Worst Unique Unit?

[Ghpstage]

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

AH is vital yes, but agriculture also leads to it.
Longbowmen are a long way from the start, and I often leave vassalage till very late (usually trade for it) I have played many games without ever building longbows.

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

My thought on this are that its impossible to build up large enough garrisons at every vulnerable city to repel a decent sneak attack stack pre-siege without seriously destroying my economy. As such I take losing a border city as collateral damage and retake it followed quickly by the rest of said AIs cities.
Obviously important cities will have a little larger garrison but its unlikely to be huge.
Also there is likely to be a number of my main force scattered around the area ready to help repel anything large.

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

Barbarians rarely turn up in stacks larger than 9 even from the (broken) barb event and can almost always be wiped out with troops stationed at or nearby the city assuming its not ******** like Vedic Aryans.

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

I find it hard to believe that 4 units could even cover all your vulnerable important resources let alone defend them!

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

If a counterattack was coming then more than likely I would have seen/predicted it and would have left more troops there, I've never lost a captured city due to this.

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.

As I said earlier without siege there is often nothing I can do to stop large SoDs from taking one city (although slavery helps a lot), but the counterattack usually knocks off a sizable chunk of an AIs power.

Another thing is for the same maintenance worth of archers, axemen will put your power rating considerably higher which may well ward off DoWs in a few cases.

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

As have I but I've had my fair share of starts where I haven't got a hunting resource for half a continent.

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.

True but you should really what resources an AI has and you can always tech hunting if its really necessary.


Most of my opinions here are based on me being a massive warmonger attack is the best form of defense!

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I guess what is true of this discussion is true of most about CIV... situational! LoL. I still go for archery as I believe they are the most balanced defense for REXing.

 

[Ghpstage]

I guess what is true of this discussion is true of most about CIV... situational! LoL. I still go for archery as I believe they are the most balanced defense for REXing.

Indeed it is, archery itself isn't a horrible tech, cheap, effective garrisons are nice in a REX.
My point was that archers really aren't something everyone will use and as the bowman is only marginally better than archers there really isn't any reason to go out of your way to use them. Them being a bowman as opposed to an archer is unlikely to make anyone more likely to use them.

While they are useful if you have no metals and can save a game then (although I'd say thats rare) and are a little more effective against some of the better axe/sword UU's they don't really add anything to your force that an archer wouldn't, thats why they're a bad UU.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Most definitely agree with most of your post. I've actually put them to use though. I've never seen the use of the Ballista Elephant, though beyond a normal elephant.

 

[Flying Pig]

AH is vital yes, but agriculture also leads to it.
Longbowmen are a long way from the start, and I often leave vassalage till very late (usually trade for it) I have played many games without ever building longbows.

If you can manage no bows, great, but I find them really handy. beig able to shoot first, every time... nice.

My thought on this are that its impossible to build up large enough garrisons at every vulnerable city to repel a decent sneak attack stack pre-siege without seriously destroying my economy. As such I take losing a border city as collateral damage and retake it followed quickly by the rest of said AIs cities.
Obviously important cities will have a little larger garrison but its unlikely to be huge.
Also there is likely to be a number of my main force scattered around the area ready to help repel anything large.

You don't need large garrisons - just well-entrenched ones. An archer (S3) with 50% defense from the city (4.5), 25% from fortify (5.625), 25% from a hill (about 7) and 80% from the city (12.6) is pretty powerful. And that's disregarding promotions.

Barbarians rarely turn up in stacks larger than 9 even from the (broken) barb event and can almost always be wiped out with troops stationed at or nearby the city assuming its not ******** like Vedic Aryans.

It becomes hard to defend with one unit in defense when two barbarian armies attack; then you want a larger force to see them both off.

I find it hard to believe that 4 units could even cover all your vulnerable important resources let alone defend them!

No; four 'blocks', and they cover ony th bare minimum resources - one iron mines ,one horse pasture and 2 towns or something.

If a counterattack was coming then more than likely I would have seen/predicted it and would have left more troops there, I've never lost a captured city due to this.

Then your attack gets stalled.

Another thing is for the same maintenance worth of archers, axemen will put your power rating considerably higher which may well ward off DoWs in a few cases.

You want a war so that you have an excuse to devastate the enemy wheen youur archs smash in their invasion and you come into their country with your veteran cavalry divisions

As have I but I've had my fair share of starts where I haven't got a hunting resource for half a continent.

Yes, but would you plan research on that, considering how good they are?

 

[Ghpstage]

You don't need large garrisons - just well-entrenched ones. An archer (S3) with 50% defense from the city (4.5), 25% from fortify (5.625), 25% from a hill (about 7) and 80% from the city (12.6) is pretty powerful. And that's disregarding promotions.

Even a well entrenched small garrison will probably fall to the 15-20 unit pre-siege stacks I've had attack me the smaller ones my roaming army and will wipe out easily enough.

It becomes hard to defend with one unit in defense when two barbarian armies attack; then you want a larger force to see them both off.

My main force is usually spread around so something could come to help, also is there for a reason! And by two 'barbarian armies' what do you mean?

Then your attack gets stalled.

Any significant counterattack will need the attention of you main stack, and wiping it out quickly is often more advantageous than running onto another city. It is extremely unlikely you will manage both unless you brought a heck of a lot of archers otherwise you can just drop 1-2 more axemen and carry on.

You want a war so that you have an excuse to devastate the enemy wheen youur archs smash in their invasion and you come into their country with your veteran cavalry divisions

I'd rather not be attacked when I'm not really expecting it and this is only an issue in those cases.

Yes, but would you plan research on that, considering how good they are?

I likely will as I generally don't subscribe to the no hunting policy as I quite like spears and tend to not bother teching monarchy for a while so the I appreciate and will go for war ellies soon even if it means an invasion I had originally planned for a bit later needs to be moved up.

This thread is about UU's though so this is getting off topic. I just gave examples of how common styles of play especially with Agg leaders will render the bowman utterly worthless in many games, hence why it is bad as a UU, talking about longbows is probably a step too far

 

[troytheface]

preatorians, doggy soldiers, vulture faces, phalanx, skirmishers, etc- all negated by the golden bow horror of the bowmen.

in random, - horse and sword- with Babylon, Bowmen and Mounted.
Bowmen from a barracks after it promoted fighting barbs is Cover, Combat (and auto Shock).
Add Formation-

an early unit- one that goes to longbowmen which hang awhile- (granted the Shock goes but this should leave the player with at least a few highly promoted units).

catapults in the equation just means if you have a bunch you can attack with whatever.

 

[Tephros]

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?

The point would be that a good offense is the best defense. You'd also have more of a point if the only concern was defending your cities, but you also have to be able to provide active defense for your improvements. In that capacity, an axe is good, and a praetorian is even better. The bowman's not the worst IMO, but it's not very impressive.

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.

Maybe if your opponent doesn't have pikes or elephants. To be sure both units are a lot better than the knight. In some cases the 45% withdrawal of a camel archer is a better choice than a trebuchet, and it'd be good to have a few flanking camel archers for this purpose as well as a few strength-promoted ones for stack defense versus crossbows. However, you're going to find that more often than not a CR3 mace is going to still be better for the bulk of city attacks.

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.

Gunships are better.

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.

Redcoat >>>> Panzer. Why? Because a redcoat is pretty likely to actually have to fight another gunpowder unit, while a gunship makes the panzer bonus nearly pointless.

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.

Longbows normally spell death to hammer-effective warfare. You can do well enough with maces, and trebuchets are the real key. However, you probably shouldn't overlook the fact that praetorians are as good as macemen versus longbows, but are cheaper than maces. Praetorians are significantly more effective than either swordsmen or axemen at attacking cities regardless of what's defending. What's more is that praetorians also make great defenders, again regardless of what's attacking. Praetorians are easily the best military UU.

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.

The AI normally doesn't get to mechanized infantry in my games. If they do, just move the 24 strength units to "defend" (keep happy) interior cities. They love their cavalry though. Seals are better at defending versus all non-gunpowder units, particularly with the first strikes. They're also good for active improvement defense given they get march, first strikes, and attack bonuses versus some units. I generally have CR3 infantry do most of my city raiding though, while my military city pumps out CG3 Seals and Paratroopers.

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.

A lot less risk if you try to prevent your cities from getting attacked in the first place by taking the initiative against their stack of doom rather than wait for them to pillage all of your improvements.

 

[turingmachine]

You don't need large garrisons - just well-entrenched ones. An archer (S3) with 50% defense from the city (4.5), 25% from fortify (5.625), 25% from a hill (about 7) and 80% from the city (12.6) is pretty powerful. And that's disregarding promotions.

Except combat doesn't work like that. Only Combat I, II, etc. promotions get added to your base strength ALL the rest get subtracted from the opposing unit. Plus, because of the nature of this they only count half as much (i.e. +100% vs someone cuts their strength in half, so a 4 strength goes down to 2 strength, even though thats a 50% decrease. +50% vs a 4 strength unit would leave them with roughly 3 strength. Past 100% it only really counts a quarter as much.).

So in your example the Archer stays at strength 3 and the opposing unit gets -180% strength. Versus a Swordsman (strength 6), it becomes 3 vs 6 -170% (since swordsmen get +10% vs cities) or around 3 vs 1.8 roughly. A difference of 1.2 NOT the 6.6 of your example. A swordsmen with a few Combat promotions then makes a huge difference as the +10% to its base strength helps a 6 unit a lot more than a 3 unit. An aggressive leader swordsmen would be around 3 vs 2.1, giving it only a bonus of roughly 0.9 strength.

(Also, fyi, even if it did get added to base strength it would never get up to 12.6. You kept adding the percentage to the new value instead of the original. +200% would only equal 9, so how would +180% equal 12.6? 3 +180% is 8.4.)

Note: all my values are only rough estimations as I had to do the equations in my head from memory.

 

[turingmachine]

Praetorians are significantly more effective than either swordsmen or axemen at attacking cities regardless of what's defending. What's more is that praetorians also make great defenders, again regardless of what's attacking. Praetorians are easily the best military UU.

As for Praetorians... two things, they do not have the standard +10% city attack that swordsmen have PLUS they are more expensive than the standard swordsmen. Add that to the fact that Rome doesn't have an aggressive leader.

A Praetorian attacking a city being defended by a 6 strength unit (for the sake of simplification lets assume the 6 strength unit has no modifiers and theres no defense modifiers). It's a straight 8 vs. 6. A difference of 2.

An aggressive leader swordsmen attacking the same city with the same 6 strength unit. The swordsmen gets +10% strength from the free combat promotion, the 6 strength defender gets a -10% modifier because of the swordsman's inherent city attack. It becomes roughly 6.6 vs 5.6. A difference of 1. (Note, as explained above, the -% modifiers only really subtract around half as much so you don't lose 0.6).

So all in all the Praetorian only really gets 1 more strength in that example. I would hardly call that significantly better at attacking cities as you stated above. If you add in the inherent defense you get from defending in a city the difference becomes even less noticeable as the 8 strength Praetorians lose a lot more from the -% modifiers than the 6 strength swordsman. If, for example, same situation as above but the defenders now have 50% from city defense. The Praetorian attacking becomes 6 vs 6. The aggressive leader swordsmen becomes 5.3 vs 6. A difference of 0.7 in strength now as opposed to 1. If the defender was melee, an aggresive axeman in this situation would be 5.5 vs 6 (the two 50%'s cancel out). Again, a difference of 0.5 is hardly significantly better as you stated above, especially considering the Praetorian costs more than the standard swordsman (and in the axeman example needs iron instead of copper).

Praetorians are good but they are not an end-all unit. It's only really half better than an aggressive leader swordsmen when compared to a non-promoted swordsmen when attacking cities BUT they also cost more.

You can use them as defense but they aren't as cost effective as archers and other defenders.

To really make them shine you need to load Praetorians up with Combat I, II, etc. promotions.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Base strength is much better. Any modifiers being involved will put the prats in front more and more. JC is IMP which is a warmonger trait, also. Quite rare for CR II prats to die.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Except combat doesn't work like that. Only Combat I, II, etc. promotions get added to your base strength ALL the rest get subtracted from the opposing unit. Plus, because of the nature of this they only count half as much (i.e. +100% vs someone cuts their strength in half, so a 4 strength goes down to 2 strength, even though thats a 50% decrease. +50% vs a 4 strength unit would leave them with roughly 3 strength. Past 100% it only really counts a quarter as much.).

So in your example the Archer stays at strength 3 and the opposing unit gets -180% strength. Versus a Swordsman (strength 6), it becomes 3 vs 6 -170% (since swordsmen get +10% vs cities) or around 3 vs 1.8 roughly. A difference of 1.2 NOT the 6.6 of your example. A swordsmen with a few Combat promotions then makes a huge difference as the +10% to its base strength helps a 6 unit a lot more than a 3 unit. An aggressive leader swordsmen would be around 3 vs 2.1, giving it only a bonus of roughly 0.9 strength.

(Also, fyi, even if it did get added to base strength it would never get up to 12.6. You kept adding the percentage to the new value instead of the original. +200% would only equal 9, so how would +180% equal 12.6? 3 +180% is 8.4.)

Note: all my values are only rough estimations as I had to do the equations in my head from memory.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information but almost everything you said is wrong.

All defense modifiers get applied to the defender (whether it be a positive or negative modifier - eg. a +20% from CRI means the defender gets a -20%). The only exceptions are from promotions that are not situational i.e. drill and combat promotions. Drill and combat promotions always apply to the unit who owns them, whereas every other promotion and defense modifier get applied to the defender. This is well documented on the forums but not really at all in the game.

It should be noted that in the absence of combat promotions, whether the attacker gets +x% or the defender gets -x% is usually equivalent as they give the same combatRatio (R value). For example, an axe attacking a sword could have been ((1.5*5)/6 = 5/4) or (5/(6/1.5) = 5/4). Either way it's 5/4.

 

[fed1943]

True. But the first example about the archer's strengh was also wrong:
+50%+25%+25%+80% means +180%= 280%, so the archer gets 8,4 and not 12.
Best regards,

 

[sydhe]

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

Sure you can. I prefer crossbowmen.

 

[Flying Pig]

Unquestionably, but then you need to keep your archers around till machinery

 

[sydhe]

I often have machinery before feudalism.

 

[Hammurbabble]

The point would be that a good offense is the best defense.

And both at once is better still. It's a fact that you ARE going to be defending part of the time, and it's another that you don't have to choose between the two as if you could only do one.

You'd also have more of a point if the only concern was defending your cities, but you also have to be able to provide active defense for your improvements.

And THAT would be a point if your UU (whatever it is) were the only unit you have. Come on. You're presenting a false dichotomy here. Just because you have a couple of Bowmen in your city doesn't mean you can't also have some chariot/axes/spears around to stomp raiders. It just means you have something superior guarding the city from attack. What's wrong with that?

Maybe if your opponent doesn't have pikes or elephants.

He usually won't have those in masses, and even if you do run into them lots of flanking will give you a good chance of surviving the encounter, weakening the units for your next camel charge. Besides, what's the difference between that, and saying that Macemen are great attackers, as long as your opponent doesn't have Crossbows or Maces of his own? There's no such thing as a unit with no counters.

However, you're going to find that more often than not a CR3 mace is going to still be better for the bulk of city attacks.

If you measure it simply on victory chance, that's true. But when you figure in the fact that your attack force has lots of mobility, and can take out enemy catapults before they do their suicide runs, and do all sorts of other things that mounted units are good for, it becomes a better choice.

Gunships are better.

If fighting tanks is ALL you're going to do, sure. Is it?

Redcoat >>>> Panzer. Why? Because a redcoat is pretty likely to actually have to fight another gunpowder unit, while a gunship makes the panzer bonus nearly pointless.

Although I do like the Redcoat better than the Panzer, I don't agree with that last bit. Gunships are highly specialized. They're anti-tank and raider units entirely. You can't even capture a city with them, and they're very vulnerable to SAM and not so good against entrenched Infantry. The advantage of the Panzer is that you can promote it for city attack, and still have it likely survive its run-ins with enemy armor. You don't need gunships to defend against enemy armor if you have Panzers, whereas if you do have gunships you still need tanks.

However, you probably shouldn't overlook the fact that praetorians are as good as macemen versus longbows, but are cheaper than maces. Praetorians are significantly more effective than either swordsmen or axemen at attacking cities regardless of what's defending. What's more is that praetorians also make great defenders, again regardless of what's attacking. Praetorians are easily the best military UU.

Everything up to your last sentence is true. Your last sentence still doesn't follow. The problem with them is their time of utility, which is the Classical Age and very early Medieval Age. For reasons of economy, although I may have a war of opportunity in that period, I don't go all-out then. About the time I do want to go all-out, the Praetorian has become obsolete. So, the Praet can let me do a better job in my brief Classical Age war of opportunity, and extend that a little further because most AI gets Feudalism before it gets Civil Service. Whoop-de-do.

I'm not saying the unit sucks; that would be absurd. I'm just saying it sucks compared to the elevated view some players have of it. It's a great unit for what it does. It just won't be decisive, unless maybe you're playing on a tiny Pangaea and can win by stomping everyone in the Classical Age.

The Praetorian has a lot bigger advantage over the Swordsman than the Samurai, Berserk, Camel Archer, Cataphract, or Redcoat have over their respective normal units, but the others have a longer shelf life and get more use, and that's why I like them better. Especially the Redcoat, which I think is my favorite.

The AI normally doesn't get to mechanized infantry in my games.

They do in mine, but that's because I'm addicted to Huge Hemispheres games. My last war is usually fought with Modern Armor.

Seals are better at defending versus all non-gunpowder units, particularly with the first strikes. They're also good for active improvement defense given they get march, first strikes, and attack bonuses versus some units. I generally have CR3 infantry do most of my city raiding though, while my military city pumps out CG3 Seals and Paratroopers.

Interesting. I seldom have much in the way CR3 infantry left by that time. For attack, I definitely want to use Tanks, with Bombers for artillery. The point about Seals for defense is interesting and I hadn't considered that. The inability to upgrade them, though, still speaks loudly for long-term. But I'll have to think about that some more between now and the next time I play the USA.

A lot less risk if you try to prevent your cities from getting attacked in the first place by taking the initiative against their stack of doom rather than wait for them to pillage all of your improvements.

Well, thank you, Captain Obvious! And here I was just sitting passively on my little backside and letting the enemy come to me.

Of course you take the initiative against their SOD, unless you're a freakin' idiot. But you still need to defend.

Edit: After writing all that, of course I had to play as the Romans, and I got a reminder of the shortcomings of the Praetorian. Playing as Augustus, I had Peter for a neighbor. He was a bit ahead of me in the tech race, but I got Iron Working and Construction; who needs more? Praets and cats, of course I kicked his ass. And then, also of course, my economy went into the toilet even worse than the global economy is doing in the real world.

That's the problem. Militarily, the Praetorian is an awesome unit, but it comes at a time when you can't use it to full advantage. A replacement Maceman or Rifleman with that kind of relative advantage would be overpowering and unbalancing. Because of when it arrives in the game, the Praetorian is not.

 

[Phoenician]

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

I agree with you that Camel Archers are useful.

But I have to strongly disagree that bowman are bad UU. I would argue that its a solid UU. The bowman pretty much guarentees that you will survive the game until the middle ages. It's also really good for stack defense. I've had some games where I had Melee heavy civs declare war on me and watch them get minced against the bowman. They even chew up praetorians, when guarding a city that is. I've had a few games where praetorian after praetorian just hopelessly died trying to take over my bowmen defended cities. Besides stack defense there pretty decent on the offensive -the way I see it-it's like a cheap replacement for the axeman. It really is a godsend unit if you have a bunch of aggressive neighbors nearby or you are doing a lot of warmongering. Also really good against barbs.

 

[Tephros]

And both at once is better still. It's a fact that you ARE going to be defending part of the time, and it's another that you don't have to choose between the two as if you could only do one.


And THAT would be a point if your UU (whatever it is) were the only unit you have. Come on. You're presenting a false dichotomy here. Just because you have a couple of Bowmen in your city doesn't mean you can't also have some chariot/axes/spears around to stomp raiders. It just means you have something superior guarding the city from attack. What's wrong with that?

I don't build archers in games where I have copper. Exceptions would include playing as Mali, Babylon, or protective leaders. My cities generally don't get attacked, except recently captured ones later in the game, especially when the enemy has railroads.

He usually won't have those in masses, and even if you do run into them lots of flanking will give you a good chance of surviving the encounter, weakening the units for your next camel charge. Besides, what's the difference between that, and saying that Macemen are great attackers, as long as your opponent doesn't have Crossbows or Maces of his own?

When they have elephants they usually build quite a few of them, actually. I'd strongly prefer not to attack a nation with ivory if I'm relying on knights. It is true that you only see 1-2 pikes per city when they have them, though.

My point wasn't that camel archers suck. But the promos of trebuchets and maces is more geared towards attacking cities. The collateral damage of trebuchets means you have to sac only one or two before you're winning every battle against that city, whereas your camel archer is going to start by attacking the unit your maces have no problem with (pike) at low odds, and leaving other powerful units unscathed despite the coin-toss level risk.

There are situations where camel archers would be the best choice. Namely when there is a low number of highly promoted archery units in a city, esp with drill. For that reason you should have them available, but in terms of not wasting hammers you'll want a mixed force.

There's no such thing as a unit with no counters.

That'd be praetorians, and to a lesser extent war elephants.

If fighting tanks is ALL you're going to do, sure. Is it?

I almost never see tanks fight tanks.

Although I do like the Redcoat better than the Panzer, I don't agree with that last bit. Gunships are highly specialized. They're anti-tank and raider units entirely. You can't even capture a city with them, and they're very vulnerable to SAM and not so good against entrenched Infantry.

The best use of gunships is to destroy their siege in field. They have a high base withdrawal. This goes nicely with their ability to get blitz and kill several units per turn. SAM units, except mobile SAM (which I've never seen the AI use), are just pathetically weak versus everything else so I can only celebrate when they have a stack with those. Beyond that modern warfare is about air supremacy, so I value a unit that can do more in one turn, and nothing can kill weakened units as fast as a blitz gunship.

I send small stacks of gunships and tanks with air support versus their weaker cities prior to having mechanized infantry. Finally a stack with mobility that isn't ridiculously vulnerable to something. So you kill most things with your gunships, and then finish with a tank.

The advantage of the Panzer is that you can promote it for city attack, and still have it likely survive its run-ins with enemy armor. You don't need gunships to defend against enemy armor if you have Panzers, whereas if you do have gunships you still need tanks.

Yeah gotta love having a stack that's vulnerable to cheap anti-tank units, lol.

Everything up to your last sentence is true. Your last sentence still doesn't follow. The problem with them is their time of utility, which is the Classical Age and very early Medieval Age. For reasons of economy, although I may have a war of opportunity in that period, I don't go all-out then. About the time I do want to go all-out, the Praetorian has become obsolete. So, the Praet can let me do a better job in my brief Classical Age war of opportunity, and extend that a little further because most AI gets Feudalism before it gets Civil Service. Whoop-de-do.

They're very useful between you having ironworking and having both machinery and civil service. That is just a huge window. It allows you to dominate a neighbor relatively early without the risk and expense of an early rush. Due to their higher surviveability compared to the unit they replace versus an opponent with metal, more veterans are going to survive into the next era, making it easier to have CR3+ gunpowder later. Their lower cost compared to maces also makes them worthwhile even during the medieval era. I mean, what military unit does more for you? I suppose the samurai, berzerker, and redcoat come at better times, but the praetorian is ridiculously powerful for its time.

I'm not saying the unit sucks; that would be absurd. I'm just saying it sucks compared to the elevated view some players have of it. It's a great unit for what it does. It just won't be decisive, unless maybe you're playing on a tiny Pangaea and can win by stomping everyone in the Classical Age.

I only play on huge maps. My highest scoring game was boudica of rome on a huge cold pangea map on immortal. Nothing like taking out your rich neighbor and being twice the size of everybody else as you enter the medieval era.

I mean, what military unit is better? I like the fast worker better.

The Praetorian has a lot bigger advantage over the Swordsman than the Samurai, Berserk, Camel Archer, Cataphract, or Redcoat have over their respective normal units, but the others have a longer shelf life and get more use, and that's why I like them better. Especially the Redcoat, which I think is my favorite.

Yeah, except if you were playing as Rome your opponent won't even have gunpowder when you're stomping them with with CR rifles.

The whole attacking with knights thing... meh. I don't like to lose more than 1 unit attacking a city, and that's almost always a trebuchet.

They do in mine, but that's because I'm addicted to Huge Hemispheres games. My last war is usually fought with Modern Armor.

Yeah huge hemispheres games are fun. I generally play 1/4 fractal, 1/4 hemispheres, and 1/4 pangea, 1/4 other. A hemispheres game the other week was the first time I'd seen the ai with mechanized infantry. Though I won mostly by nuke and airpower.

Interesting. I seldom have much in the way CR3 infantry left by that time. For attack, I definitely want to use Tanks, with Bombers for artillery. The point about Seals for defense is interesting and I hadn't considered that. The inability to upgrade them, though, still speaks loudly for long-term. But I'll have to think about that some more between now and the next time I play the USA.

Yeah tanks are good, though my military cities are typically too busy building CG3 defenders to be airlifted to recently captured cities to build a lot of them. It's definitely nice to have a few tanks in each stack to supplement the CR gunpowder. If I'm going to sac something it's artillery, though I'll sac a fighter before artillery as well and I prioritize supremacy in air and siege tech. I often capture a dozen cities before losing a CR gunpowder unit and I try to have about 20 CR3 maces before I have both rifling and military science. Then I end the game with 10+ survivors, more if I wasn't doing a domination win.

I remember when marines/SEALs could be upgraded to mechanized infantry. It's stupid they can't be now.

Edit: After writing all that, of course I had to play as the Romans, and I got a reminder of the shortcomings of the Praetorian. Playing as Augustus, I had Peter for a neighbor. He was a bit ahead of me in the tech race, but I got Iron Working and Construction; who needs more? Praets and cats, of course I kicked his ass. And then, also of course, my economy went into the toilet even worse than the global economy is doing in the real world.

Burn more. I did an axe rush in my current game as Catherine of India and was 2 turns away from strike at one point even after burning about half the cities I captured. Had to tell the governors to work coastal tiles without a lighthouse. Cottage spam moved me ahead and beyond everybody except Elizabeth of Aztec within an era. But then a massive empire gives huge advantages in espionage. Not to mention the two settled great generals. Then as it was a Pangea map I sent my troops with less than 10 experience against several barbarian cities, which I burned, to make them stronger or die in a Darwinian fashion.

Crawling out of an economic hole is not too hard provided you soon have access to alphabet and/or currency.