Worst UU

[ParadigmShifter]

Izzy got triple nerfed in BtS (conqs moved to mil trad, siege can't kill, and spiritual nerfed due to golden age no anarchy/Christo).

If I play Izzy in HoF games I usually go with warlords.

 

[Farm Boy]

Izzy got triple nerfed in BtS (conqs moved to mil trad, siege can't kill, and spiritual nerfed due to golden age no anarchy/Christo).

If I play Izzy in HoF games I usually go with warlords.

Agreed. Warlords Izzy can be a monster.

 

[obsolete]

Izzy got triple nerfed in BtS

That pretty much sums it up. At least the nerfing of spiritual could have been compensated by reducing switching times, but obviously Firaxis was NOT THINKING on that part yet again(imagine that!).

 

[Iranon]

SPI is still a useful enough trait, I fail to see anything that warrants such a dismissive response.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Izzy got triple nerfed in BtS (conqs moved to mil trad, siege can't kill, and spiritual nerfed due to golden age no anarchy/Christo).

If I play Izzy in HoF games I usually go with warlords.

It's not a big nerf. Castle's a crappy building to start with and knights are not that great in general.

The greatest power of SPI comes from being able to frequently change civics/religions around. This means one can easily change to vassalage + theocracy for war prep (+4 exp for all units), bureaucracy + organized/free religion during peace, and serfdom/slavery/caste system when required. Cristo comes too late to be of much use and golden age only happens a couple of times during a game.

 

[awesome]

cristo redentor would probably be overpowered if it came too much earlier

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Castles are crap, yeah, but citadels are a contender for best UB.

Melee bonus for conquistadors is pretty useless if they replace cuirassiers rather than knights. At least they can still fortify.

I admit spiritual nerf isn't that big a deal, but it is still a nerf.

 

[Farm Boy]

Castles are crap, yeah, but citadels are a contender for best UB.

Agreed. Economics can be avoided for a long time too so their effective lifespan, should you choose to use them, is pretty good.

It seems relatively hard to gain much exp on siege in BTS so 3 promotions out of the gate on trebs/cannons is a definite perk.

 

[Ataxerxes]

cristo redentor would probably be overpowered if it came too much earlier

It would be a terrific wonder, true. Allow the main benefit of a good trait early in the game. Sometimes if I don't play a Spiritual Civ for a long time, I forget to change my civics as soon as I want without waiting to do 2 at once at normal speed.

Izzy was better in Vanilla, but is still a pretty good Civ. Two good traits with a very good UB. Mileage varies on the UU.

 

[obsolete]

It's not a big nerf.

I guess not if you're used to Settler/Noble....

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That pretty much sums it up. At least the nerfing of spiritual could have been compensated by reducing switching times, but obviously Firaxis was NOT THINKING on that part yet again(imagine that!).

Not thinking? Oh come on...it's not like they put in the apostolic palace or something.

...

.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Didn't they limit the time between civics changes to nerf Moonsinger's perpetual anarchy/praet exploit?

 

[Farm Boy]

Shhhhh, it's Firaxis happy fun bash time!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Didn't they limit the time between civics changes to nerf Moonsinger's perpetual anarchy/praet exploit?

Yes, but they forgot to patch the hotkeys so that they work consistently.

For over seven years.

 

[Peregrine]

TMIT, I'm curious about why you think medieval warfare is bad. I agree, though I've never been able to pinpoint just why. Despite that feeling, there have been many times when I've just had to grit my teeth and gather up the trebs/knights/pikes/longbows and go for it. Interested to hear your viewpoint.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

TMIT, I'm curious about why you think medieval warfare is bad. I agree, though I've never been able to pinpoint just why. Despite that feeling, there have been many times when I've just had to grit my teeth and gather up the trebs/knights/pikes/longbows and go for it. Interested to hear your viewpoint.

I know I'm not TMIT but I'll give a stab at it anyway:
It's a case of the dichotomy between your ability to siege effectively and the oppositions ablility to get up defences. Basically Cats and Trebs in medieval period take very little off the defensive bonus percentages, and you'd better believe that you'll be up against at least walls (and often castles too) when attacking, then add in longbows with their city defence bonus and the garrison bonuses as well and you'll find the hammer output in prosecuting a successful medieval war is so high as to make it futile (even if you bring enough to do the job). Better to run to Steel and come knocking 2 centuries down the line.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

TMIT, I'm curious about why you think medieval warfare is bad. I agree, though I've never been able to pinpoint just why. Despite that feeling, there have been many times when I've just had to grit my teeth and gather up the trebs/knights/pikes/longbows and go for it. Interested to hear your viewpoint.

1. Bombardment takes longer than any other era by far
2. There are no mid game + production boosters like kremlin, caste/guild/chem/sp workshops, factories, drafting, etc
3. If you DON'T bombard, you once again fight the highest defensive % bonuses in the game.
4. The AI prioritizes medieval techs, making the liberalism line more attractive for trade value (you have functionally several times the research speed just by avoiding the medieval techs and trading for them, but if you do that any medieval attack is delayed)
5. There's not enough time or EP buildings to accrue much spy help
6. On high levels, the AI can SPAM units, and with all that bombardment time, you'll be forced to kill more units, eat more WW, etc even if you DON'T lose units to RNG screw
7. With longer-lasting wars, you risk the broken, garbage, joke mechanic known as vassal states kicking in against you.

It's not like it isn't doable, but it is one of the more dangerous eras to war and also among the most situational; even in situations where it will work earlier or later war often is a better deal.

 

[Iranon]

I for one find it the safest era to war at tech parity/inferiority - hard counters, strong defenders, powerful but vulnerable siege punish mistakes and the AI isn't very good at warfare. It's also a great era to milk war allies for all they're worth.

I only see two problems: It usually can't be fast AND cheap, and in the Renaissance you can usually secure a military tech advantage. It all depends on long-term plans and personal preferences.

 

[jgroth1978]

I'm finding TMIT's assessment to be correct, and I'm basing this off of my current campaign as the Byzantines. Despite having powerful mounted units with siege alongside them, it's taking forever to capture even a few cities. And my economy has tanked during the war, which I ultimately ended because my research has plummeted to unacceptable levels. Now, in previous games, I've found Classical and Renaissance or Industrial warfare to be conducted more quickly.

Then again, I'm also a poor Civ player, so I may not know what I'm talking about.

 

[Peregrine]

Now I see it. Thanks to both responses.

I do feel like there has to be a huge quantity of siege units if I'm going to be successful, and the reinforcements should also be more siege units (usually escorted to boot); BIG hammer investment and the payoff seems unequal all too often. On the other side of it, I've resisted medieval sieges by doing just what was pointed out; walls, castles, and quicker/cheaper reinforcements. Seems like it's a hammer race w/an advantage to the defender.

And I absolutely agree w/the frustrating effects of vassalage. The pattern I've seen is that a powerful (or lucky) AI rexes, picks off all nearby competitors, and by the 19th century, there are generally two or three gigantic power blocs--two AI-led, and moi. Not good. The most common complaint I have is when I'm hip-deep in a war and my target vassals to someone else; war ends, and to restart it, I have to declare on a much larger target. I do hear there is a remedy for this but haven't seen a detailed explanation yet.

On-topic; I'll defend the Panzer. I use it too often and like it. I'll vote for the Seal, but for reasons other than those mentioned. Seals are special forces. A UU can be produced in large numbers. Better unit for USA would have been US Cavalry, c. 1860s, or better (or cheaper) Aircraft Carrier, or even a B-52 unit. Seal is conceptually wrong, IMO.