Worst Unique Unit

[JTMacc99]

JTMacc99:

Commando is stronger than CR3. This is coming from someone who's had the opportunity to use a bunch of Commando units - very strong.

A Commando Marine is almost like a super-strong Gunship.

I was thinking more along the lines of synergy with unit itself. Commando doesn't add together with the Marine's amphibious promotion, but city raider would. I pictured CRIII marines attacking from ships and absolutely slaughtering pretty much everything with very little air support.

By giving the SEAL commando, I thought it would be a more interesting way to make the unit truly special, but it wouldn't practically eliminate the need for air support during an amphibious assault. Where I could really see Commando being awesome would by by landing a whole bunch of them in a friendly neighboring country, and then when you have one invasion force hitting the coastal cities, you could also have a bunch of SEALs come rushing through the back door and hitting valuable but lightly defended rear cities. Hmm, I guess you're right. That would be kind of unfair. It would be even better if you're still fighting a land war on your own continent.

 

[MadmanAtW]

Sure, you can skip archery if you have DS, but doesn't that mean that your mediocre UU is useful only if you skip the tech that makes your UB useful?

 

[trouble_maker]

I don't like Numidian Cavalry. They got slaughtered by Gaellic warriors in my last game.

 

[Deep_Blue]

I'd take dogs over a lot of UUs, to be honest.

I agree with you Dog Soldiers are better than many UUs in the game, I saw a great Deity game that was won with SB somewhere in the forums, it seems that dogs are very good for Deity because of the early advantage against barbarians... Barbarians are very annoying on deity Period. I was playing a deity game once, I build a worker first and I saw a barbarian archer approaching few turns before finishing my first worker ! (luckily he was not interested in my empty city ).. so yes Dogs reduces you Deity game from 'impossible' to 'very hard'.

 

[Deep_Blue]

The poll now is clear, the top 5 dumpiest UUs:

1.Ballista Elephant (115 votes)
2.Jaguar (50 votes)
3.Camel Archer (39 Votes)
4.Gallic Warriors (35 Votes)
5.Navy Seal (34 Votes)

No surprise here, but I think navy seal shouldn't be in the top 5, there are UUs that are a lot worse.

 

[Gliese 581]

What's so bad about the Gallic Warrior? You can build them with copper, that's pretty neat. Also, a free promotion never hurt anyone.

 

[Soirana]

i never got why balista phants are so hated... Not worst than regular one and in later ages still might be used on offense vs knights in cities [yes AI is damn stupid].

 

[Killroyan]

The fact that I have played the Khmer a couple of times and never got any ivory really makes me want to rage. The unit itself may be decent but I still do not know how they look or how well they do in battle simply because I have never build them so far.

 

[ston]

That's just bad luck with the combat odds. Conquistadores are no better than standard Cuirassiers when attacking knight, but get terrain bonuses on defense.

Aye, it was a bad RNG session for sure, kinda put me off them a bit (actually, I don't think I've played as Spain since then thinking about it!)

CHE-ARGE!

http://www.iue.edu/hss/foreignlanguage/spain2009/img/donquixote.gif

 

[Sobric]

I don't know why Gallic Warrior is in there. They are no worse than regular swordsmen, and you get a step up to getting G3, which is a very useful promotion. I still feel they should have some synergy with the Dun though, giving them G2 strait out of the bag (needing only a barracks to get to G3).

I had a recent game where I had G3 Gallics with barracks & settled GG fairly early, and then got the 8 swords event. As an aggressive leader G3 Gallics would then have + 10% str, 30% city attack, 75% hills defence, 25% hill attack, double movements on hills and 50% withdrawal chance! (the same as Flanking 2 Keshiks!). So basically a highly mobile attack unit with great defensive capabilities. Seriously 50% withdrawal chance is pretty huge.

 

[Ai Shizuka]

That's probably because swords aren't exactly a good unit to begin with.
At the higher levels sword/cata war is usually avoided, unless REALLY desperate for some breathing room.
Main factor to even research IW early is jungle or lack of metal. In many circumstances IW can be safely skipped until MUCH later.

 

[Learningciv]

Jaguar is the one UU where I would actually rather have the normal unit. However in situations where I do not need to go offensive with swords then they can become useful by being a 10xp medic/W3 unit that you can dump a GG on for the full super medic. The one civ that I actually end up with the super unit quite often on.

 

[Iranon]

The premier suspects are units that have a good chance to be worse than the one they replace... even a too-late-to-be-relevant UU is better than one that we'd actually consider trading in for the vanilla version.
However, keep in mind that even strictly better units... aren't. Example: the Hwacha bonus might bite us in the rear if our catapults defend against melee, instead of a weaker but more cost-effective unit.

*

Dog Soldier (strength loss on the bread-and-butter unit of its time)
Vulture (lesser anti-melee bonus)
Jaguar Warrior (strength loss on the premier can opener of its time)
Praetorian (more expensive, lacks the city attack bonus)
Keshik (no first strike immunity)
Numidian Cavalry (strength loss)
Samurai (stricter resource requirements).
Cataphract (no first strike immunity)
Conquistador (a bug prevents it from ignoring walls)

Let's look at the potential to be a liability (I won't look too deeply into potential advantages, so this WILL be one-sided).

Dog Soldier: While they certainly have their uses, they can be a serious liability in rushes and classical-age wars. Axemen vs. Archer is usually the best attackers can hope for against mixed forces, better than Swordsman vs. Axeman. Native Americans need specifically Iron to get a good city attacker before catapults.
HIGH.

Vulture: The anti-melee capabilities of Vultures are strange and unintuitive. They tend to be weaker than axemen in the open and stronger if the defender gets many defensive bonuses (both ways). While there is a non-neglegible chance that a few combats will be fought at worse odds, on the whole they are equal to regular axes in the anti-melee role and superior at anything else.
MODERATE.

Jaguar Warrior: While they make good healers and harassment troops, Jaguars are notably inferior in the role that normal Swordsmen fulfil best - taking archer-defended cities. Needing 5 hammers less to be built isn't enough to make them more cost-efficient, so...
HIGH.

Praetorian: We really need to jump through hoops to find a single situation where their drawbacks are not offset several times over by their higher power. Over the course of a whole game?
INSIGNIFICANT.

Keshik: Most archery units have at least one first strike and can get more via Drill, so the Keshik is a disadvantage against them if we use combat/counter promotions rather than the flanking line. Usually this is more than offset by its increased effectiveness against melee and, more importantly, its excellent mobility.
However, against the likes of Cho-Ko-Nu hordes, this drawback can become crippling.
MEDIUM.

Numidian Cavalry: A free promotion is not worth the lost of 1/6 of our base strength; the bonus vs. melee may or may not be relevant. 'Keep an opponent off metals, horse archer them to death' is a viable approach, less so with Numidians. Therefore:
HIGH.

Samurai: Native first strikes and a free promotion don't help if we only have copper but no iron. While iron is usually not *that* rare, potentially losing a perfectly useful unit means the overall risk of being a liability is...
HIGH.

Cataphract: We can get the first strike immunity back by taking the flanking line; the higher base strength more than offsets forgone combat promotions, and lacking one counter promotion is less likely to trump higher strength and better retreat odds.
INSIGNIFICANT.

Conquistador: Having to deal with 100% defense that the parent unit ignores is no fun at all; it's likely to railroad us into using spies which might otherwise not be necessary. Even though having a unit that can attack, defend and flank equally well, and even though this is probably a bug...
HIGH.

*

Do these risks make a UU worse than merely being 'too little, too late' like some of the others? Depends. I don't tend to rely heavily on macemen but don't consider them weak either... as such, samurai are cool to have but if I have no Iron it's not a big problem either (PRO longbows + siege is good enough for me until I get those ultra-shiny gunpowder units).
There are many games where swords never supplant axes... as such I'm willing to take weaker swords for quick strike units/healers, but not to compromise the offensive potential of my axes without lasting benefits; least of all with a PRO leader and an archer-buffing UB.

 

[aapo]

The poll now is clear, the top 5 dumpiest UUs:

1.Ballista Elephant (115 votes)
2.Jaguar (50 votes)
3.Camel Archer (39 Votes)
4.Gallic Warriors (35 Votes)
5.Navy Seal (34 Votes)

- Who takes Hwacha over Camel Archer? Knight that needs neither horses nor iron and still receives additional +15% withdrawal chance is pretty solid pick for hit-and-run attacks. Jaguar isn't the only unit getting penalty in strength either. According to this post Numidian Cavalry and Dog Soldier also have this drawback.

 

[Gooblah]

How the hell is the SEAL in the bottom 5?! It rocks!

March makes them the perfect Invasion force.

 

[UWHabs]

The premier suspects are units that have a good chance to be worse than the one they replace... even a too-late-to-be-relevant UU is better than one that we'd actually consider trading in for the vanilla version.
However, keep in mind that even strictly better units... aren't. Example: the Hwacha bonus might bite us in the rear if our catapults defend against melee, instead of a weaker but more cost-effective unit.

*

Dog Soldier (strength loss on the bread-and-butter unit of its time)
Vulture (lesser anti-melee bonus)
Jaguar Warrior (strength loss on the premier can opener of its time)
Praetorian (more expensive, lacks the city attack bonus)
Keshik (no first strike immunity)
Numidian Cavalry (strength loss)
Samurai (stricter resource requirements).
Cataphract (no first strike immunity)
Conquistador (a bug prevents it from ignoring walls)

Let's look at the potential to be a liability (I won't look too deeply into potential advantages, so this WILL be one-sided).

Dog Soldier: While they certainly have their uses, they can be a serious liability in rushes and classical-age wars. Axemen vs. Archer is usually the best attackers can hope for against mixed forces, better than Swordsman vs. Axeman. Native Americans need specifically Iron to get a good city attacker before catapults.
HIGH.

Vulture: The anti-melee capabilities of Vultures are strange and unintuitive. They tend to be weaker than axemen in the open and stronger if the defender gets many defensive bonuses (both ways). While there is a non-neglegible chance that a few combats will be fought at worse odds, on the whole they are equal to regular axes in the anti-melee role and superior at anything else.
MODERATE.

Jaguar Warrior: While they make good healers and harassment troops, Jaguars are notably inferior in the role that normal Swordsmen fulfil best - taking archer-defended cities. Needing 5 hammers less to be built isn't enough to make them more cost-efficient, so...
HIGH.

Praetorian: We really need to jump through hoops to find a single situation where their drawbacks are not offset several times over by their higher power. Over the course of a whole game?
INSIGNIFICANT.

Keshik: Most archery units have at least one first strike and can get more via Drill, so the Keshik is a disadvantage against them if we use combat/counter promotions rather than the flanking line. Usually this is more than offset by its increased effectiveness against melee and, more importantly, its excellent mobility.
However, against the likes of Cho-Ko-Nu hordes, this drawback can become crippling.
MEDIUM.

Numidian Cavalry: A free promotion is not worth the lost of 1/6 of our base strength; the bonus vs. melee may or may not be relevant. 'Keep an opponent off metals, horse archer them to death' is a viable approach, less so with Numidians. Therefore:
HIGH.

Samurai: Native first strikes and a free promotion don't help if we only have copper but no iron. While iron is usually not *that* rare, potentially losing a perfectly useful unit means the overall risk of being a liability is...
HIGH.

Cataphract: We can get the first strike immunity back by taking the flanking line; the higher base strength more than offsets forgone combat promotions, and lacking one counter promotion is less likely to trump higher strength and better retreat odds.
INSIGNIFICANT.

Conquistador: Having to deal with 100% defense that the parent unit ignores is no fun at all; it's likely to railroad us into using spies which might otherwise not be necessary. Even though having a unit that can attack, defend and flank equally well, and even though this is probably a bug...
HIGH.

*

Do these risks make a UU worse than merely being 'too little, too late' like some of the others? Depends. I don't tend to rely heavily on macemen but don't consider them weak either... as such, samurai are cool to have but if I have no Iron it's not a big problem either (PRO longbows + siege is good enough for me until I get those ultra-shiny gunpowder units).
There are many games where swords never supplant axes... as such I'm willing to take weaker swords for quick strike units/healers, but not to compromise the offensive potential of my axes without lasting benefits; least of all with a PRO leader and an archer-buffing UB.

One thing I'll argue is the conquistador. Yes, it doesn't ignore walls like other cuirassiers, but by this time, cities are usually at 60 or 80% cultural defense on their own. And if they have a pike in their city, consider this:

Conquistador vs pike in castle: 12 vs 6 + 200% - 50% = 12 vs 6 + 150%
Cuirassier vs. pike in 60% cultural D: 12 vs 6 + 160%

So, even in this case, the conquistador fares better. Okay, they fare worse against longbows behind castles, but even cuirassiers don't have great odds if they have decent cultural D. I'd say the possible risks from a conquistador would be very low.

 

[Phil725]

Just to defend my 2 favorite UUs;

Keshik: Most archery units have at least one first strike and can get more via Drill, so the Keshik is a disadvantage against them if we use combat/counter promotions rather than the flanking line. Usually this is more than offset by its increased effectiveness against melee and, more importantly, its excellent mobility.
However, against the likes of Cho-Ko-Nu hordes, this drawback can become crippling.
MEDIUM.

Keshiks have 1 first strike opposed to first strike immunity on vanilla HAs. The two relevant units with first strikes are archers and longbows, both have 1 first strike. The way I understand things, they basically cancel each other out. The AI just isn't going to get far enough down the drill line to have any effect. Protective archers could have Drill 2, but if they have that instead of CG, you should be happy. The damage that keshiks take over HAs is very small, and nonexistent for the most part.

Now factor in that keshiks get a free FS against all other units that HAs don't have. I would say 1 FS over FS immunity is a huge bonus, and definitely not a medium hindrance.

Conquistador: Having to deal with 100% defense that the parent unit ignores is no fun at all; it's likely to railroad us into using spies which might otherwise not be necessary. Even though having a unit that can attack, defend and flank equally well, and even though this is probably a bug...
HIGH.

I don't know how spies would otherwise be unnecessary. I use cuirassiers/conquistadors all the time, and I never skip spies. Any city worth taking will have 60% defense, and it only takes ~500 EPs to revolt a city. Whether the defenders there are longbows or pikes, attacking that city without spies is suicide.

The only time that the bug comes up is capturing fringe cities that are lightly defended and at 20/40% culture. You may use a spy there that you otherwise wouldn't have had to, but those kind of cities aren't going to decide a war. I would say it's a small inconvenience when you factor in the bonus vs. the counter unit of the time.

 

[Iranon]

Well, any fight against PRO archery units is going to be worse for Keshiks (native first strike, at least one first strike chance from Drill I) if we don't go for the flanking line. This gets worse if we're facing UUs with additional first strikes.

Very early CKN (before we have our own advanced archery units) are a nightmare for Mongolia to fight off... going for combat/cover Keshiks means we're giving them at least 1 1/2 additional first strikes compared to regular Horse Archers. Going for the Flanking line leaves us with insufficient strength.

I definitely find Keshiks a considerable asset in most games (Flanking II Keshiks are strictly superior to Flanking II Horse Archers, and great at allowing fast-paced warfare the AI is unable to deal with), but the chance of being a liability is non-neglegible.

***

Regarding Conquistadors... I've had plenty of situations come up where Cuirassiers would take acceptable losses without spies but Conqs wouldn't. Cities are likely defended mostly by Longbows and/or Muskets, and if they have a Castle Conqs lose out.

Again, I actually *like* Conqs. Abusing backwards civs without ivory aside, having a solid defender with 2 moves is huge... it means I can have a relay system and 1 unit produced in my core empire means one unit on the frontline immediately. It also means I can fortify any endangered cities immediately and flank the heck out of the attacker's siege force... and if they make a premature attack, I can punish them with the same units that made excellent defenders. Good times all around.

A high chance of being a liability doesn't make a UU bad if there's an even higher chance of it being a big asset and I never meant to imply such. I'll gladly take Jaguars or Conquistadors over many other UUs, but depending on their playstyle others might find them worse than no UU at all.

 

[JTMacc99]

How the hell is the SEAL in the bottom 5?! It rocks!

March makes them the perfect Invasion force.

The big reason is because they come so late. The second reason is that March doesn't really add a big bonus to how people would want to normally use that unit. March doesn't make them better attackers off a boat. March doesn't make them better city defenders if a person is taking the inland cities with tanks.

March would be a terrific addition to a maceman or rifleman unit, since they are the ones who are most frequently slugging through enemy territory in the company of siege weapons. If I'm invading after industrialism, I've probably switched over to Bombers and Tanks as my city busters, which means that my ground troops are more likely to be just moving from captured city to captured city.

It's not that the SEAL isn't a good unit, it's just that it's a late UU with an extra ability that doesn't do a heck of a lot to enhance what you would normally do with the base unit.

In one way, it has the same issue that the stupid elephant UU has. It doesn't really enhance what you would normally do with the unit, and its extra ability doesn't really give you an option to really take advantage of it.

 

[Deep_Blue]

The big reason is because they come so late. The second reason is that March doesn't really add a big bonus to how people would want to normally use that unit.

But Seals also have 1-2 first strikes. You see they have March+FS this is a good unit better than many other UUs , or many other UUs are worse than Seals. I don't care if they come too late. They have uses in their era, at least they don't become obsolete so quickly like many other UUs.