What Units DON'T You Build?

[prelynmax]

Originally posted by Tuberski


I was right, EoN.

ACK!

...sigh... whatever... my point was that you should make use to every limited unit Cid provide... and I can do just that. What is it called again...? Ah... tip of my tounge... rhymes with infitile...

[Krill]

I still wonder if teamgames, for example, can 't be played differently. People invariably go for BW first, then archery and AH, then IW, then they religions and oracle, etc. I guess it's nice to have a fixed order because it redudes the time spent thinking on techs (and you really don't have much time to think). But still.

It can be changed a bit, but when the map setups went from TBG start together to start separated, alot of flexibility went out the window. Normally most of a team dies if you don't go the correct way about it. But there is a little bit of flexibility.

You get masonary early-ish if someone has marble...

[Diadem]

Yeah I personally like Start Together better. Makes it more a team-match. With start seperated it often comes down to 1v1, 2v2 or 2v1s with shared science.

Like you said, it removes flexibility. And if you're relatively isolated next to a neighbour with a good start, you're really doomed.

[martin mcmartin]

there is no real "worst" unit for me, yes one, the explorer, but other than that I build anything that is needed. depends totally on the game I'm in. all of the above mentioned units have proved to be helpful at many times in my games:

arhers: saved my ass many times! with the free promo of IMP they defended very well against Kublai's knights (!)
horses: tell me how you get rid of that nasty barb axe on the forrest hill next to your cap....

elephants: last night I was glad I could build them, they were coming for my vulnerable vultures (VV's, not UU's) with their macemen.

trireme: I took Jao's cap with their help. if I would have tried with a stack of just 3 galleys, I would have lost. they took the hits of the carracks, and survived! some of them....

all other naval vassels, uhmm, vessels, yes I build them!

machine gun: many times this is the only still standing unit in a city when being attacked. I don't know, but they have somekind of invulnerability in my games, they just don't seem to die.

for the rest of the units, same story. it all depends on resources, maps, AI etc. that makes me decide what to build.

I personally think that egavactip posted this one on purpose to check out the responses. clearly, some of us here do have the AGG trait in them! others react in a more PHI way.... :-)

Mc

[prelynmax]

I usually build mac guns for general defense to every city I have. Normally, I would have The Great Wall, Wall, Castle, to combind with multiple mac gun for massive defense.

On Archepelo and other water maps, the OP's main weakness will get the best of him when 15 warships and 10 packed transports comes to his shores.

[egavactip]

Re: Re: What Units DON'T You Build?

Originally posted by prelynmax

So I can easy take over your cities, because Archers are your main line of city defense.

Since when are you playing me? I am playing the computer.

So that means YOU HAVE NO WARSHIPS, since Tiremes are you main line of aquaric offense.

That's correct. I'll build a trireme if a barbarian galley comes along, but I rarely need to build one otherwise. I don't do "aquatic offense" per se. I am only going to go after other continents once I have conquered the continent I am on (which on the largest scale maps that I play on, frequently have enough land for a conquest victory right there). If I am already so far along that I have transports, I don't need a huge navy other than transports; just a destroyer or two to escort them (and reinforce by air landing to the greatest degree possible). If I need to invade before transports, then I'll build up galleons and whatever best escorts I can create. I prefer the coastal scoot whenever possible, in any case: turn 1 move from city to close by target city in one turn, turn 2 scoot back, i.e., never exposing yourself to attack outside a port.

There is no point in me wasting lots of resources to build up a huge navy if I am not going to need it for specific purposes. Usually by the time I know what the map looks like, I'll know what my strategy will be for the end game and can do whatever I need to, navally or otherwise.

[egavactip]

Originally posted by Bkeela
Horse archers and explorers.

The first post is absurd. What units do you build for crying out loud? I don't see how an early conquest can be achieved without horses in the form of chariots and cavalry.

Well, I only go for conquest victory, so I assure you that they can. Cavalry is only one point stronger than rifleman and it can't defend worth squat, so how good is it really? Chariots have similar liabilities (though they can be useful against barbarians). It is not as if assaulting a city defended by archers gives chariots any advantages over axemen as attackers.

[egavactip]

Originally posted by Bkeela


Axes and swords are fine for the first couple of wars, but I can't imagine just using Riflemen and Grenadiers to wage later wars. Calvary are decisive in my opinion.

Why? They get torn up on the defense. And their mobility is greatly hampered if they have to drag around cannons or trebuchets with them, so you don't get that advantage. Riflemen, on the other hand, are virtually as strong and have far more defensive advantages, so you can take a city and hold it. I love it when the computer opponents have lots of mounted units because it means I am going to tear through them.

[egavactip]

Originally posted by Eomer
I usually pass up Crossbows, Pikeman, MAceman, Rifleman, and Infantry. I only use them if I am going to wage a war and they would be the "state of the art" units.. For the first three I aim for Musketmen and for hte later I worry more about getting Marines and Tanks. though I like Infantry with defensive promotions becuase I can upgrade them to Mechanized Infantry. Oh, and I ignore Cannons- go striaght from catapults to artillery.

On the other hand I always have tons of Musketmen, Marines, Machine Guns (which i dont upgrade) and Tanks! Those are my four favorite units.

What I try to seek are those sweet spots where I can wage war against an opponent without having to use siege units (or use them as little as possible).

Early on, axes can do it (depending on the opponent; protective is hard). Later on, maces can do it. Longbows make that difficult. So I rush to rifleman as quickly as possible at that point, and the riflemen can attack enemy cities and kill an enemy unit without dying themselves the majority of the time, because the computer AI rarely has better than musketeer at that point. Infantry is the next sweet spot, followed by tanks. I never bother with artillery, and I try not to bother with catapults (though this is not always possible). My games are almost always over before mechanized infantry comes along, so I rarely get to use this.

Usually, infantry is the key. When I get infantry (this is noble level), the computer players can't compete with it). Marines and tanks seal the deal. Most of my games (noble level, biggest map, longest time span [i always conflate epic and marathon so i am not using those terms] end in conquest before the computer opponents get infantry.

[egavactip]

Originally posted by prelynmax


I'm positive the OP has never played a multiplayer game in his life. You do need mounted arms for speed. Without a massive navy, mounted arms, or archers for defense, you're dead meat against those of equal (in his case, I think his post was the most newbish commnet I've ever seen, so I doubt no one can be this pathetic) or great skill than he is. You have made some valuable points and should be looked by the OP.

Of course, I have not been talking about multiplayer games, nor do I care about multiplayer games.

[egavactip]

[SIZE=1]
I personally think that egavactip posted this one on purpose to check out the responses. clearly, some of us here do have the AGG trait in them! others react in a more PHI way.... :-)

Mc

I posted it to start an interesting discussion going. Of course, some can't help but resort to insults

[wodan11]

Egavactip, don't you find that a lot of your troops die without first using siege? Even if you have stronger units, that's going to happen quite a bit. For example, a rifle vs a fortified longbow is about even-up odds. That 75% or 100% cultural defense is a killer.

Wodan

[snoopy369]

I would suggest that if you can win without siege at almost any point in the game except pre-catapults, you are probably playing on too easy of a level (unless you prefer to play at an easy level, in which case have fun!).

[Diadem]

I don't really see how you can take cities without massive losses either, if you don't bring siege weapons.

A city with 60% culture, a city walls, on a hill, brings longbows to 6 * (1 + 0.60 (culture) + 0.25 (walls) + 0.25 (city def) + 0.25 (hills) + 0.25 (unit hill ability) + 0.25 (fortify) + 0.45 (city def II on unit). = 6 * 3.3 = 19.8. Your riflemen are gonna get slaughtered. You're looking at 2-3 rifles per longbow.

[jbp26]

Originally posted by prelynmax
I usually build mac guns for general defense to every city I have. Normally, I would have The Great Wall, Wall, Castle, to combind with multiple mac gun for massive defense.

the great wall doesn't add a defensive bonus. walls and castles don't apply a defensive bonus vs gunpowder units.