Civilizations' special units--The Best of the Best

[Commy]

So I was wondering, what special units are the best and the most useful. We have ancient units like hoplites and javalin throwers, and then we more modern units like panzers and F-15s. So which ones do you think are the best?

Personally, I'd have to say the Ottoman Sipahi's and the German Panzers. While the civs themselves may not use the units well, I think they could be pretty good with human players, but that's just me...

[Jon Shafer]

Best UUs are the Celtic Gallic Swordsman (3/2/2) and the Chinese Rider (4/3/3).

Both have excellent maneuverability, excellent firepower and good defense for their age. I love units with movement because they're so easy to crush enemies, plus they have a good shot at retreating from battles to fight another day. Riders are especially wicked... 3 moves is very dangerous.

[vmxa1]

I used to play China so much for the Riders. Sipahi come a bit late for me to really like and of course Panzers are really late and I have never built an F-15 that I can recall.

I don't care for GS as they are too early and trigger a GA before I want it. So do JT and Hops.

[Modo44]

Best UUs are those you can use with greatest effect. That means they differ from player to player.

Personally, I recently fell in love with the Berserkers (Viking UU). Those guys can take out an entire civ in a blink, and they move extremely fast - using ships. The AI just can't cope.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Trip
I love units with movement because they're so easy to crush enemies, plus they have a good shot at retreating from battles to fight another day.

Yes, Trip loves his Horsies

[punkbass2000]

Don't forget the Mounted Warrior. 10 shields cheaper than the GS with only the loss of one defense point.

[Dominae]

Most imbalanced UUs against the AI are Mounted Warriors and Immortals.

Mounted Warriors are like Swordsmen that retreat. The lower toughness is unimportant; if you set things up right, you should rarely if ever get counter-attacked (and even then, MWs retreat!). 10 extra Shields for a Gallic Swordsmen with one extra Defense is not a good deal, IMO. The only thing that makes these two UUs comparable im power is that it's easier to upgrade from Warriors than from Chariots.

Immortals do upgrade from Warriors, and therefore are utterly ridiculous. In the Ancient era the AI does not defend its cities with more than 2-3 units, so a stack of 5-6 Immortals is sufficient for punching through any target (usually you just need 2-3). Consider that Medieval Infantry are very useful in the Medieval era, and that Immortals cost 10 fewer Shields and are avaiable as soon as you hook up Iron.

Between these two I would say that Immortals wins out as the best UU. The reason is that Immortals are useful at almost any diffulty level (not sure about Sid), while it's possible on Demigod and Deity for the Ancient era to rush by so fast that Mounted Warriors become less-than-stellar (although they're still pretty good versus Pikemen). This criteria is why I do not include UUs like Riders on my top list, because on Demigod and Deity it takes a favorable start for them to shine; while Immortals will help you come back from behind, you have to be doing pretty well already to field a decent force of Riders.

[punkbass2000]

SirPleb's Sid game was with the Iroquois and he was able to put them extremely good use despite being up against pikeman (and he may have been missing both iron and horses himself, though I can't remember well. Will be back later with more info.)

[vmxa1]

MW are my fav for sid. I do not like them for levels of emperor or less as I will be forced to not use them to avoid the early GA.

I think all the ancient UU's suffer this probelm. You dare not use them when they are top dog, unless you want to combat barbs.

This is why they are so good at the highest levles. They can fight those barbs and of course no GA. If you get in a pinch you can use them and take the hit fo rthe early GA. This I would not want at most levels, but I am happy to suffer at sid. Well maybe happy is too strong.

Also the Iroq get the better OCN. I like the French at emperor or less as they can build a number of wonders and not trigger a GA, get the OCN boost and the UU does not even have to be used.

You can just wait for Hoovers to trigger your GA.

But Riders were so much fun.

[punkbass2000]

Between this and your recent post at General, I implore you to start a Sid Training SG!

[Dominae]

I would rather have Immortals than Mounted Warriors on Sid. That said, I would rather use the Iroquois than the Persians. I suspect that vmxa1 and SirPleb's choice of Iroquois over Persia is more a matter of civ traits than UUs.

[punkbass2000]

Perhaps, but if you're facing pikemen and have Feudalism anyway, Immortals don't have that much of an impact in and of themselves. MWs can be very complementary to MDIs.

BTW, I was unable to obtain specific info on SirPleb's game so far. In any case, he put the MWs to extremely good use

[Dominae]

True, mixed army composition can be quite potent (more against humans than the AI, but whatever). However, which is better: 5 Immortals, or 3 Medieval Infantry and 1 Mounted Warrior?

On Sid, I'll go with the former. Strategic resource concerns are not usually an issue on Sid because starting locations are often, uh, "just right", but it should be noted that the former army only requires Iron, while the latter requires Horses too.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Dominae
True, mixed army composition can be quite potent (more against humans than the AI, but whatever). However, which is better: 5 Immortals, or 3 Medieval Infantry and 1 Mounted Warrior?

Perhaps the Immortals are better here, but I think we both know it doesn't quite work that way For cities producing 1,2,5,6 and 10 (we'll do without numbers above 10 for now) the ratio holds up, but there will be many core cities at this point producing 7/8/9 spt, which drops the ratio to 6:5, 5:4 and 5:4 respectively, and many smaller cities producing 4 which means 5:4 as well, though 3 is in the favour of Immortals 7:5. It would be easier to MM extra turns away for both 3 and 4 however, nulling both, generallt speaking. Also, 5 Immortals maybe better the 3 MDIs and 1 MW (MixMaster, whatcha got to say?), if you enlarge the numbers a bit to an even 900 shields and up the number of MWs (which you should, IMO), are 30 Immortals better than 15 MDIs and 10 MWs? or even 20 MWs and 8 MDIs (sacrificing 20 shields). Not to mention that the MWS will get to the front at double speed.

On Sid, I'll go with the former. Strategic resource concerns are not usually an issue on Sid because starting locations are often, uh, "just right", but it should be noted that the former army only requires Iron, while the latter requires Horses too.

Ah yes, but if you're in a game without iron (which I think would be far more likely than one with out horses on any playable Sid map) you can use MWs to get it. Admittedly a horseless start would probably screw the Iroquois vs. the Persians, especially with the upgrades path.

[vmxa1]

True the civ traits are the key point. My lack of interest in the immortals is that they are a one move unit and have no retreat.

I also want to be using knights and cavs and do not want a unit that will have no real offensive value down the road. IOW the UU is a great offensive unit itself, but none of its upgrades are and they will be one mover.

Plus as a purely anitidotal point, they seem to not fare well for me in combat. If things go well, I want a barbs bashing unit that can cover ground and not fight the AI at all in the ancient era. I have had to do it a few times, most notably with Javs in about the only game I used the Mayans at sid. Can you say early GA, but it was ok as it is was the only way I could have stopped the Koreans.

The low def value of Immortals and no retreat is why they get clobbered too often. If they attack, great, if they defend, not so great.

So in not so short, I just never cared for Persia.