Warriors what are they good for?

[realpolitic]

Plenty - they make great bait!

I love it when the AI comes after some obsolete unit when I have a superior unit ready to destroy it in a counter attack, or when the enemy's attack leaves its city more vulnerable.


I've also started softening up cities with mediocre units - why attack with my best if it has only a 10% chance of surving? after a few hits, it will have maybe a 60% chance.

[Jaybe]

Re: Warriors what are they good for?

Originally posted by realpolitic
I've also started softening up cities with mediocre units - why attack with my best if it has only a 10% chance of surving? after a few hits, it will have maybe a 60% chance.

War weariness seems to not discriminate unit quality, however.

[Nacht]

In addition to increased war weariness you're also gifting your opponent a lot of easy GG points.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Warriors what are they good for?

Absolutely nothing!

[Brael]

Originally posted by Nacht
In addition to increased war weariness you're also gifting your opponent a lot of easy GG points.

But you save yourself some hammers. Rather than have to disband a unit or upgrade it to make it useful again you can use it to weaken that enemy unit getting you some use out of the hammers and then save the good unit from dying saving you more hammers. Your opponent (atleast an AI) getting a GG in exchange for losing a couple of cities is a great tradeoff for the player.

[Blake]

Once you hit unit upkeeps you really do want to have real units. A unit costs a base of 1g/turn, 2g/turn outside your borders. That is increased by inflation.

Paying 15h to cost you 1g/turn ever after is no kind of bargain...

[Pinchak]

Absolutely nothing!

Beat me to it.

[couerdelion]

Uses for warriors

a) Early game scouting and fog-busting
b) Thereafter only as military scouts (eg woods/hills) or as garrisons in cities that are "immune" to an attack.

[Pinchak]

I avoid building warriors at all costs... shortest shelf life of any unit in the game.

[Thomas Hobbes]

Originally posted by Pinchak
I avoid building warriors at all costs... shortest shelf life of any unit in the game.

~2000 years ain't that short .

[Brael]

Originally posted by Blake
Once you hit unit upkeeps you really do want to have real units. A unit costs a base of 1g/turn, 2g/turn outside your borders. That is increased by inflation.

Paying 15h to cost you 1g/turn ever after is no kind of bargain...

I tend to end up with keeping lots of ancient era units around because Heridatary Rule is so useful early on for gaining happiness. Why waste the hammers to build a real unit when a weak one works just the same, then I can sacrifice it later once the happy isn't so important.

[Gibsie]

Bearfood?

[Tattila the Hun]

Medic? Though, scouts are better in that regard.

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by Brael


I tend to end up with keeping lots of ancient era units around because Heridatary Rule is so useful early on for gaining happiness. Why waste the hammers to build a real unit when a weak one works just the same, then I can sacrifice it later once the happy isn't so important.

But I would not overestimate the impact of Hereditary Rule + units.

For each population supported by additional garrison units, you have to pay

2 food
approx 0.5 maintenance + civic costs
approx 0.7 military upkeep costs
fixed hammer cost of the additional unit.

Those population points will also probably be working the more marginal tiles so you might find the benefit of extra population being more than offset by the costs.

... shortest shelf life of any unit in the game.

Not as short as scouts or, in many of my games, archers.

[Guynemer]

Re: Re: Warriors what are they good for?

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Absolutely nothing!

Good God, y'all!