to launch an early game war, even if you are egypt or rome. I've seen deity games posted here where people didn't do any fighting at all before getting tanks.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Heh and in some of those games the tanks come around 1400 AD.

The medieval UUs suffer similar to their very late counterparts, because on anything but slow speeds the castles suck up too much in terms of bombardment (exception: smallish civs with low unitprobs can be beaten in that era reasonably easily, since you can just quit producing new units after the 15-20 initial turns a longer war would take, and they don't have enough to stuff you with WW).

I would imagine it is quite difficult to get a balanced set of UU's throughout each era, so I don't fault fireaxis for falling short of "perfect balance" here, just front-loading so that basically only early UU's are good.

It's true on deity that you need slow speeds to pull rushes with the early UUs (a lot of HoF space involves marathon rushes with a super UU like immortals or quechas), but quechas in particular remain useful ---> you are immune to barbs basically, as by the time axes would start showing up, the land is going to be taken one way or another .

 

[Patak]

I am cripled because I dont play faster speed (I always play marathon). I can still pull out a good axe rush (dog soldger being my favorite because I need no copper). Also, I always play continents where by the time the rifles are on the ground there is usually one player per continent which is the ruler of the continent (others are present but do not pose a threat). By the time tanks are on the field I rule my continent 100% and I am preparing for invasion. Having Navy seal will only make me produce 3-4 marines less. No big deal. Having Panzers is giving me no advantage, by the time I land on the other continent I am already driving gunships which are muchy better against tanks any way. Panzers will be much more usefull if they can have some advantage against the gunpowder units, not against the tanks, or several free upgrades (ambush and additional movement).

 

[kochman]

I am cripled because I dont play faster speed (I always play marathon). I can still pull out a good axe rush (dog soldger being my favorite because I need no copper). Also, I always play continents where by the time the rifles are on the ground there is usually one player per continent which is the ruler of the continent (others are present but do not pose a threat). By the time tanks are on the field I rule my continent 100% and I am preparing for invasion. Having Navy seal will only make me produce 3-4 marines less. No big deal. Having Panzers is giving me no advantage, by the time I land on the other continent I am already driving gunships which are muchy better against tanks any way. Panzers will be much more usefull if they can have some advantage against the gunpowder units, not against the tanks, or several free upgrades (ambush and additional movement).

Panzers were awesome in one of the previous versions of Civ... 3 I think it was. They got an extra move and started with Blitz... whereas the regular tanks got 2 moves w/o blitz I think.
They really nerfed the panzer in Civ4.

 

[say1988]

Patak, SEALs don't really decrease the troops you use. The purpose is that it allows your groups to move faster, first strike decrease from weaker units and they can heal that damage on the move. One way I use it is that my SEALs immediately depart after capturing a city and continue to harrass/pillage until the armour catches up to take the next city.
Not saying they are near the best UU, though.

 

[Patak]

Patak, SEALs don't really decrease the troops you use. The purpose is that it allows your groups to move faster, first strike decrease from weaker units and they can heal that damage on the move. One way I use it is that my SEALs immediately depart after capturing a city and continue to harrass/pillage until the armour catches up to take the next city.
Not saying they are near the best UU, though.

Never tought that way, I use gunships for the same purpose (I manage to have few of them with comando gaind from the cavalry age and they can get out form the city kill/destroy improvement/road and get back to the city).

 

[Cusanus]

9. fast worker - never saw a worker beat a tank - uselles compared to the standard worker

Fast Workers are great!

 

[Badtz Maru]

If you don't plan a war around your UU, Fast Workers are the strongest UU in the game. The turn advantage they provide is enormous, especially later in the game when workers can finish improvements quicker.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If you don't plan a war around your UU, Fast Workers are the strongest UU in the game. The turn advantage they provide is enormous, especially later in the game when workers can finish improvements quicker.

They are the best UU in the game on quick IMO.

On marathon, they're below average.

 

[Lyoncet]

I never really got the lack of enthusiasm regarding Numidian Cavalry. Sure, they're not Praetorians, but I've found them hugely helpful because 1) they get a nice free promotion (which of course carries over on upgrade) and 2) they are much stronger against Spearmen (which I seem to run into lots of) than Horse Archers. Sure, there's still a hammer disparity and strength disparity (7.5 to 8, in essence), but you can get them to Shock much more easily than the spear can get to formation. Since spears only have 4 base and worse fortification than archers, they'll almost always be the last units in a city.

So with NC, you suicide (or retreat) a few Shock NCs into the spears to take them out, then the archers (thank you first strike immunity) and swords are pretty much free reign, and end with rather puny axemen. Without NC, I've usually ended up just suiciding hordes of axes and swords into fortified axes and archers, at least pre-construction.

Plus, on the open field, you can pretty much terrorize any stack that's not overloaded with spearmen, which of course are useless on offense. Whereas a Sword can beat back a HA on even footing (meaning if they have iron they don't need many spears), if you have NC, they need to keep those stacks VERY well garrisoned with spears, which are a pretty poor ROI in every other regard. Plus, it's fun running over Rome and Greece's UUs with them. Hehehe…

Maybe my AIs have just been building more axes than usual.

Back on subject, and speaking of Greece, I'm very underwhelmed by the expansion version of the Phalanx. Not being vulnerable to chariots is all right I guess, but unless your opponent gets out a bunch really quickly, if you get caught by a bunch of chariots and you have axes but NOT spears, you did something wrong.

I know the original version may have been a bit too good, but, well, phalanxes pretty much dominated combat until heavy cavalry and iron came along anyways, so at least it was sensible imbalance.

Hmm, you know come to think of it, I don't even remember what their old stats were. Could someone refresh my memory?

As for other not-so-great UUs, I've never much liked Jaguars or Gallic Warriors. I know you can get GWs to be pretty good at dislodging hill-city defenders, and not needing iron is nice, but a UU that in essence just opens up one highly specific line of promos just seems a bit lacking.

 

[Ataxerxes]

As for other not-so-great UUs, I've never much liked Jaguars or Gallic Warriors. I know you can get GWs to be pretty good at dislodging hill-city defenders, and not needing iron is nice, but a UU that in essence just opens up one highly specific line of promos just seems a bit lacking.

Yea, the Jaguars or Gallic Warriors never impressed me. Although the Aztecs are compensated by the sacrificial altar. The Musketeer isn't that useful except in RFC when the French are colonizing.

 

[say1988]

They may not be the greatest, but if you tech right, musketeers can be quite powerful.
Two move defensive unit that is decent all around is something. Throw in a few knights/cuirassiers/cavalry and you have a potent two move force. This is further improved upon in BTS with spies to take the place of siege in taking city defenses down.

 

[michaelfraviby]

Worst- Balista elephant (enough said)

Runner up- East indiaman

The ones I only noticed because I wanted to build a certain unit and couldnt find it because of a weird name
- Holkan (eh what?), Numidian cavalry (tried to rush with them, NO MORE), gallic warrior, navy seals and panzers

Could have added all the knights and musketmen replacements as the next

 

[Orzio]

Both knights and muset are good tbh specialy the UU problem is you need a different path for them you cant beeline to liberalism than go back get them than odds are its to late. But if you go for it right away they are quite powerful.