Numidian Mercenaries

[Last Conformist]

The Numidian Merc is just about the only UU that has made me fervently wish that I could build the normal unit instead - those 10 extra shields can be a real killer early on when you need a defender ASAP.

But most of the time they're quite OK. Not quite as nice as the Hoplites, but not bad. Done some of my best pillaging with them.

[Firefly]

It could be worse. In real life the Numidian mercenaries were light cavalry. Imagine Carthage with a fast UU.

[Dauphin]

Starting an early war to give them their Golden Age during despotism can be a good tactic. Its certainly useful against the builder types who like the Numids to act as deterrents against an early war.

[Dominae]

Numidian Mercs. are closer to Math than Hoplites are, which means Mercs.+Cats is easier to set up.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Solomwi
They can be a royal pain, though, eh, Arrian?

He is beginning to find that out

[zorbop]

I dont think the NM is very good at all. I ussually wont have 30 shields to defend my settler. NM's would be a lot better if you got them with construction or something.

[gunkulator]

By the time Construction comes along, you and the AI are probably close to Pikemen anyway so the NM's 2 attack would be completely outclassed.

All in all, NM's are kinda so-so. Yes, you get an unbeatable 3 defense unit early in the ancient era BUT at 30 shields a pop, you'll probably still be defending with Warriors for quite a while. Attack of 2 is meh. I mean, how many Archers do you typically build? That's how valuable 2 attack is. Yes, I sometimes pop-rush an Archer to fend off an imminent attack but I don't ever normally build them once something better comes along. The retreat and mobility of the Horseman or the extra attack strength of the Swordman is superior.

Still, a couple NM's in the right chokepoints can doom an AI attack and even take out a stray Archer or Horse on occasion.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dominae
Numidian Mercs. are closer to Math than Hoplites are, which means Mercs.+Cats is easier to set up.

I thought they both replaced the Spearman = came with Bronze Working.

[Arnelos]

I'm extremely partial to the Carthaginian civ and especially the Numidian Mercenary.

Numidian Mercs are a really good UU for a civ without iron or horses, an all too frequent occurance in the early game with C3C's resource distribution. Building an army of Numidian Mercs and Catapults is even relatively easy to do (especially with Carthage's industrious trait to give an early economic boost) and you can hold your own against an iron-equipped civ.

Even once you have iron and horses and you are combining them with swordsmen and horsemen (later knights and medieval infantry), they are still at least as useful as pikemen, capable of attacking when a wounded enemy presents itself, and will start your golden age at not too bad of a time.

That Carthage is also now (in C3C) a seafaring civ that can bulid an early curragh or two to discover the locations of their opponents and make trades with them early in the game makes the civ even more effective in my opinion. Identifying your target with curraghs and then building the NM+catapults army (along with swords and horses if you have the resources) to take them down using your industrious workers to power your economy can be quite nice.

The thing that is best about the Numidian Merc is its versatility. For 30 shields, you get a unit that is fantastic on defense, at least average on attack, and is highly useful in defensive, offensive, and pillaging roles. When these suckers are combined with a tall stack of catapults, it takes A LOT to defeat them.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by Kucinich


I thought they both replaced the Spearman = came with Bronze Working.

Yes, but Carthage starts with Masonry; Greece doesn't.

[GeorgeWang]

I think sfgreenday is talking about how NMs are good for the A.I. which is bad at exploiting UUs.

Due to their cost, they do seem like a bargain if you compare them to pikemen at 30 shields. But actually, they're one of the least cost-effective unique unit in the ancient age. They're useful till gunpowder but their advantage is in that moment of time between bronze age research and iron working.

Greece and Sumeria get cheaper defensive units earlier. More defensive bang for their buck. Persians get medieval infantry cheaper in the Ancient age. Romans get swordsmen that defend as well as pikemen for the same cost, more whistles for a same cost as a NM. And of course there's the almighty spear thrower whose enslave ability can make and break a game in the hands of a human player.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kloreep
Yes, but Carthage starts with Masonry; Greece doesn't.

Well, yes, that's true.

[Arnelos]

The key to Carthage's advantage is the combination of their UU's versatility, its great defensive abilty, it's effectiveness even in the absence of both iron and horses, and its combination with their industrious trait.

The other civs with good ancient-era UU's may have slightly better cost-effectiveness than the NM for any specific task, but in all cases the civilization carries a liability that is greater than the NM's additional cost in my opinon. Greece has neither the industrious trait nor the agricultural trait - on top of which it must build its archers seperately if it has no iron (though having seperate units for attack and defense for an additional 10 shields a piece is arguably advantageous). Rome can't even build its UU if it has no access to iron and Rome isn't even industrious or agriculatural. The same problem applies to the Persians, though at least their civ is industrious. The Celts have the same problem, though at least they're agricultural (and religious to boot... a great ancient era civ if you get iron).

The Mayans are the only civ that competes in this regard, since their UU requires no strategic resources and they are both industrious AND agricultural. The only liability for them is that their UU is as expensive as the Numidian Mercenary, but only has 2 defense and 2 attack.

[zorbop]

The problem with using the NM in this way is that you are essentially building 30 shield archers. I find the NM a Liability, because i cannot build 20 shield defensive units. That extra 10 shields is hard to come by in the ancient age. It might be a reasonable unit if you could build spearmen also... but even then it is only a convenience that you can build pikemen without iron (and face it, if you dont have iron by middle ages, you dont stand a chance anyway).
Maybe there is some hidden use for them, but i just dont see it...

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by zorbop
The problem with using the NM in this way is that you are essentially building 30 shield archers.

What about the 3 defense?

NMs can be used for defense (where they excel), offense (where they're average, but when combined with Catapults they can be very vicious), pillaging (high defense means a lot is required to take them down AND their 2 attack means they can take out units that get in their way) or any other role you can imagine them in early on. And you'll be counting your lucky stars if you're without resources.

Yes, at 30 shields you'll have fewer of them, but their sheer utility is amazing.

And as far as not having iron into the early Medieval, I beg to differ. If you don't have iron by the Industrial, then you're looking at trouble (no RRs, etc.), but early on a large group of NMs and Cats when used properly can be very effective.