Why do people still say redcoats are awesome?

[Monkeyfinger]

In any topic regarding leaders or civs where the brits come up, someone inevitably brings up redcoats as one of Britain's trump cards. Why? Is it because they don't realize that they were badly nerfed in warlords, where they lost 2 full strength points, and never got those points back?

Right now, they're generic riflemen unless they are fighting other gunpowder units. If you're using the british queens correctly, they won't be, and if you're using Churchill, the trait bonuses his gunpowder units get means he doesn't need the redcoat bonus that badly.

 

[AlessioCerci]

Well when they are attacking cities they will invariably be fighting grenadiers or other riflemen, so the bonus is very helpful. 25% extra strength in most (all if your opponent has no horses) battles is a good bonus. Churchill can get redcoats with +50% vs gunpowder units with only 2XP. Tell me that is not good.

 

[Churchill's Hat]

They get barely beaten by grenadiers with both having no promotion, but they slaughter anything else in their age.

Okay, they're not as broken as Quechuas or Praetorians, but they're definitely up there. And you say churchill doesn't need them as much, because he's protective. So, does this mean Romans are better off without Boudicca?

 

[Monkeyfinger]

Well when they are attacking cities they will invariably be fighting grenadiers or other riflemen

If you're using Elizabeth and to a lesser extent Victoria... No they won't be. They will invariably be fighting longbowmen, macemen, pikemen and knights.

I suppose you do have a point with Churchill.

 

[Sjaramei]

If you're using Elizabeth and to a lesser extent Victoria... No they won't be. They will invariably be fighting longbowmen, macemen, pikemen and knights.

I suppose you do have a point with Churchill.

That depends more on the difficulty you are playing than the leader.

I've not used rifles very much, i use Cuirassiers/Cavs more when i get there, and then i'm usually only a tech or two away from infantry anyway. So for me the "craze" about redcoats haven't made much sense

 

[AlessioCerci]

If you're using Elizabeth and to a lesser extent Victoria... No they won't be. They will invariably be fighting longbowmen, macemen, pikemen and knights.

You need to move up a difficulty level. Whats the point of any UU if you are an era ahead in military technology. On Emperor and above you won't be facing medieval units with redcoats.

 

[Gliese 581]

You need to move up a difficulty level. Whats the point of any UU if you are an era ahead in military technology. On Emperor and above you won't be facing medieval units with redcoats.

I think it's possible to be ahead one era on any difficulty level really.. not every game though.

 

[cheffster]

You need to move up a difficulty level. Whats the point of any UU if you are an era ahead in military technology. On Emperor and above you won't be facing medieval units with redcoats.

Erm I disagree, quite often on Immortal or even Deity (sometimes) I've gone to war with my Riflemen vs. medeival unts, in fact this happens quite often with my playstyle.

I'm not trying to say I'm some 'pro' or anything, that's far from the truth, but my playstyle is to spend the first 1/2 of the game soley on bulding up my economy, mass-producing as many wonders as possible (which is usually lots), and tech trading aggressively (though carefully) with the AI's to ensure I have a good tech lead. It's more then possible on Immortal+ to usually have a decent tech-lead by the time you can build riflemen if you play your cards right with a leader who has economic traits. (though some games you may be stuck with bad terrain/etc making it harder)

What's the point of going to war vs superior units or even units at par with your military? I virtually always pick my time period for wars when I know I have a good tech lead, and often it means my riflemen vs their knights, then shortly after it's my infantry vs their rifles/cavarly.

At any difficulty this seems to apply. I usually play on Immortal and often after a few golden ages from Taj/great artist I'll advance to the industrial era and this is most often when I goto war, and 95% of the time I'm the tech leader at this point. I do usually play leaders with economic traits (like financial/ind/philosophical etc.) so maybe with Churchill it would be more common to find yourself against other riflemen with his UU, but with Victoria/Elizabith you should be able to have a decent tech lead and not need the +25% vs gunpowder IMO even on Immortal/Diety difficulty (if that's what you play).

It can depend on your playstyle I suppose, some players are much better warmongers then I am, and tend to goto war early w/out a tech lead and win, but I tend to focus 99% on my economy and later goto war when I'm far ahead as possible in tech.

Redcoats used to own with their superior strength, now I hardly find them anymore usefull then riflemen. (and its usually not that long after getting rifling that I have infantry anyways).

 

[madscientist]

My opinion is that the Liz/Vicky Redcoats are an average UU. I rate the Churchill Redcoats in the top 5 UU's.

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

They arn't bad, just not as OMFGPWN as they used to be. They're still a hell of a lot better than a lot of other UUs (I'm looking at you, Camel Archer, Korean Catapult Thing, Galec (spelled wrong, I know) Warrior, etc.)

 

[Morgrad]

Even if you're fighting pre-gunpowder units with them, before too long you'll be facing gunpowder units also *or* gunpowder vs. the next Civ you attack after defeating the weaker Civ. For the gunpowder era, there is no better unit than the redcoat.

Are they the end-all be-all of the game? Of course not, but they're a fantastic unit that lasts for quite a long time.

 

[tycoonist]

i guess the reason is nothing is better than them until machine guns, and if you beeline rifling they can dominate for ages and ages, because of your tech lead or the protective trait. sure, they aren't the undefeatables they used to be but they are only one peg lower than praets and quechua and are always useful.

 

[Sjaramei]

Erm I disagree, quite often on Immortal or even Deity (sometimes) I've gone to war with my Riflemen vs. medeival unts, in fact this happens quite often with my playstyle.

I'm not trying to say I'm some 'pro' or anything, that's far from the truth, but my playstyle is to spend the first 1/2 of the game soley on bulding up my economy, mass-producing as many wonders as possible (which is usually lots), and tech trading aggressively (though carefully) with the AI's to ensure I have a good tech lead. It's more then possible on Immortal+ to usually have a decent tech-lead by the time you can build riflemen if you play your cards right with a leader who has economic traits. (though some games you may be stuck with bad terrain/etc making it harder)

What's the point of going to war vs superior units or even units at par with your military? I virtually always pick my time period for wars when I know I have a good tech lead, and often it means my riflemen vs their knights, then shortly after it's my infantry vs their rifles/cavarly.

At any difficulty this seems to apply. I usually play on Immortal and often after a few golden ages from Taj/great artist I'll advance to the industrial era and this is most often when I goto war, and 95% of the time I'm the tech leader at this point. I do usually play leaders with economic traits (like financial/ind/philosophical etc.) so maybe with Churchill it would be more common to find yourself against other riflemen with his UU, but with Victoria/Elizabith you should be able to have a decent tech lead and not need the +25% vs gunpowder IMO even on Immortal/Diety difficulty (if that's what you play).

It can depend on your playstyle I suppose, some players are much better warmongers then I am, and tend to goto war early w/out a tech lead and win, but I tend to focus 99% on my economy and later goto war when I'm far ahead as possible in tech.

Redcoats used to own with their superior strength, now I hardly find them anymore usefull then riflemen. (and its usually not that long after getting rifling that I have infantry anyways).

I agree, but my point was the argument that the leader he picked gave him that tech lead was wrong. Even with Churchill it should be possible getting Rifles vs Longbows vs backwards AI's at least. (Though it gets harder the harder difficulty you try )

I believe Financial isn't as breaking at high levels since you need to expand through AI's to get a tech lead. (A few specialized cities doesn't work as well as it used too)

 

[CivCorpse]

In any topic regarding leaders or civs where the brits come up, someone inevitably brings up redcoats as one of Britain's trump cards. Why? Is it because they don't realize that they were badly nerfed in warlords, where they lost 2 full strength points, and never got those points back?

Right now, they're generic riflemen unless they are fighting other gunpowder units. If you're using the british queens correctly, they won't be, and if you're using Churchill, the trait bonuses his gunpowder units get means he doesn't need the redcoat bonus that badly.

Quite simply, not all of us are uber-gamers that get enourmous tech leads. That is why there are lower play levels. I typically play prince through Emperor. On prince I can usually get a nice tech lead. On Monarch and emperor I have a slight tech lead or am sometimes behind on Monarch by that stage of the game. I like the UU, especially since Liz is my favorite leader.
But the $64,000 question isn't whether the Redcoat is a strong UU, but rather this; If you are such a master gamer that you always have riflemen against medievel units, why do you need a UU that late in the game? Unique Units are meant to have an advantage against opponents from a closer area or against the generic version of the unit (Exception being Jannissaries) And muskets are quite close to the edge.

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

What is their weakness? None.

 

[popejubal]

If you are fighting with Rifles vs. Medieval units, then you don't need an advantage. If you are fighting vs. gunpowder units, then a free 25% bonus is absolutely delightful.

This is the kind of advantage I like. Get the bonus where you need it, not where it has no point.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

It's not about being an uber gamer, it's about the fact that Elizabeth (and victoria, kind of) are built around a playstyle that involves, among other things, winning fights by having more advanced troops than the opponent. I can't reliably stay a full era ahead of the AIs on a high difficulty level with any old leader, but with Elizabeth, who is tailor-made to do that? Hell yes. In other words, a UU bonus that only works on units of the same or later eras clashes with a tech-whore leader.

I do suppose I sold Churchill's redcoats short though. I've never used the guy, so I'm not really sure. Stiiilllll.... Redcoats get hype for the queens specifically, so the point of the topic still stands.

What is their weakness? None.

I can say that about most UUs. There are very few exceptions: The Jaguar, Numidian Cavalry, and Samurai.

What you need to judge UUs by is how strong their advantages over the generic unit they replace are, since it usually goes without saying that there will be no drawback. IMO, Redcoats aren't that good there.

 

[cheffster]

I think nerfing them down to 14str rather then their old 16 was a tad too far of a nerf, sure they were probably overpowered with 16str, and compared to alot of other UUs they are still pretty decent even after post-nerf.

But I think a bringing their str back up to 15 would be appriopriate, that way I'd sure use em more often and perhaps prioritize rifling moreso.

I think they are still uesfull with churchhill, and under some circumstances with Vic/Liz, but also overrated and a far cry from their original glory.

 

[CivCorpse]

What you need to judge UUs by is how strong their advantages over the generic unit they replace are, since it usually goes without saying that there will be no drawback. IMO, Redcoats aren't that good there.

try a stack of equally promoted stack of redcoats vs a stack of generic riflemen in world builder and get back to me on that.

And if you are that far ahead of the AI in tech...what do you need a UU for? Any UU? But if you're on tech parity, then they rock. Go up a level until you are playing at the same tech level as they are. If there is no level that high, then unplug your monitor and guess at what you're cicking...that will challenge you

 

[troytheface]

yes, in a game of somewhat equal tech paceing i have found my glorious rifle stacks decimated by their counter the Grenadeer. (Cavalry needed in them stacks...)
But the Redcoat need not fear that counter. I'd say thats a pretty big edge.