Worst Unique Unit?

[Molybdeus]

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.

It depends on how you judge them. They aren't like Praetorians or Keshiks in that they won't actually allow you to take the offensive and destroy your opponents. But they DO have uses. I had them against Alexander in a game where I didn't have either horses or copper, and I wouldn't have survived that game without them. And being able to stack protect without copper is important.

I would never CHOOSE to have Bowmen instead of Praetorians, but if Hammurabi had good builder traits I would be happy to use them.

 

[Flying Pig]

I have seriously considered modding Hammurabi to be protective - still might do so...

 

[troytheface]

Bowmen are superior to Preatorians.

Fact- No Resource required

Fact- Earlier unit by more then a few techs

Fact- Golden Bows that negate about half of the other civs uu's

Fact- Any bow random event makes for a power bow

It takes a bit of promotion savy to use ol bowmen. since most are incapable of this i suspect many favor the sub optimal Preatorian.

"Lol. three players uses phanalx and one uses preatorians- and i held them all off with bowmen"....bowmen expert guy


"make hammurabi protective"

overpowered.

 

[Flying Pig]

I think you're right - bowmen are like scalpels, Praetorians like sledgehammerss - great for smashing, but would you really want a doctor operating on you with a sledgehammer?

 

[Ghpstage]

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!)

1) Fortified for how long? 5 turns? hardly useful as the AI will simply go around you.
2) Siege killing everything is a good argument against the bowman as it's effectively worthless past that point.
3) Huh?
4) The need for siege only means redcoats are marginally better than rifles at attacking cities, I mean you could use siege followed by muskets and still probably win . Redcoats only real advantage against rifles is in defence and field battles both of which are rare for me

Granted bowmen make axe rushing a bit of a stupid idea early game and are nice against barbs but the only reason I'd tech archery anyway is if I didn't have copper or horses as axemen/chariots outpeform them even in defence.

The only other use I can see for a bowman is early choking. The +50% vs melee would make an AI almost totally incapable of removing a bowman from a hill forest overlooking its capital for the better part of 3000 years

 

[Flying Pig]

You put bowmen where you don't want the enemy. That's their job - not attacking people far from your empire. They go on iron mines, towns and cities, or maybe mountain passes.

You can't say that it is useless becauuse it has the same weakness as everything else if it has more strengths

Protective means Drill 1 and City Garrison 1. It was said that bowmen are as good as archers with Protective

If you don't do defenses or field battles, then you don't really have a wide enough 'strategic spectrum' to consider the relative merits of a unit - there's more to warfare than big guns and streetfights.

Your last point just proved their awesomeness.

 

[Ghpstage]

You put bowmen where you don't want the enemy. That's their job - not attacking people far from your empire. They go on iron mines, towns and cities, or maybe mountain passes.

You can't say that it is useless becauuse it has the same weakness as everything else if it has more strengths

Protective means Drill 1 and City Garrison 1. It was said that bowmen are as good as archers with Protective

If you don't do defenses or field battles, then you don't really have a wide enough 'strategic spectrum' to consider the relative merits of a unit - there's more to warfare than big guns and streetfights.

Your last point just proved their awesomeness.

The last point was simply trying give them a real use.....
By rarely I mean that the vast majority, not all of my fighting is done at enemy cities.
My 'defensive' battles are almost always done offensively before the enemy reaches the city, in which case bowmen are utterly worthless as it will be me attacking the enemy units.
AGG Axes and chariots will always do that job better.


Putting a bowman in the field will only defend a resource till a chariot comes along, unless its on a hill of course but then it may as well just be an archer. The AIs also tend to be very bad at going to pillage resources so sticking a unit on top may entice the AI stack to kill the unit, and then pillage the resource.

Granted against barbs it does help, but I'd still rather an axeman.

The other defensive fights I do almost always involve a city I just captured and why would I water down my attack force by wasting hammers on bowmen when my attacking axes could probably do a better job in defending it anyway.

To make matters worse you have to tech both hunting, which is a situational tech at best AND archery which is a deadend tech that I think most players won't tech early by choice. Also Hammurabi is AGG anyway which only makes the bowman even more pointless.

While I'll accept that a bowman is pretty nice if you don't have any resources so far you haven't given any kind of reason to build any instead of or even alongside another axe, and if there is no reason, then theres no reason to use this UU and that is exactly why its disliked so much.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

While I'll accept that a bowman is pretty nice if you don't have any resources so far you haven't given any kind of reason to build any instead of or even alongside another axe, and if there is no reason, then theres no reason to use this UU and that is exactly why its disliked so much.

I have to admit, I chose Hammurabi once thinking that the bowmen would be a great unit to have in the early age. I had probably just moved up a difficulty level and was nervous about the AI attacking me. Well, they really weren't all that great and I had kinda wished I went with another civ LoL. They definitely have their uses. They're probably one of the best fog busting units since you can give them Guerrilla I and station them on a forested hill. They will have no problem staying there busting fog until long after barbs are no longer a problem.

 

[Iranon]

If I'm going to get an archer replacement, I'd rather have the more flexible Skrimisher. Bowen are better in a very narrow range of situations, and being bundled with a leader who'd rather build melee units isn't good either.

Sure, if I can build them I'd rather have an AGG axeman... this relegates Bowmen to a failsafe rather than a UU to be exciting about.

Still, a solid defensive unit that can randomly make an unwinnable start winnable and doesn't cost us rush potential isn't truly bad. Someone who will abandon starts without strategic resources and brushes off some losses as 'doesn't count, screwed by the RNG' will, naturally, care far less for them.

 

[Flying Pig]

The last point was simply trying give them a real use.....
By rarely I mean that the vast majority, not all of my fighting is done at enemy cities.
My 'defensive' battles are almost always done offensively before the enemy reaches the city, in which case bowmen are utterly worthless as it will be me attacking the enemy units.

Put them anywhere that you don't want the enemy in CA brigades with spearmen and pikemen- generally, on your gold/iron mines, towns and stuff, and they will work wonders

Putting a bowman in the field will only defend a resource till a chariot comes along, unless its on a hill of course but then it may as well just be an archer. The AIs also tend to be very bad at going to pillage resources so sticking a unit on top may entice the AI stack to kill the unit, and then pillage the resource.

Rule one of everything - never use one specialist to do a job against someone who could be anything. Take along some spears and pikes, and try the defense again. Also, the AI is not bad enough to be negligable, especially not the barbarians (they are nasty and kill and raze everything)

The other defensive fights I do almost always involve a city I just captured and why would I water down my attack force by wasting hammers on bowmen when my attacking axes could probably do a better job in defending it anyway.

You want your axes to move on and fight on another front while the bowmen form a militia and hold the city until the enemy are forced to pull out of the theatre

To make matters worse you have to tech both hunting, which is a situational tech at best AND archery which is a deadend tech that I think most players won't tech early by choice. Also Hammurabi is AGG anyway which only makes the bowman even more pointless.

Those two are almost the two most no-brainer techs - city defense from the archer and counter-mounted weapons from spearmen - plus fur and deer resources.

While I'll accept that a bowman is pretty nice if you don't have any resources so far you haven't given any kind of reason to build any instead of or even alongside another axe, and if there is no reason, then theres no reason to use this UU and that is exactly why its disliked so much.

The reason you build it is not against an axe, except that when defending a city you want first-strikes and it's basically an axeman with those - which is pretty useful. Plus, it needs no resources, so can be raised in colonies before they are connected up to the grid.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Those two are almost the two most no-brainer techs - city defense from the archer and counter-mounted weapons from spearmen - plus fur and deer resources.

A lot of people on the forums forgo archery for a long time, preferring axeman and spear men to defend (as with a stack of these, there is no counter IE an axeman attacks the city, the axeman defends (and usually wins thanks to defense bonuses, a chariot attacks the city, the spear defends).

 

[Flying Pig]

I like the first-strikes and longbows- but if you want a spearman, you need hunting at least

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

True, but you'll want that for any camps you can lay down anyway.

I'm just saying that a lot of people forgo Archery. I don't.

I'm huge on archers. The AI has a very tough time dealing with the innate city defense/hills bonus. An AGG leader can compound the axeman's melee bonus with shock to overcome a majority of a defensive axeman's bonuses. However, the cover promotion does not make up for enough of the archer's bonuses (especially in a city on a hill).

Really, if you work the numbers, though, it probably works out to be the same. However, archers are a chunk cheaper.

 

[Flying Pig]

the cheaoness makes it like the TIger vs the T34 in WWII - the Tiger was massively superior, but it took a week to build one - a T-34 took 48 hrs. Hence why the soviets won. Cheapness = numbers = attrition = winning

PS: I love those little smiley things

 

[Antilogic]

the cheaoness makes it like the TIger vs the T34 in WWII - the Tiger was massively superior, but it took a week to build one - a T-34 took 48 hrs. Hence why the soviets won. Cheapness = numbers = attrition = winning

PS: I love those little smiley things

In all fairness, it wasn't just the cheapness. Having sloped armor and a decent gun while being cheap was the kicker.

 

[Flying Pig]

Maybe - but numbers help a lot. Ditto with the recent stuff about M-16s versus AK-47s - low-tech, simple and scheap stuff often beats high--tech, expensive stuff

 

[Ghpstage]

True, but you'll want that for any camps you can lay down anyway.

I'm just saying that a lot of people forgo Archery. I don't.

I'm huge on archers. The AI has a very tough time dealing with the innate city defense/hills bonus. An AGG leader can compound the axeman's melee bonus with shock to overcome a majority of a defensive axeman's bonuses. However, the cover promotion does not make up for enough of the archer's bonuses (especially in a city on a hill).

Really, if you work the numbers, though, it probably works out to be the same. However, archers are a chunk cheaper.

In this particular case though the defending axes would be AGG, also camp resources are probably the most rare for a starting area and your pretty unlikely to come across them without wandering into jungle or tundra which many people like to avoid very early on.

Put them anywhere that you don't want the enemy in CA brigades with spearmen and pikemen- generally, on your gold/iron mines, towns and stuff, and they will work wonders

Rule one of everything - never use one specialist to do a job against someone who could be anything. Take along some spears and pikes, and try the defense again. Also, the AI is not bad enough to be negligable, especially not the barbarians (they are nasty and kill and raze everything)

To me this seems insane, the sheer amount of maintenance such a massive defensive army would require would be crippling so early. Active defenses done by axes/chariots/spears attacking enemy units tends to be far more efficient than large standing archers armies. Also consider that after defending the axes can then go and attack something.

Against barbs simply moving an axe into defensive terrain such as a forest or hill or behind a river next to the bar is usually enough to kill it.

Also if you have such defenses defending resources whats left to defend your city against AI civs?

You want your axes to move on and fight on another front while the bowmen form a militia and hold the city until the enemy are forced to pull out of the theatre

Well this is primarily an argument for archers not specifically bowmen, and I find if i move forward I can leave behind a wounded axeman as a temporary garrison, if the attack goes horribly wrong and you need that last axeman to take the city you'll appreciate him being there.
For a more permanent garrison I usually whip whatevers handy maybe an axe or archer doesn't really matter then

Those two are almost the two most no-brainer techs - city defense from the archer and counter-mounted weapons from spearmen - plus fur and deer resources.

The reason you build it is not against an axe, except that when defending a city you want first-strikes and it's basically an axeman with those - which is pretty useful. Plus, it needs no resources, so can be raised in colonies before they are connected up to the grid.

If your sitting in a city waiting to be attacked they'll simply pillage everything, if you defend all your resources you won't be able to have a garrison large enough to stop anything but the most laughable of stacks. The outcome of both of these situations doesn't often end well for the turtle.

Again the no resources argument is just an argument for archers, and a bowman is not incredibly better than one of those.

A lot of people on the forums forgo archery for a long time, preferring axeman and spear men to defend (as with a stack of these, there is no counter IE an axeman attacks the city, the axeman defends (and usually wins thanks to defense bonuses, a chariot attacks the city, the spear defends).

To be totally honest as a chariot receives no defensive bonuses against axes, and roads give axemen two moves then, axemen tend to defend against chariots just fine in a considerable proportion of cases, as you will often get to make the attack attack in within your borders.

The are a few here who advocate no hunting at all for a long time as a source of extremely cheap MPs post monarchy (warriors)

As Iranon already mentions the bowman only seems worthwhile as a backup, desperate defender that your really don't need unless you have no metals. It really isn't a whole lot better than a regular archer, especially compared to an AGG axe that you could be building (assuming metals).

If it started with combat 1 I quite likely would use it though

 

[helemaalnicks]

bit of WWII history from me.

Tiger was not nazi germany's primary weapon, panzer was. So comparing the panzer to the T34 is fairer.

Panzer>>>>>>>T34.

However, germany attacked russia, not the other way around. Panzers were designed to take over france, not to take over russia. Russia is a pool of mud and snow. Panzers got stuck/were slow as hell. I can only imagine the horrors the much heavier tigers must've went through in russia.

The T34 however, was designed for russia, and ran smoothly in russia. Speed is more important then power, especially with airpower dominating war.

The allies also had a decent tank. The sherman. Piece of *** really, but cheap, and ez to steer. So you can give a guy 3 months of training and he's ready.

Don't fight a landwar in russia is actually a good civ4 tip.

You can make it into:

Don't fight a junglewar in aztekia
Don't fight a Hill/junglewar in mongolia
Don't fight a cavwar in russia
Don't fight a cavwar in FRANCE!

It all makes sense to some extend. You don't wanna give your opp too much movement advantage, it can be devestating, especially if his 2-3moving unit is a counter to most of your stack as well.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

In this particular case though the defending archers would be AGG, also camp resources are probably the most rare for a starting area and your pretty unlikely to come across them without wandering into jungle or tundra which many people like to avoid very early on.

I've had plenty of starts near deer, elephants, and furs.

To be totally honest as a chariot receives no defensive bonuses against axes, and roads give axemen two moves then, axemen tend to defend against chariots just fine in a considerable proportion of cases as you will often get the attack in within your borders.

The are a few here who advocate no hunting at all for a long time as a source of extremely cheap MPs post monarchy (warriors)

True, but if the AI attacks with axes and chariots, the theory doesn't work as well. Again, I prefer archers since I can tailor them to my needs and they get innate city defense bonus and hill bonus.

 

[Flying Pig]

In this particular case though the defending archers would be AGG, also camp resources are probably the most rare for a starting area and your pretty unlikely to come across them without wandering into jungle or tundra which many people like to avoid very early on.

You can't play a game with no longbowmen, they are awewsome for defending anything. Hunting also leads to animal husbandry, which is vital.

To me this seems insane the sheer amount of maintenance such a massive defensive army would require would be crippling so early active defensive done by axes attacking enemy units tends to be far more efficient than large standing archers armies. Also consider that after defending the axes can then go and attack something.

Great until a SoD comes along and you find yourself needing trenches - a serious invasion has to e repulsed by grit and gunfire.

Against barbs simply moving an axe into defensive terrain such as a forest or hill or behind a river next to the bar is usually enough to kill it.

MAybe, but you get the huge Barbarian Invasions, so maybe you need something more sturdy than a guerilla defense.

Also if you have such defenses defending resources whats left to defend your city?

Your other troops - you don't need many - I run about 4 in an 11-city empire

Well this is primarily an argument for archers not specifically bowmen, and I find if i move forward I can leave behind a wounded axeman as a temporary garrison while having him also there if the attack fails and needs one more guy around.

Then the enemy counter-attack and yuur wounded axeman gets killed, you lose the city, and your men get stuffed.

If your sitting in a city waiting to be attacked they'll simply pillage everything, if you defend all your resources you won't be able to have a garrison large enough to stop anything but the most laughable stacks.
Again the no resources argument is just an argument for archers, and a bowman is not incredibly better than one of those.

You use mobile forces like cavalry to take out anything that yuo can and harass vulnerable units, the garrisons are for those sitations when thousands of enemies come over the horision and you have to just spray and pray.

Bowman is an archer who can deal with melee units - pretty useful. OK, they're not up with the SEALS and Praetorians, but they are good.



To be totally honest as a chariot receives no defensive bonuses against axes, and roads give axemen two moves then, axemen tend to defend against chariots just fine in a considerable proportion of cases as you will often get the attack in within your borders.

The are a few here who advocate no hunting at all for a long time as a source of extremely cheap MPs post monarchy (warriors)

As Iranon already mentions the bowman only seems worthwhile as a backup, desperate defender if you find you have no metals. It really isn't a whole lot better than a regular archer especially compared to an AGG axe that you could be building (assuming metals)

If it started with combat 1 it might be pretty decent though [/QUOTE]