Worst UU

[TheMeInTeam]

They are indeed quite bad in most SP games, although since they do see occasional use (IE less on intercontinental wars, ability to sink AI ships at sea pre-chemistry, MP games) they do beat out things like the panzer, which are pretty much never meaningful .

EI is probably the most variable UU in the game. On islands or other very water heavy scripts in MP, it's the strongest UU in the game hands down. On pangaea in SP, it's tied with all the other completely useless ones.

 

[noto2]

I honestly can't help but wonder what Firaxis programmers were thinking when they designed units like the panzer. Did they even play the game? If they had, they would know that in SP games the panzer is useless 99.999999999999999% of the time. Even in MP games it would be useless... I don't know 99% of the time...the chances of both you and your opponent getting tanks at the same time, and then both deciding to spam tanks ....

 

[Fippy]

Lucky for Germany, their leaders are still good without an UU or UB
But yep, it's an example of devs not really having experience in playing their own game.

But Ballista Ele is even worse, as someone mentioned already i think...they are actually a downgrade if you are unlucky, as with your high str. units you would often want to attack stronger units even outside cities, not some random chariot.

 

[Doshin]

Civs with bad UUs and UBs tend to have leaders with buffed traits. France, Germany, Ethiopia, America, the Khmer... it's not perfect, but they weren't totally clueless.

Ha. Xpost with Fippy.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Civs with bad UUs and UBs tend to have leaders with buffed traits. France, Germany, Ethiopia, America, the Khmer... it's not perfect, but they weren't totally clueless.

Ha. Xpost with Fippy.

Inca, Mali, Persia, Egypt, Maya...all bad traits and/or uniques .

Not sure how this works for Arabia, HRE, or Portugal either.

Civ-to-civ balance is pretty clueless, but when you have so many combinations some are going to make sense even if thrown at random.

 

[Doshin]

It's not perfect, but like I said, they weren't totally clueless. Otherwise a Philosophical/Industrious leader would exist.

The easiest example with which to work is the Charismatic trait. Nine leaders are Charismatic, of which two are American, two are French, and two are Celt. Players consistently rate the UUs and UBs of these civs as the worst in the game, but nobody complains when playing with their leaders (Boudica excepted).

HRE got a buffed UB. Portugal's traits are above average. Arabia... yeah, not so much (AP wins excepted).

 

[azzaman333]

The Protective trait in general suggests otherwise when determining how clued they were about the balancing of leaders/civs.

 

[Fippy]

Sally isn't much liked because of PRO, otherwise his stuff isn't that bad..
and people have a problem with Celtia sometimes cos of their starting techs, Gallics are certainly not among the worst UUs.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's not perfect, but like I said, they weren't totally clueless. Otherwise a Philosophical/Industrious leader would exist.

Complete nonsense. ORG/PRO doesn't either. PHI/IND is often thought to be "overpowered", but it's never been shown and frankly, Firaxis wouldn't be able to show it even if it were. PHI/IND with average UUs couldn't touch what civs like Inca or any of Rome/Egypt/Persia on marathon can already do. It's only even materially better than most "good" trait combinations if you assume normal speed, high-level immortal or deity with tech trades on...lots of assumptions just to make a trait combo "seem" overpowered. It wouldn't be trash tier in MP but it certainly wouldn't run away with any games consistently either. There was and is no reason to avoid including it other than that they simply ran out of leaders they wanted to throw in.

CHA is mid-tier. Exp is definitely above average, but IMP can't justifiably be considered an "above average" trait unless you have a map for city spam, and some means of affording that...and Joao's uniques are AWFUL in a majority of cases (feitoria is always awful).

The UB is all HRE has, and it's not enough to compensate an otherwise junk civ.

Sally isn't much liked because of PRO, otherwise his stuff isn't that bad..

Only good thing about Sal is his 2nd trait. Madrassa is OK but rarely important outside of AP games, while the camel archer is a marginal upgrade over a knight (certainly nothing like the cataphract). Even his starting techs are somewhat grating.

As long as SEALs, Panzer, Ballista Elephants exist gallic can't be among the worst UU, but they too are rarely a major factor in SP simply because swords aren't so hot in the first place. They're more average, although the celt UB is underrated to a degree since it opens up some rather obnoxious nonsense and lends some aid vs hill cities on occasion (Duns can impact muskets and grenadiers too). I couldn't vote the dun behind late game UBs like Mall/RI/Assembly Plant. I thumb my nose at much of the community and say that on more maps than not I'd take it over the dike .

 

[CivNoobie]

I personally find Aztec UU pretty useless...its good that it doesn't require any resources but what's good of a swordsman with a strength of 5?

Honorable mention also goes to Gallic warrior, khmer elephants, musketeer and oromo warrior

i mentioned musk and oromo because i almost always skip musketman and go straight for rifling.

I also think ship UUs are not that good either.

 

[CivNoobie]

now that i think about it...camel archer is bad as well...knights are too expensive to build for how weak they are.
Panzer and navy Seal comes too late in the game. Mayan UU is useless because it's a spearman :/

 

[Izuul]

I like musketeers b/c they make great cuirassier protectors. Their 2 movement pts allow them to keep up, they defend your stack against elephants and pikes, and they can also defend captured cities.

All of the resourceless units can be useful, but, admittedly, none of them are particularly good.

 

[lymond]

Yep, Mouseketeers have good synergy with Curs. For that, they have some merit. And as usual the Gallics are sorely underrated.

 

[Robert FIN]

I vote for the Camels! They are good in nothing. They are worth nothing. They are one of the n00biest UU in my opinion. Actually the Camels are the worst because the leader is helpless case. The whole Arabia system is totally the worst Civ in game. Its UU, Leader and everything is bad. Sad thing, because it would be interesting civ to play as.

 

[lymond]

Worse thing about Arabia is their starting techs. Camels are indeed not very good, but it can be fun sometimes trying out the Flanking thing with them, although certainly not too effective on higher levels. I recall playing a GOTM once with Arabia - lower level like Monarch or Emperor - and absolutely owning with Flank Camels. It was fun. But yeah, Arabia ain't too special. Interestingly, Sal was Philo/Spiritual in Vanilla.

 

[Kallikrates]

Yes, Saladin was better in Vanilla. Historically Spir/Agg or Spir/Cha would probably fit better than either the Vanilla or BtS traits.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I vote for the Camels! They are good in nothing. They are worth nothing. They are one of the n00biest UU in my opinion. Actually the Camels are the worst because the leader is helpless case. The whole Arabia system is totally the worst Civ in game. Its UU, Leader and everything is bad. Sad thing, because it would be interesting civ to play as.

Good candidate for the next noble's club game, although Sid would be interesting too .

 

[lymond]

Good candidate for the next noble's club game, although Sid would be interesting too .

Sal would be good. Can't recall him being played in some time. I might even play NC on a low level to make use of Camels for fun. They can be quite dominant and are better than the regular Knights, but Knights suck on high levels.

 

[drewisfat]

I'm glad a couple people are standing up for the musketeers; the notion that they're one of the worst UUs is insane .

They are the only unit in the game than can support cuir rushes. Cuir rushes are obviously strong, but because they consist of only one unit they still have several weaknesses that the mouseketeer fills.

Mousey advantages:

Cheaper
Better at city defense
Good stack defense (can receive defensive bonuses)
Not weak to pikes
Can be drafted
Can be built from just gunpowder. (Gunpowder is necessary for both units, so if it makes sense given tech path/trading you can be making musketeers the entire time you are teching MT)

It's much better to provide a modest buff to an already strong unit than to give a strong buff to a horrible unit. I think this is generally agreed upon. The reason mousies are underrated is because they're thought off as a buff to a horrible musketman, but really they're a buff to cuirs and cuirs are real good.

Mouseketeers are not just "not one of the worst". They are tier 2 UUs, coming after the broken Qs/wc/imm/praet/fw.

I also don't think failaxis did a horrible job in making a lot of UUs relatively minor. UUs are supposed to be historically relevant, spread out over all the units in the game and giving relatively small perks. The broken UUs are the five just listed; not all the others.

 

[lymond]

The broken UUs are the five just listed; not all the others.

The Conks are top tier, and I'd take them any day over noobtorians, Q's or Immortals. WC's and FWs are great.