What is your perferred Unique unit?

[dhokarena56]

I'm having some serious trouble weaning myself off my addiction to the Iroquois and Persians. The Ansar Warrior's nice- 3 movement points, cheaper than the knight, and you're not going to be using them for defence anyways, right?- as are Sipahi. And then you've got Hoplites and Swiss Mercenaries.

Panzers are useful, but the game's usually won by the time I get to Steam Power- it's just a matter of waiting then. Most of the rest ain't that great, in my estimation.

 

[creamcheese]

Then we get the raft of 'meh' land units to which each has a specific use, but none really wow. These are Zulu Impi Spearman 1/2/2, Sumerian Enkidu Warrior 1/2/1, Aztec Jaguar Warrior 1/1/2, Babylonian Bowmen 2/2/1, Egyptian War Chariot 2/1/2, Hittite Chariot 2/2/2, Incan Chasqui 1/1/2, Mongol Keshik 4/2/2.

I have to disagree with you on the Enkidu, it should be in the ranks of people who like being really safe. 10 shields for a spearman is nothing to laugh at. would you rather have two enkidus or one hoplite? Or three enkidus or one Numidian? Not such an easy choice. This also helped by the nice traits of the Sumerians, great civ all around.

I also disagree with the ranking on the Hwatch'a, lethal land bombard puts it much higher on the scale, below the improved movement units and above the defensive ones.

I don't totally agree with the Sipahi either. While it undoubtedly my favorite unit in the game, it does not compete with some UUs as well as it seems. This has already been pointed out, since it comes so late. Top tier UU, but probably not the best. Unless you play on huge maps with one opponent, so you don't even meet until cavs.

 

[Buttercup]

I have to disagree with you on the Enkidu, it should be in the ranks of people who like being really safe. 10 shields for a spearman is nothing to laugh at. would you rather have two enkidus or one hoplite? Or three enkidus or one Numidian? Not such an easy choice. This also helped by the nice traits of the Sumerians, great civ all around.

I can agree with this.

The reason it's in the 'meh' section for me is because all the weak early Unique Units are so quickly reduced to a much of a muchness by the time element. The reason for shelling out for Hoplites or Numidians is because they can last all the way to Riflemen without stressing that you need to upgrade them (you might not get Salt Peter anyway for the only possible upgrade) and even to Musketman is nice long way. It's a matter of 'once done, it's done' rather than with the cheap '2' defences.

I'd feel safer leaving a town with one defence of 3 rather than two defences of 2. All in all, it's probably an equal scenario, but once you have two Hoplites or Numdians in a town you will feel much cosier than having three Enkidus (not that you could afford 3 of course).

I don't totally agree with the Sipahi either. While it undoubtedly my favorite unit in the game, it does not compete with some UUs as well as it seems. This has already been pointed out, since it comes so late.

Again, this is true.

But for those who are playing 'The Race to Cavalry', which will be a large number of players, then this would be the perfect destination for such common games. The race to Iron is limited by movement speed to which many argue that the Celtic Swordsman is better than either the Legions or Persian Immortals for Speedy wins, and if no Iron then you should go for Iroquios Mounted Warriors for an early speedy win.

This is not to denigrate the Persian Immortals because an attack of 4 (or any stat of 4) in the Ancient Age is without doubt par-excellence, it's just whether you can find the Iron, road it up, afford more than 4 or 5 of units and then build the troops (+their defensive cover) and walk them to several destinations before everyone else gets to feudalism anyway - so it's very scenario dependent IMO. With Cavalry, by that time cash is aplenty and even putting science to zero is an option, production has stabilised and most of the world is roaded (including the spot where Salt Peter pops up directly into your resources), affording a movement rate of 9 compared to the Immortal's 1.

Having said all this, I would still much rather have Persia for an Ancient Age objective game than many of the others for obvious reasons.

I also disagree with the ranking on the Hwatch'a, lethal land bombard puts it much higher on the scale, below the improved movement units and above the defensive ones.

Yes, the site is full of people raving about the Koreans... there has to be an element of 'cool' to a unique Unit and I'm not sure Medieval Bombards have that je ne sais quoi.

 

[ChaosArbiter]

That would be what I meant, yes, lol

It's not something I'd consider a "specific playing method to make them count." It's a land-to-water preference. I only play Pangaea because I don't like having to build ships (because, IMO, the game just doesn't do naval combat justice), but just because one plays Archipelago doesn't mean it's because they want more naval combat, or to try and beef up two UUs.

True, and likewise Crusaders are the only unit with an attack of 5 with or without resources, and I was tempted to include them but they're not civ specific, anyone can have them. Perhaps my wording was confusing/vague.

No, your wording was extremely precise. It's just not what you meant.

Why on earth would a unit which can move 9 squares a turn want to wait for a unit travelling 3 squares a turn. Believe me, I've tried to use catapults and canons etc before rail and not once has one ever made it to the front line of a Cavalry clean-up. I'm not eating my hat for that nonsense

And how is any unit going to be going 9 squares/turn in enemy territory? That was the meat of the argument - Cavalry are inherently Offensive units, so you should be using them to Attack your enemies. Frankly, neither Cossacks nor Sipahis are going to exactly enjoy attacking Riflemen Fortified in Cities (let alone Metropolises on Hills!), which is what the siege train is for. Furthermore, if the engagement *is* taking place in your territory, and it's actually in a locale in which the movement makes a significant difference to the matter, you've probably done something horribly wrong.

 

[Buttercup]

And how is any unit going to be going 9 squares/turn in enemy territory?

You have Cavalry swarming their territory, you take an outlying city then that is now your territory, you can now move your swarm to a central city in the same go, take it out, then have a your swarm fan out to pressure maybe 3 or 4 cities the next go. I think this is what most people do...

Frankly, neither Cossacks nor Sipahis are going to exactly enjoy attacking Riflemen Fortified in Cities (let alone Metropolises on Hills!), which is what the siege train is for.

You are joking, right? Unless you are half an Age backward in technology there's no way Cavalry will be taking out Riflemen for a good long time. And even when Riflemen do start to arrive, yes, they are still quite proficient with that, you should try it sometime...

 

[ChaosArbiter]

You have Cavalry swarming their territory, you take an outlying city then that is now your territory, you can now move your swarm to a central city in the same go, take it out, then have a your swarm fan out to pressure maybe 3 or 4 cities the next go. I think this is what most people do...

And if you're attacking units that have similar base Defense to your Attack, you're going to bleed. Again, Rifles are 6 base Defense, +50% for a City, +25 (IIRC) for Fortifying - 10 or so Total Defense. It gets higher if it's a Metro, if it's on a Hill, across a River, etc. Is the Sipahi going to do better? Yes, but it's not like it's going to overrun everything in its path in a single turn, nor will any single unit grouping be able to take 3+ cities in a straight line until the advent of Rails. Taking 3+ cities from a salient? Sure, but I still see no reason not to have artillery support.

Edit:

You are joking, right? Unless you are half an Age backward in technology there's no way Cavalry will be taking out Riflemen for a good long time. And even when Riflemen do start to arrive, yes, they are still quite proficient with that, you should try it sometime...

When I consider units, I consider tech parity and even competence. So anything that one player does, another can try. I also don't assume that one civ completely outclasses another - no superpower beating up on a 3-city state. So if you go traipsing into, say, Russia with your Sipahi horde, it'll be mashed by a Cossack horde, which - while more fragile in comparison - hits more often, has the maneuverability advantage, and can heal more effectively. The Sipahis will be badly wrecked, because quite a few Cossacks will be able to take out 2 Sipahis. Reverse the Scenario, and the Ottomans will probably come out a bit ahead, because their Sipahis won't be as badly hurt and they will have suffered fewer losses, but they aren't likely to have killed significantly more Cossacks than Cossacks kill invading Sipahis. Then, when Rifles roll around and the invader has units that can protect against a raiding Defender, you see how they fight at the cities.

Because frankly, you don't need any UUs to utterly thrash an AI, and you can do it even while comparatively backward. Drop the attitude. You've already made yourself look like an idiot once.

 

[Calis]

Because frankly, you don't need any UUs to utterly thrash an AI, and you can do it even while comparatively backward. Drop the attitude. You've already made yourself look like an idiot once.

You are right that a UU is not (never) game deciding, but this statement is completely unnecessary. It won't convince anybody of your point.

 

[ChaosArbiter]

I don't mind so much about convincing anyone; it's his "I'll eat my hat if anyone isn't impressed by the Sipahis" changing to "I won't eat my hat because I don't agree with you" that I was referring to. Do I care so much about the debate? Not really; nor do I care really about whether or not he eats his hat, or even admits that Sipahis aren't the best UU. What's irritating is the implication that he "knows better" that I get from his responses to people saying the Sipahi isn't the best.

 

[Ataxerxes]

The Enkidu Warrior is a pretty strong UU, making Sumeria with it's good traits a very good Civ. Most of the reasons have been cited, but I'd add one more: Upgrade path. Enkidu Warrior follows the upgrade path to Infantry and strong defensive units, which I prefer. I don't think it's quite as good as the exceptional UU's, like Mounted Warriors or Immortals, but it's better than most.

 

[Calis]

You are right that there is no best UU.

Things are highly depending on the game situation. I as a HoF gamer usually do not care about any UU after the AA, or early MA. If I want to beat the game as quick as possible, I am doing something wrong, if I wait for cavalry (or its alternatives). I go for fast AA UUs (which are MWs or GS).

People who want to have fun with the game, focus on their favotite UU. Some like the offensive power of the Sipahi, while I for instance like the blitz ability of the Cossack, which can be a real MGL factory.

I think there are more threads about the best unit, civ, traits, etc, than I have hairs on my head. (Yes, I still have some) And there is always a lot of discussion.

 

[Ataxerxes]

You are right that there is no best UU.

Things are highly depending on the game situation. I as a HoF gamer usually do not care about any UU after the AA, or early MA. If I want to beat the game as quick as possible, I am doing something wrong, if I wait for cavalry (or its alternatives). I go for fast AA UUs (which are MWs or GS).

People who want to have fun with the game, focus on their favotite UU. Some like the offensive power of the Sipahi, while I for instance like the blitz ability of the Cossack, which can be a real MGL factory.

I think there are more threads about the best unit, civ, traits, etc, than I have hairs on my head. (Yes, I still have some) And there is always a lot of discussion.

It's kind of like the old joke about the Greeks. You get 6 Greeks in a room and you have 12 opinions. I've had to catch myself arguing with myself a couple of times in UU discussions.

 

[scratchthepitch]

I've had to catch myself arguing with myself a couple of times in UU discussions.

But which one of you won the argument?

 

[MarkK]

Cavalry. Infantry. Bombers. Modern Armor.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Cavalry. Infantry. Bombers. Modern Armor.

Uh, the discussion is about UU's.

Unless I'm going for space, I don't use Modern Armor. In fact, sometimes I don't use Bombers. The AI usually doesn't live long after I get tanks, especially if I'm Germany.

I actually like the Panzer. On Huge maps I might not be done until tanks come along and that extra movement point is pretty nice.