Worst Unique Unit?

[Iranon]

Assembly Plants are cheaper with coal in addition to providing additional Engineer slots, this is cumulative with Frederick's Organised discount.

This is a minor point compared to the amount of havoc commando tanks could wreak in combination with nukes though...

 

[AfterShafter]

I love Freddy's Assembly Plants... If I can recall, they're cheaper than Forges when you have coal

 

[6K Man]

This is a minor point compared to the amount of havoc commando tanks could wreak in combination with nukes though...

It's really fortunate that Hitler never got nukes, in that case. Guess we have Captain America & Bucky to thank for that.

Back on topic, I guess giving the Panzer a movement of 3 plus Mobility, might be a bit more balanced?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I actually really like the Redcoat... awesome UUs to me are as follows: Navy SEAL, Keshik, Praetorians, Cossacks, Caracks... here are a lot whcih can change a game by being used properly. The 15% withdrawal rate is low, and so the redeeming factor is the lack of horses needed - although that is not always useful. They're not the worst, but down at the bottom somewhere

Carracks are undeniably as situational as resourceless knights, if not more so. Good luck gaining much utility on pangaea or even continents.

Vanilla cossacks were godly unstoppable death units. BTS cossacks? How exactly is that an awesome UU if the camel archer isn't? Cossacks get NOTHING against their counter unit, the rifle. That's what they'll be fighting most of the time ----> if they can come up against cavalry, they can come up against rifles. Vs anything else they're essentially cavalry. Granted, cavalry is great, but what makes the cossack so much better? At least the camel archer gets a bonus against what it will actually be attacking relative to the stock unit.

And I can see why nobody wants to touch the bowman/ballista elephant argument .

 

[henyo10]

Since the AI spams Cavalry so much, the Cossacks really come into play at that point.

 

[sydhe]

As far as carracks go: I'm currently playing a global highlands map with snaky continents and I decided to colonize this big island north of me. As it turned out, my continent went past the south edge of the map, and down the north edge, and the "island" I was colonizing was the far end of my continent. The strait separating the two ends was about three turns by carrack, and the power at that end (Frederick) was much friendlier than Boadica, who spanned the poles. (Obviously a toroidal map.) Thus, no colony, but wonders limited to the continent work for both halves of my civilization, and I have lots of good land that Fred would have gotten.

 

[Molybdeus]

Dogs are 500lb gorrilas. They can travers the early map with impunity. Nothing can beat them in the field.

Woe to any civ that starts too close to SB. He will steal you worker and pillage your lands while he expands and you stay idle. Enough Dogs will take some cities, but swordsmen aren't too far beyond BW.

Did your version of the game ship without chariots?

It was either give them the Panzer, or give them the U-Boat. The U-Boat would most likely suck even more so....

I think Ballista Elephant sill wins worst prize. America's UU also seems to be a very poor contender in my books, I suppose it may be a little better than the Panzer.

I think Teutonic Knights would have been good units for Germany. Minutemen would have been awesome for the US.

 

[Ghpstage]

Carracks are undeniably as situational as resourceless knights, if not more so. Good luck gaining much utility on pangaea or even continents.

Vanilla cossacks were godly unstoppable death units. BTS cossacks? How exactly is that an awesome UU if the camel archer isn't? Cossacks get NOTHING against their counter unit, the rifle. That's what they'll be fighting most of the time ----> if they can come up against cavalry, they can come up against rifles. Vs anything else they're essentially cavalry. Granted, cavalry is great, but what makes the cossack so much better? At least the camel archer gets a bonus against what it will actually be attacking relative to the stock unit.

And I can see why nobody wants to touch the bowman/ballista elephant argument .

Can't say for certain as I've never tried but wouldn't a bowman be very good at choking other civs? Whenever I've tried with other non sitting bull archers they've always been killed by axes, so the 50% against melee might make a considerable difference.

Ballista ellies I don't like at all, for me they tend to backfire when I use them. I want to kill the maces with my shock ellies not the damn chariots!
I have had occasional use out of them, but only on defense where the BEs can actually catch the enemy stack, they are imo the worst UU.

Barring the early anti-archer type units, what else qualifies as incredible to behold? Cossacks in bts? Redcoats vs anything but other rifles/muskets (aka a tech lead war)? Samurai? Gallic warriors? Panzers? Holkans against competent players or high level AIs? The bowman? I can go on if you like. Knights are the strongest base str unit in their era, so giving them survivability is a boon. Of course cataphracts are better, but that doesn't make CA's a bad unit. Flanking CAs can be quite nice as part of a stack, and if you're going the mass horse archer route then the withdraw guys are more palatable as survival strikers than stock knights.

It's not going to win awards for best UU ever, but the withdraw is a useful bonus and puts it ahead of frequently horrible UUs like the ballista elephant, bowman, and panzer.

Yeah I agree on panzers, IF you ever get them the tech gaps have usually opened up to such a degree that they will rarely end up fighting against tanks and against everything else they're just normal tanks.
Samurai I'm not a fan of but they're ok.

Carrack on pangea can be nice, they don't get ejected from borders on DOW do they? Also you can still build them until at least past combustion (Do caravels EVER obsolete!?). I can see them making for some interesting sneak attacks in the right circumstances. Although I can see this is a niche use.

I quite liked Gallic Swordsmen in a game I played recently, Guerilla 3 is seriously underrated imo and as far as I know Gallics are the only melee unit able to get it. +50% defence on hills protects them against axes, 2 moves over hills makes them very good at worker capture farming, and 25% attack against hills nullifying the bonus (well would be better if the AI didn't use solely archers as garrison but stilll nice, and obviously this all relies on hills but they can't be chopped)
Most importantly a HUGE 50% withdrawal bonus. I think this is enough to allow a fair number of useful strategies to be used using Gallics, Guerilla 3 maces anyone!? I just wish the Dun lasted longer it could be killer post rifling.

This is exactly the kind of thing I like in my uniques, the ability to use them in ways that would be impractical even impossible to the standard unit. I kinda find the CA boring, wouldn't say its the worst UU though not by a long shot

 

[justininian II]

The only one that comes to mind is the Fast Worker. I build enough regular workers with other civs to the point where they often idle or build improvements that won't be touched for centuries and so getting that mine or pasture one turn sooner is hardly going to make or break a game for me. I mean it's nice that you have instant access to them and that they never go obsolete but imo they're only really useful if you start surrounded by jungles.

I would've preferred it if they built things 50% (or maybe 25%) faster like with serfdom or the hagia sofia or perhaps instead if they had a strength value like the scout and could chop forests or build roads outside your borders and be relatively safe from animals/barbarians.

I agree with FW; it could use 50% faster improvement
Strngth value sounds nice too
I HATE losing workers when they're roading to my iron-city

 

[dankok8]

Just want to comment on some units people mentioned:
Cossacks - not great, but remember that +50% bonus against mounted applies vs. Knights, Cuirassiers etc that AI's build huge amount of - useful bonus although definitely not gamebreaking
Camel Archers - pretty good units; they are probably the most cost efficient Longbow killers with FI, FIIl; they are also resourceless on top of it

The worst 3 imo are Ballistas, Panzers, and Bowmen like TMIT said:
Ballista - not bad in MP where you fight field battles; being able to destroy the enemy's mounted units without getting impaled on Pikes is a useful bonus; still fairly situational and its dependence of Ivory makes it hard to rely on
Panzers - pretty good in theory, but crappy in practice; if you play epic games, you will rarely face other tanks so this bonus is useless; playing against a human player in a modern start however, this unit could be game-breaking
Bowmen - crappiest of all imo; it excels in combat against melee, but cannot defeat axemen or swordmen outside of defending a city if their life depended on it; if you are facing a CI/Cover axeman (possible for Agg leaders), you will need 3 Bowmen to kill one axeman. To further make this unit useless, Hammy is Agg which means he can get CI/Shock axemen out of the gate, making this unit useless (or at least no more useful than a regular archer) unless you have no metal around. If you have no metal, this unit still offers no extra protection against enemies who can field mounted units and you are vulnerable to those. In addition, if you have horses, you are probably better off building chariots since these can attack enemy Axemen before they get to your city and attack enemy cities. In conclusion, this unit is as defensive in nature as a regular archer and on top of that very situational.

 

[justininian II]

Assembly Plants are cheaper with coal in addition to providing additional Engineer slots, this is cumulative with Frederick's Organised discount.

This is a minor point compared to the amount of havoc commando tanks could wreak in combination with nukes though...

Yeah, though I only play as DE with Unsecured leaders, as Justininian-- Spi/Imp rocks!

 

[Molybdeus]

Actually Bowmen do OK vs melee in the field when you consider their relative costs. (Cover changes this, but I rarely see the AI take it early in the game.) If your opponent attempts to pillage your resources with melee units they are an effective response. And they will almost be forced to pillage given the fact that Bowmen completely destroy melee units when defending cities. They can also stack protect for chariots.

The problem is the lack of synergy between Bowmen and Hammurabi's traits. Bowmen are great for turtling and protecting vertical development, but Hammurabi doesn't want to turtle and build: he wants to whip units and expand. Make him philosophical or industrious instead of aggressive and you get a lot more use out of Bowmen.

 

[Flying Pig]

Bowmen are to defend cities against swordsmen, whch are the generic city-killer. They're also pretty good in field action

 

[Hammurbabble]

One thing that I think goes into thinking a UU is "bad" is an expectation of using masses of them for attack purposes, or otherwise not understanding how they're supposed to be used. I can think of no other reason why the Bowman would be dissed. What's an archer for if not city defense? And obviously a Bowman is superior to a regular Archer for that purpose. Hammurabi shouldn't be using them to assault cities with, or fight field actions, but he's got Swordsmen for the first and Chariots/Axemen/Horse Archers for the second.

OTOH, the Camel Archer is one that IMO should be used in masses for attacks; give it Flanking promotions to maximize its starting bonus. Immunity to first strikes gives the CA an edge against archery units which is what mostly defends cities, along with catapults and it's death on those just like all mounted units. With Arabia or Byzantine your Medieval Age main attack unit should be mounted rather than melee. That's obvious with Justinian, less so with Saladin but I think it's so. I discovered this mainly because I used to rely on mounted attack forces consistently, and I loved playing Arabia back in vanilla days (a little less so now that I'm doing BTS because I like Philosophical better than Protective).

About the Panzer, I'm going to disagree with the general badmouthing of this unit, too. It's late in the game, but if you want to play the kind of game where you're constantly warmongering and win early you shouldn't play Germany as both German leaders are builders anyway. As for its bonus, unless you're totally hotdogging the tech race you're likely to run into enemy tanks. More Infantry and SAM, but Tanks destroy these anyway; Panzers have a bonus against the only unit that can cause problems for Tanks.

Can't say anything about the Ballista Elephant because I've never used it.

TMIT, I can't believe you don't like Redcoats. Maybe if you got used to that combat strength bonus in vanilla it can seem puny by comparison, but again, same logic as the Panzer: the Redcoat is equal to a Rifleman against all units that Riflemen destroy anyway, and has a bonus against the only equal-tech unit that can cause problems for Riflemen, which is to say other Riflemen. Oh, and Grenadiers, too, Redcoats are much better against these than base rifles. They can even hold their own against Infantry, which regular Rifles can't.

I'm going to offer a small frown to what's probably everyone's favorite UU, although I won't go so far as to say it's the worst: the Praetorian. The Praet is a kickass unit, no doubt, but the problem is that it replaces the Swordsman. Now for me, there's a very limited opportunity to use Swords for anything except capturing a few barb towns in most games. Soon as the AI gets to Feudalism it's time to go peaceful, plus in the Classical my economy usually won't take a protracted war anyway. So I go warmonger in a big way usually starting in the Medieval, with maybe a short war of opportunity in the Classical depending on circumstance. With Rome, I can extend the Classical Age war season a little longer, because a Praet can take a Longbow, but it still loses to a Maceman, which means that when your foes start getting Civil Service it's time to switch gears and if you're in mid-war that can be awkward. So this is a marginal advantage in terms of utility, however awesome the unit looks at first glance. You can even mostly duplicate it with any Aggressive leader (except Monty who has no swords) by giving your Swords the Cover promotion along with City Raider (can't do this easily without the free Combat I). Of course, neither Roman leader is Aggressive, so you can't pop that on top of the Praet.

The ones I don't like? (I don't really dislike Praetorians, I just don't think they're as awesome as some people think.) There are some I can't figure out how to leverage. Navy Seals have been mentioned. Marines are a niche unit and NS are a better Marine -- OK, that's nice, but what do you do with them? For main attack troops Tanks are better, and for main defenders give me Infantry because those can be promoted to ME which NS can't. But maybe I'm missing something here. Maybe they'd own a lot more on archipelago maps.

There are a lot of civilizations I haven't played enough to really use their UUs. My suspicion is that the benefits come from knowing how to use them. I know what my favorites are: ones that replace my standard attackers in my big warmonger periods or my main defenders any time.

 

[Ai Shizuka]

I'm going to offer a small frown to what's probably everyone's favorite UU, although I won't go so far as to say it's the worst: the Praetorian. The Praet is a kickass unit, no doubt, but the problem is that it replaces the Swordsman. Now for me, there's a very limited opportunity to use Swords for anything except capturing a few barb towns in most games. Soon as the AI gets to Feudalism it's time to go peaceful, plus in the Classical my economy usually won't take a protracted war anyway.

- Praetorians are maces a couple thousands years earlier.
- The most common warmongering renaissance paths are: rifles first and attack with trebs/rifles or cannons first and attack with cannons/medieval stuff like maces and knights. Not going into cuirassiers/cavalry, it doesn't matter here.

But I think you see where I'm going. If you go for a deep beeline to steel (even getting it from Lib) you don't even need to upgrade them.
My highest score so far has been on a pangaea with JC, Monarch diff. At the end I just capitulated the last 3-4 AIs with cannons and praetorians. The veterans had some stupid promotion like CR3, C1, cover. Add a few pikes and a few maces for stack protection and you are ready.
It isn's much different than going with cannons/knights or cannons/drafted muskets.

How many classical units can you use in a renaissance wars?
On a lucky start you can research IW as your second tech. Early 3000s to renaissance doesn't look like a limited window to me.

 

[Flying Pig]

Praetorians have as much strength as a maceman a whole era before them. They can get stuck in to squishy archers and spearmen while the maces have to punch through heavy cavalry and crossbows - possibly the best choice for conquering a lot of land very quickly.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Bowman sucks period. Holing up in a city = tiles pillaged. = mounted owning you as if you're a normal archer. = siege making it so anything still wins. The benefit there is marginal at BEST, and useless frequently.

Wars at parity redcoats are better, but that's not a pretty era to attack rifle vs rifle no matter what. They don't hold their own vs infantry, by the way. Infantry pulls their pants down. They're ok but they're not exactly a powerhouse game-changer anymore.

8 base str is incredible. It's hard to see how you can't see the advantage in massed CR II prats. It's a long time from IW to maces (more disappointed you didn't mention xbows).

 

[Flying Pig]

Bowman sucks period. Holing up in a city = tiles pillaged. = mounted owning you as if you're a normal archer. = siege making it so anything still wins. The benefit there is marginal at BEST, and useless frequently.

Wars at parity redcoats are better, but that's not a pretty era to attack rifle vs rifle no matter what. They don't hold their own vs infantry, by the way. Infantry pulls their pants down. They're ok but they're not exactly a powerhouse game-changer anymore.

8 base str is incredible. It's hard to see how you can't see the advantage in massed CR II prats. It's a long time from IW to maces (more disappointed you didn't mention xbows).

Bowman sucks NOT period. Put them on ytop of anything that you don't want to lose along with spears, and also use them guerilla-style to take out units like swordsman in quick attacks.

Redcoats are among my favourites - piles of dead musketmen and rifleman (which are the standard for defensive positions) and they are just great, versatile, dependable troops. Plus the Brits get them, which redeems any flaws

 

[TheMeInTeam]

1. Bowman do not beat swords in the field.
2. Siege rapes them
3. PRO archers tend to fare just as well if not better
4. Redcoats do not auto-win vs CG rifles. You'll at least need cannon. It's not fast.

 

[Flying Pig]

1. Bowmen in fortified postions beat swordsmen in the field
2. Siege rapes everything - it must be attacked before a big trench warfare style thing happens
3. So in short, the Bowman is like an extra trait, or 2 free promotions - nice by anyone's standards.
4. Redcoats have riflemen + bonus vs gunpowder, so on average they beat rifles, especially during seiges with big guns (obviously, I wasn't advocating taking on 100% defense cities in a rush!)