Which is the most useless unit?

[DragonRunner]

Same goes for the musketmen. I didn't mention them because they actually can come handy to defend a city if you're attacked in the twenty turns before you can build riflemen or grenadiers (sp ?).

[ranting]Damn I hate the French UU. They could have put something better, like earlier axe-bearers, the usual knight of doom or even set musketeers as replacement for riflemen (wouldn't have been more innacurate historically : 200 years wrong in each case). In AoE3 which is a game of musketeers the Frenchs got the knight as UU, and in Civ IV they also got a useless unit.[/ranting]

I haven't played them yet, but how can a musketman w/ 2 move be useless?

 

[SlipperyJim]

My current game (Noble/Terra/Marathon) is actually giving me a chance to use Ironclads. I need something to protect my fishing boats from the Chinese frigates, and I'm still a tech or two away from Destroyers. On Marathon speed, that "tech or two" is still going to be 10-15 turns, so my Ironclads are actually seeing some action.

Two Ironclads vs. two Frigates = One damaged Ironclad and one damaged Frigate! Hey, what's the deal?

Fortunately, the damaged Ironclad ran into a nearby port to heal. Even better, the damaged Frigate kept sailing toward my fishing boats, and got sunk by a third Ironclad before it could do any damage.

Frigates: 1
Ironclads: 2

To summarize ... Ironclads aren't totally useless (at Marathon speed, anyway), but they still aren't great. They still get my vote for worst unit. :thumbdown

 

[ShaLouZa]

I haven't played them yet, but how can a musketman w/ 2 move be useless?

9 strentgh where a knight has 10 and various bonus, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't benefit of the "no fortifications against gunpowder" bonus, since I've tested and most of my stacks have been slaughtered by longbowmen and macemen when attacking cities. If you bring some catapultes, it negates the 2 move rate.

So what is he good for if you can't use him for attacking cities and if a knight is better in open ground ? They're good at defending cities when you don't have riflemen yet, but what use does the 2 move has when you're fortified ?

 

[kernok]

i voted 'other' since IMO musketman deserve the price of "most useless" unit.
i like the way ironclads have been nerfed from what they were in previous civ games. it is true they ruled the see in real life but i'm in love with all ships like fregate, gallions, ships of the line, bricks etc... and i just think ironclads are ugly.
yes: it's just a question of style!

musketman are usefull because they become obsolete too quickly!
by the way musketeers are without a doubt the "most useless UU"
it's a shame for dartagnan et ses potos!!!

 

[fung3]

Ironclad is something I have never built....I don't like them.

I never really build any Marines but they don't suit my playing style, for maps with a lot of water marines/navy seals could be very good.

The poll above shows 2 entries for Explorer. If the results for each are aggregated then the Explorer has polled the poorest result.

 

[ShaLouZa]

Musketeers could have +50% vs melee units, in homage to D'Artagnan sword skills.

Or + 100% strentgh if you have wine, in homage to Porthos and Beaujolais.

 

[kernok]

both musketmen and musketeers should have such a bonus against melee units (+50%) to become valuable units.
for example they could receive this bonus in the next patch...
hein soren hein dis qu't'es d'accord mon gars!!

 

[Bezhukov]

The value of muskets is in shutting down maces - muskets are gunpowder, not melee units. If one is warding off a mace sneak, the mobility of musketeers is also quite welcome. As to xbows, play Japan to see how much they suck - not! The availbility of xbows at the same time as Samurai makes that UU much less useful.

The value of ironclads can be seen when one is lacking oil. I've had two different games where my only oil was only availble at plastics, so I had to build ironclads to ward off Monty's pillaging caravels and frigates.

 

[Wodan]

Something else about Musketeers (and Musketmen in general)... there's no upgrade path to them!

So, forget about taking all your high-XP units and getting halfway decent Musketeers. You have to start from the bottom rung all over again.

Wodan

 

[Bezhukov]

Re: chariots; "They can also handle barbarians from animals to archers with ease"

No, actually they can't, since they don't get defensive bonuses from terrain (the best way to defeat stupid barbs). With an aggressive civ, you can usually get away with quantity over quality - using promoted warriors until axes come online. With others, archers are often better than chariots, especially at defeding cities, as with the city defense bonus added, they're stronger than chariots even without terrain.

 

[Lunargent]

I voted for chariots. I've never ever built one. Why bother when you can make a horse archer?

 

[Danghis Khan]

I picked warrior, but should have said carrier.

 

[MrMahk]

Explorer, ironclad, musketeer, CARRIER.

 

[gunkulator]

I never really build any Marines but they don't suit my playing style, for maps with a lot of water marines/navy seals could be very good.

Marines = best city defender of their time. They can get the city defender promotions and can fortify. They're only a bit more expensive than Infantry.

 

[Theodorick]

Why are ironclads so useless? Yeah I know they are a waste in quick/normal games, but in epic/marathon, and if you're going down the war end of the tech tree, they are awfully useful for defense. NOTHING at this time can survive an ironclad, so I usually use them as a defense for my coastal cities. With frigates I am usually biting my lips when I defend my coastal cities since I know I'll lose a few, but Ironclads? Almost never.

I usually have ironclads, on epic/marathon, avaliable for about 25 to sometimes 40 turns, and since during this period the world suddenly seems to start warring with each other, they've always came in handy. They're like really beefed up galleys.

I find the explorer useless though. The world is often explored by that point of the game, or I could just explore it with a few military units instead, even in the terra map.

BTW there are two explorer points on the voting list for some reason, and if you add them up they beat the ironclad. Least it seems the majority out there has brains.

 

[Danghis Khan]

I like to think of ironclads as coastal defense ships and use them to guard resources until a better ship comes along.

 

[MyOtherName]

I like to think of ironclads as coastal defense ships and use them to guard resources until a better ship comes along.

Yes, it seems like such an obvious use of the unit, I can't understand why it's thought to be so useless. Maybe some people just prefer to lose their food and coastal commerce when at war?

Explorer surprises me too -- do people not like to map enemy (er.. I mean friendly ) continents when they get caravels?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Re: chariots; "They can also handle barbarians from animals to archers with ease"

No, actually they can't, since they don't get defensive bonuses from terrain (the best way to defeat stupid barbs). With an aggressive civ, you can usually get away with quantity over quality - using promoted warriors until axes come online. With others, archers are often better than chariots, especially at defeding cities, as with the city defense bonus added, they're stronger than chariots even without terrain.

Agreed archers are normally better than chariots on defence, but chariots are normally stronger when attacking. Plus they can move faster. I recall one game where I'd expanded quite a bit and had barbs randomly coming from all sides. I kept two chariots round my capital, and they served as a rapid-reaction force, taking out barb warriors/archers wherever they appeared, in the process probably saving me from having to build 4-5 axemen at a time when I was majorly focusing on my economy. Even later on when barb axemen started appearing, the chariots were useful - a chariot can severely damage an axeman, or finish him off if he's already weakened.

 

[niffweed17]

oh man, camel archers, and phalanxes win big time. i'm not even going to consider explorers or ironclads, which i take to be useless for granted.

however, when you consider the most useless UU's, you have to start with the F-15. thankfully, that no longer exists. therefore, you now have to move on to the two worthless UU's... the phalanx and the camel archer.

the phalanx gets an extra combat point, which is nice. however, axeman still have a bonus against melee units, making the phalanx nothing more than a specialist with which to pack your armies against horse archers and whatever else mounted comes your way. so, essentially, they're no better than spearman except for the extra point, which hardly matters because any spearman can beat any mounted unit before knights hands down, in my experience. all in all, its not a useful bonus.

camel archers, on the other hand, have even less of a discernible bonus; they have a 25% chance of fleeing combat, whoopee. beyond that, they only have going for them that they dont require horses. that would be nice if it were a replacement for horse archers (or even chariots), but for knights horses are generally already a valuable commodity: otherwise, you're liable to be dead.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I voted for chariots. I've never ever built one. Why bother when you can make a horse archer?

You can't make a horse archer unless you've researched horse-riding. And that's quite an expensive tech to research in the early game and at that point has no other use.