Worst UU

[Ataxerxes]

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.

No, I think that's a fair assessment. However, for mounted wars siege is often too slow. If you were lucky enough to get a great spy, espionage works better than siege with fast units. I also tend to wait for Cannons and then Rifles to pound the world into submission.

I also seem to find more necessary buildings in that era. If I have extra production there are some very nice wonders. As a consequence I build less military.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I for one find it the safest era to war at tech parity/inferiority

Only under the right circumstances. If diplo isn't 100% set, you can often wind up just ASKING to get vassal state'd, or have that AI suddenly upgrade to rifling. Also, massed knights is very hard to deal with in tandem with longbows, because pikes are trash offensively but absolutely needed unless you have elephants.

If you can reliably deny horse or iron, it's worth at least a look.

- 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.

You say "hard counters" and "powerful but vulnerable siege" a lot; in practice these mean a lot more in PvP than in SP. If you're just talking about getting stack bulk, draft/$$$ buy (MGB) and stronger workshops give renaissance an edge, and it's not like you can't maul their stack when it enters borders regardless (I doubt you'll struggle much hitting cannons with rifles or especially cavalry, and your own defensive cannons are MUCH better at anti-stack than anything before in terms of siege). AI cannons that get exposed are BARELY tougher than trebs if fight at contemporary tech. Meanwhile, grenadiers counter rifles just as hard as xbowx > maces, rifles > cavalry HARDER than pike > knight, or if cost-adjusted comparable (though cost-adjustment in the draft/upgrade era is tough), and cavalry completely embarrass cannon. I don't see how these things are materially different between renaissance and medieval; if anything I'd take a CR II cannon vs renaissance troops before a CR II treb vs medieval...it's not like the odds will be worse (could actually be better) and you dont spend 495834709578 turns bombarding.

Defenses are indeed at their strongest in the medieval era; that makes delayed longbows very powerful for survival. However, the sheer #'s of units you have to bring, extended war period, etc tend to hit too hard in medieval for offensive warmongering unless you're being opportunist or fighting a patsy.

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.

Often renaissance wars can be both, but can at least be one or the other. Especially once spies can support revolt frequently enough, even contemporary cities struggle vs massed cavalry, while rifle/cannon hits everything pretty hard if you can stack CR promos on the cannons.

Milking diplo wars and opportunism are great in ANY era, and medieval is no exception. However, vs some AIs and without heavy resource denial, fighting in that era can be a big liability and is easily one of the hardest eras to fight. My personal favorite is modern, where the AI straight-up can't handle combined arms of air, high-mobility tanks, naval power concentration, nukes, etc.

 

[Iranon]

I have relatively little multplayer experience, so if there's any perception bias it isn't from there. Maybe it just *seems* safer to me because in other ages it's more rewarding to go 'forget safety, speed is worth some attrition'. Anyway:

Most of what you said assumes the human is on the offence and making considerable sacrifices for a decent military - not always the case for me. I'm comfortable stirring up a war against a superior opponent in the medieval age just to simplify diplomacy, make them waste their bonuses and just accept whatever happens to fall into my hands due to an inevitable AI screw-up.
I'm not at all confident waging a half-assed speculative war in the Renaissance... or at least, when I am a proper war with an emphasis on speed is preferable.

 

[reddishrecue]

I'll tell you which one is not the worst UU, byzantine cataphract. We could compare this unit with the conquistador since they are both horseback units.

Also, compare these horseback units to the arabian mameluke which is better than both of these UUs because of the bonuses that the mameluke has vs. mounted.

 

[GGracchus]

Mamluke? It's a camel archer in civ 4.

 

[fyermind]

A tank that gets bonuses fighting other tanks is as silly as a pikeman that gets bonuses fighter other pikeman....
To be fair, on open ground w/o promotions there is a 50% chance your landcrap will survive against a mace. But a very very small chance it will survive against two.
Furthermore any bonuses pull the two farther apart in the maces favor. I wish they were say a base 8 unit with +50% vs mounted. That seems more useful.

Least useful UU for me would have to be camel archers though hands down. If I don't have resources by that point in the game, I'd rather wait until I had muskets/rifles for defense and mixed stacks when I war for iron. The guarantied chance for mounted+spy brutality just doesn't seem worth it IMO.

 

[strijder20]

A tank that gets bonuses fighting other tanks is as silly as a pikeman that gets bonuses fighter other pikeman....
To be fair, on open ground w/o promotions there is a 50% chance your landcrap will survive against a mace. But a very very small chance it will survive against two.
Furthermore any bonuses pull the two farther apart in the maces favor. I wish they were say a base 8 unit with +50% vs mounted. That seems more useful.

Least useful UU for me would have to be camel archers though hands down. If I don't have resources by that point in the game, I'd rather wait until I had muskets/rifles for defense and mixed stacks when I war for iron. The guarantied chance for mounted+spy brutality just doesn't seem worth it IMO.

Camel archers have a high withdrawal chance. Knights rock. I don't see how you can see them as the worst UU. Compare them to the dog soldier. It is completely useless against archers, is not that good versus axes and by the time you have researched BW, the AI will already have archery (at least on Prince and higher).
I would like the Landsknecht to be a Maceman replacement which gets a 50% (or 25%) vs mounted. That would be not that OP (They are still a standard mace vs other maces or longbows), but it would still be a nice bonus vs an opponent with lots of mounted.
You are underestimating the Panzer - Nothing can defeat a combat 1 Pinch Panzer until Gunships. Anti tank with two promotions would get a 145% bonus, making it strength 34.3. A CB1 Pinch panzer is strength 37.8.

I think the Holkan is the worst UU. Why would I want to spear-rush? Or is copper not necessary to build them?

 

[azzaman333]

Panzer. Collateral does all the damage in modern wars against enemies of a similar tech level. Tank v Tank combat is largely irrelevant.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Camel archers have a high withdrawal chance. Knights rock. I don't see how you can see them as the worst UU. Compare them to the dog soldier. It is completely useless against archers, is not that good versus axes and by the time you have researched BW, the AI will already have archery (at least on Prince and higher).
I would like the Landsknecht to be a Maceman replacement which gets a 50% (or 25%) vs mounted. That would be not that OP (They are still a standard mace vs other maces or longbows), but it would still be a nice bonus vs an opponent with lots of mounted.
You are underestimating the Panzer - Nothing can defeat a combat 1 Pinch Panzer until Gunships. Anti tank with two promotions would get a 145% bonus, making it strength 34.3. A CB1 Pinch panzer is strength 37.8.

I think the Holkan is the worst UU. Why would I want to spear-rush? Or is copper not necessary to build them?

I agree with most. Maybe on deity the Panzer has value, but even some deity players rank the Panzer worst. I've never had tank on tank battles but don't play Diety.

I can't go with Holkan as worst. Resourceless alone makes it half-way decent. Unlike the Dog Soldier, Jaguar and Numidian it's never worse than the unit it replaces. Maya is a somewhat underrated Civ.

I'm actually glad this got bumped. It was a fun discussion.

 

[Utenlok]

Holkans are resourceless and immune to first strikes. They aren't the best rush unit, but if the rush is a need and not a choice, and you do not have copper or horse, they aren't the worst thing to be stuck with.

Camel archers are pretty limited but I would still rather have them than some others. Pretty crappy? Yes. The worst? No.

 

[Ghpstage]

You are underestimating the Panzer - Nothing can defeat a combat 1 Pinch Panzer until Gunships. Anti tank with two promotions would get a 145% bonus, making it strength 34.3. A CB1 Pinch panzer is strength 37.8.

If only the numbers worked that simply. Bonuses other than Combat promotions apply to the defending unit, not specifically the unit that has it. Read the Combat Explained article in the war academy for more details.
In practice a C1, Pinch Panzer attacking a C2 Anti Tank has only 50% chance of winning (both having 30.8 modified strength), and if the Anti Tank attacks the Panzer it has a 70% chance of winning (16.8 vs 14.73 modified strengths) .

 

[strijder20]

If only the numbers worked that simply. Bonuses other than Combat promotions apply to the defending unit, not specifically the unit that has it. Read the Combat Explained article in the war academy for more details.
In practice a C1, Pinch Panzer attacking a C2 Anti Tank has only 50% chance of winning (both having 30.8 modified strength), and if the Anti Tank attacks the Panzer it has a 70% chance of winning (16.8 vs 14.73 modified strengths) .

Yes, you are right, sorry.
Weird to see how attacking/defending can actually affect odds.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes, you are right, sorry.
Weird to see how attacking/defending can actually affect odds.

Panzers tend to get utterly rolled by any of the following:

1. Enter borders, get spanked by 5-6 rounds of collateral by artillery, cleaned up by infantry, anti tanks, marines, or whatever else is lying around
2. Hit by heavy air power (germany can control the skies too, but then it is their air power, not their crappy UU, that is winning the war)
3. Nukes. Fission + rocketry is pretty comparable to attain compared to combustion + industrialism, and this is part of the reason (though not all of it) why late UU suck so hard. I'm pretty sure a nuke will soundly own that panzer on a routine basis, and it is a LOT earlier than gunships . In fact, nukes own everything forever.
4. Comically, a panzer can't break a guerilla II infantry on a hill, so you're either forced to attack such things multiple times at unfavorable odds, bring siege that slows the panzers up, or move on flatlands/not attack hill cities. Considering a stock unit that comes before it can force this, it puts a bit minus on the value of the UU.
5. Yes, well promoted anti-tanks can beat them. Anti-tanks are usually stack protection against tanks though, since best-defender screws them over.
6. Seems awkward, but any ambush-promoted infantry or better can easily beat them with minimal collateral also.

For something that comes so late, you'd want a unit that is game changing, not a unit that gets soundly beaten by some of the most common options in the era.

 

[strijder20]

Panzers tend to get utterly rolled by any of the following:

1. Enter borders, get spanked by 5-6 rounds of collateral by artillery, cleaned up by infantry, anti tanks, marines, or whatever else is lying around
2. Hit by heavy air power (germany can control the skies too, but then it is their air power, not their crappy UU, that is winning the war)
3. Nukes. Fission + rocketry is pretty comparable to attain compared to combustion + industrialism, and this is part of the reason (though not all of it) why late UU suck so hard. I'm pretty sure a nuke will soundly own that panzer on a routine basis, and it is a LOT earlier than gunships . In fact, nukes own everything forever.
4. Comically, a panzer can't break a guerilla II infantry on a hill, so you're either forced to attack such things multiple times at unfavorable odds, bring siege that slows the panzers up, or move on flatlands/not attack hill cities. Considering a stock unit that comes before it can force this, it puts a bit minus on the value of the UU.
5. Yes, well promoted anti-tanks can beat them. Anti-tanks are usually stack protection against tanks though, since best-defender screws them over.
6. Seems awkward, but any ambush-promoted infantry or better can easily beat them with minimal collateral also.

For something that comes so late, you'd want a unit that is game changing, not a unit that gets soundly beaten by some of the most common options in the era.

I think that piece of text is, although completely right, written by a MP player, not from a SP point of view.
But I can't remember anything about SP/MP being mentioned in the OP's post.
So I guess Panzers have slightly more value in SP than in MP.

 

[elohssa]

I think Germany should of had a u-banh as a UU. Maybe a 35 strength attack-submarine?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think that piece of text is, although completely right, written by a MP player, not from a SP point of view.
But I can't remember anything about SP/MP being mentioned in the OP's post.
So I guess Panzers have slightly more value in SP than in MP.

Maybe slightly.

The AI is absolutely horrid at modern warfare though, it's a joke. I regularly beat tanks with 5:1 kills:deaths or better using just infantry/arty...do we really need a boost straight to tank vs tank? And nukes are game-enders in both SP and MP if you get there first by a bit; nobody survives it stackwise and if you nuke their uranium before they even get fission (cover it in fallout) it's not like they can improve it any time soon to actually build their own nukes.

Same thing with airpower; AI just can't handle it, and so on. Beyond all of that, the AI is absolutely terrible at using tanks making the panzer even less attractive in SP.

The only reason I think it's better in SP than multi is that I can't envision many multi games getting there without involving naval combat or collateral initiative or something along those lines. Truly even-matched situations that deep in a game w/o actually doing modern era starts are rare. Maybe in a modern+ era start, panzer/SEAL become best by default since everything else is obsolete, but that's about it.

 

[6K Man]

Immortals, closely followed by Conquistadores.

 

[Fippy]

lol how can people consider Landsknecht being the worst?
Pikemen are good, and Lands get a good bonus on top.
These arguments that you could use an x-bow + normal Pike are beyond silly, that's TWO units you must build, not 1 instead 1 + something else you can use for attacking.

 

[plasmacannon]

Looks like someone resurrected an 18 month old thread.
I'd say some opinions might have changed since then.
Panzers and Ballista elephants top my list of poor UUs now.
I just rarely encounter a use for their benefits.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

lol how can people consider Landsknecht being the worst?
Pikemen are good, and Lands get a good bonus on top.
These arguments that you could use an x-bow + normal Pike are beyond silly, that's TWO units you must build, not 1 instead 1 + something else you can use for attacking.

LK adds very little over the pike. It's awful vs all archery, unimpressive vs gunpowder, no better vs mounted than other pikes, and sub-par at attacking cities. The ONLY thing it does is somewhat protect you from opposing maces. "slightly more robust stack defense unit in middle ages" does not jump out as even an average UU. Landcraps are bad.

Granted, it's silly to take them seriously as a "worst" candidate with things like the Panzer floating around. At least with landcraps you can SPAM them on civs w/o iron and might actually see a modest benefit if you choose to war in medieval. I've yet to see panzers help a material amount in any ancient start.