A Strategic Analysis of the Special Units (LONG)

[J10]

Great post. It's no wonder that the German Panzer, Chinese Riders and Persian Immortals are voted 3 of the "best UU" in Civ3 on another thread.

[nato]

Naismith - I've been able to upgrade my Musketeers up to Riflemen. I didn't keep track of them, but I have never been unable to upgrade a Riflemen.

You can't upgrade to a special unit, supposedly because the Golden Age ability of the special unit is too strong to let come from an upgrade. You can however upgrade past the special unit to the next step after it.

What I really want to talk about is the forced golden age. I have to say I am finding it to be a serious downside. It makes your golden age almost completely lost. I thought this would be so before the game came out, but many ppl preferred the idea of early GA ... is anyone finding it useful when you have 1-3 very small cities?

I guess the question is - how valuable is a well timed GA? In my France game, I had like 25 low-corruption cities, with an average population of maybe 8. That means maybe 8 extra commerce, and 6 extra shields, per city per turn. Total value maybe 3000 shields, 4000 commerce.

Sidenote, as I posted elsewhere about Industrious advantage ... extra shields may often be totally irrelevant, because shields beyond what you need are lost. Therefore reduce shield value to maybe 2500 or so.

Now my Babylon empire got its GA with 4 cities, total population a whopping 8. So total value maybe 150 shields, 160 commerce.

There is a further cost - early game I want to make settlers at a high rate. With GA, I hate having those 2 population points walking around, not getting their GA bonus. Just something to consider.

So we are looking at maybe 2500 S + 4000 C versus 150 S + 160 C. Of course the bigger numbers come much later in game, so they have to be discounted for time. Doing that we would have to know the interest rate ... how much being later devalues it. That of course depends on play style. Its going to have to be a very high rate to make 2500 / 4000 near 150 / 160 ... later GA is probably more valuable by a fair bit.

I think you are taking a pretty big loss to have that early GA. You've GOT to make that early attack count big to make it worth it.

[Saint Marcus]

I personally think that the best UU is the Hoplite. It has a defense of three, for which everyone besides the Romans, have to wait for until they get feudalism. And even then the Hoplite is superior, since it required less shields and no resources. It's my defensive unit of choice until the musketmen pop up, which is well into the middle ages. It may not be as fancy as a Panzer, but certainly a lot more effective considering you can use it from 3000BC till 1200AD, right from the start till well into the middle ages. The perfect unit, simple but effective.

Best UU, in my opinion:

1. Hoplite
2. Immortal
3. Rider
4. Panzer
5. Legion/Samurai

[AstralBoy]

Achtung Panzer! What a great unit to have. . . I now play as the Germans so i can get hold of this powerful beast of a unit.

[Enigma]

I like the idea of extra movement very much, the Impi and the Jaguar warrior are really excellent at stealing workers/destroying infrastructure... but sometimes you have to just quit the guerilla combat and take over a city. This is where Immortals excel.

Something else you forgot about immortals is that it takes FOREVER for them to become obsolete- there isn't a replacement unit until the end of the medieval ages! Even then calvalry costs 2.7 times as much as an immortal- in pure shields costs having 5 immortals is better than having 2 calvalry as far as taking over a city.

I agree that late game golden age is probably better- but here is my point: I would rather have the extra production of an empire that is double sized than an empire that having a nice late game golden age in a smaller empire... immortals allow me to take all of an enemy's empire with almost no casualties.

The Rider is nice... but I do like the Impi and the Jaguar warrior more... the Jaguar warrior could become a really fearsome early game rush unit. Remember that spearmen do not make Warriors or J.Ws totally obsolete... they cost twice as much, so if you can bring 3 or 4 warriors or J.Ws to bear on a single spearmen you will probably kill it... the extra numbers required are negated by the fact that J.Ws will RETREAT... this is a big deal in the early game when every unit counts.

Impi could be a HUGE pain in the ass in the early game since until knights no 2 movement units have more than 2 attack... if they use swordsmen there is a good chance that the swordsman will die and NO chance that the impi will die, and impis cost less! I would use the Zulu's a lot more of their civ bonuses didn't suck so much.

[ElitePersian]

Originally posted by J10
Great post. It's no wonder that the German Panzer, Chinese Riders and Persian Immortals are voted 3 of the "best UU" in Civ3 on another thread.

can you show me which thread this is?

[ElitePersian]

Originally posted by Mark L
I personally think that the best UU is the Hoplite. It has a defense of three, for which everyone besides the Romans, have to wait for until they get feudalism. And even then the Hoplite is superior, since it required less shields and no resources. It's my defensive unit of choice until the musketmen pop up, which is well into the middle ages. It may not be as fancy as a Panzer, but certainly a lot more effective considering you can use it from 3000BC till 1200AD, right from the start till well into the middle ages. The perfect unit, simple but effective.

Dude, the hoplite is ONLY good for defense, and if you arent at war, the hoplite is extremely useless, except against barbarians, which only take gold from you anyways.

The persian immortal is definately the best UU since they have 4 attack, and spearman-like defense to back it up, only when u get a knight in the middle ages (wayyy later)can u match up, but like Enigma said, they still cost 2.7 times as much, but knights arent 2.7 times as effective - and also they dont require horses on top of iron like knights do. 5 immortals is better than 2 knights, therefore, even when knights become available, i still think immortals are better.

Sure, the immortal isnt a fast unit, and it'll stop short before reaching a city, and might get attacked, but thats not a problem cause it has 2 defense.

so the immortal is a unit that lasts even more than one era, even knights cant match up with immortals since they arent 2.7 times as effective, while costing 2.7 times as much, and requiring iron AND horses.
shouldnt that be enough to say the immortals are the best unit in the game?

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by nato
Naismith - I've been able to upgrade my Musketeers up to Riflemen.
You can't upgrade to a special unit, supposedly because the Golden Age ability of the special unit is too strong to let come from an upgrade. You can however upgrade past the special unit to the next step after it.

Thanks, I probably remembered the wrong way of the upgrade limit.

What I really want to talk about is the forced golden age. I have to say I am finding it to be a serious downside. It makes your golden age almost completely lost. I thought this would be so before the game came out, but many ppl preferred the idea of early GA ... is anyone finding it useful when you have 1-3 very small cities?


So we are looking at maybe 2500 S + 4000 C versus 150 S + 160 C. Of course the bigger numbers come much later in game, so they have to be discounted for time. Doing that we would have to know the interest rate ... how much being later devalues it. That of course depends on play style. Its going to have to be a very high rate to make 2500 / 4000 near 150 / 160 ... later GA is probably more valuable by a fair bit.

I think you are taking a pretty big loss to have that early GA. You've GOT to make that early attack count big to make it worth it.

Interesting analysis. Your last sentence is the key IMHO: if you have an early Special Unit you shoul use it a lot in early attack, or you have lost a late, valuable Golden Age for almost nothing.

[RobC]

Originally posted by adaMada
Only one suggestion -- repost this on the strategy forums

Good idea; I'll e-mail the admins and ask them if they will move it.

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith
Overall, do you feel that adding Special Units to the game had been good?

Like many people, I think game balance trumps historical accuracy, but I also think that fun trumps game balance (after all, what's the point of a balanced game that's no fun?), and IMHO special units are one of the most fun parts of the game (and one reason to keep playing if, for example, you are the germans and you are already beating the crap out of everyone in the early middle ages -- you still have to continue because you just HAVE to get those awesome panzers, even if G.I. Joan only has two cities left to blitz through by then...

1) I have heared that there is some limit into upgrading Special Units up to more modern units, not sure if as a bug or made for purpose: can you confirm this?

As nato mentions, you can't upgrade TO a special unit (as I discovered when my seven veteran Russian knights loitered around my barracks in a futile attempt to obtain rifles and black stallions) but you can upgrade FROM a special unit to a better later unit.

2) Special Units winning trigger Golden Ages, so they have a collateral effect other than on battlefield. Do you have any note about that part (mostly about special units age period) that can shift the balance about ranking unit's worths?
\I.E. you usually prefer early age Special Units, but that means a forced early G.A. - Is it still good to have this trade-off?

I think nato addressed this pretty well, although I would add that the smaller absolute value of shields and commerce for an early GA is somewhat offset by the greater accumulated cultural value of the building you produce at that time. For example, if your early GA allows you to beat your opponents to the Pyramids, how would the accumulated culture of that wonder compare to the extra 2000 shields later in the game?

Originally posted by Stuie
Nice analysis, but you completely ignore the true value of movement - the ability to retreat when facing destruction. This gives the Jaguar Warrior, the Impi, the Rider and the Panzer a huge advantaged when used in combat. Yeah, the extra movement is nice for capturing enemy units, but I think you've completely missed the true advantage here.

Oops! You got me there...yes, one of the best things about fast units is the ability to retreat from combat before getting themselves killed (although I do think they need to have a movement point left, so this may not work if you have to blitz through enemy territory to surprise attack a city), plus as Vladimir Taltos mentions, it also conversely prevents fast enemy units from retreating from combat (although I don't remember if this applies to 3-move units vs. 2-move units: can cavalry retreat from knights?) Also, I think most of the units that have zone-of-control abilties have 2+ movement points (I just love those pot shots you get to take at the AI, who is smart enough to go AROUND tough defensive bottlenecks like fortified pikemen in a mountain fortress)

Thanks for all the comments everyone! Keep 'em coming!

[adaMada]

Just thought I'd add that I asked MarkG to list this on the Apolyton Civ 3 Strat Pages and he did... keep up the good work .

-- adaMada

[ChrisShaffer]

Regarding early vs. late golden ages, it's certainly possible (and can be quite productive) to not build your special unit and thus, delay your golden age. As the Babylonians, for example, I build zero bowmen, because they have limited upgrade potential and spearmen are the same cost for defence. In my current game (the first Apolyton tournament) as the Babylonians, I am about to enter my golden age in 590 AD with the completion of the Sistine Chapel.

[vmxa1]

Nice. I wonder how useful the panzer is since it comes so late in the game? I just played as Persians and had Germany near by so I just whacked them down to size with Immortals to prevent and blitzkrieges later. F15/16, man alive why would you let the americans live long enough to use it. I would agree with Immortals as the top UU. My only complaint (minor) is it leads to the earliest GA is town. I pop a barracks and come out with veteran immortals to make life tough on any near by civs.
As for manuals, that is bum. To be fair, manuals go to press and the games is still being tweaked, it can not be avoided, unless you are willing to hold the game for an extra period (4 weeks or more). No one is going to do that.

[player1]

I think that THE BEST special unit of ancient age is definetly MOUNTED WARRIOR.
With cost of 30, and ststs of 3/1/2, it has power of swordsmen and ability of retrieting. And it can eat Immortals for brakfast.
Of course Hoplite & Legion can make problems for it sometimes, but it can almost always retreat & try again.
It's pity that after discovering Chivarly you can't build M. Warriors anymore. I would rater have 2 Mounted Warriors then Knight.

[player1]

Correction: In that case I would build Knights in my high production cities and M. Warriors in low Production cities.

[ElitePersian]

Originally posted by player1
I think that THE BEST special unit of ancient age is definetly MOUNTED WARRIOR.
With cost of 30, and ststs of 3/1/2, it has power of swordsmen and ability of retrieting. And it can eat Immortals for brakfast.
Of course Hoplite & Legion can make problems for it sometimes, but it can almost always retreat & try again.
It's pity that after discovering Chivarly you can't build M. Warriors anymore. I would rater have 2 Mounted Warriors then Knight.

i dunno man, i dont think that a lower attack and lower defense is worth the extra movement point + retreating - when you retreat, its hard to heal, cause you gotta get outta enemy territory first, then wait a few turns. an attack point on offense AND defense is really quite a bit, since it gives the immortals the ability to defend cities as well as a spearman.