Which of the new UUs need tweaking

[Sheik]

So what do you guys think is the best civ overall?
For a MP game?
For a SP game?

[monkspider]

for MP? Probably the Iroquois
for SP? Probably Egypt

[vmxa1]

Would it not depend on the game settings? I mean in a no culture win game, how good is Egypt?

[asleepathewheel]

I prefer the Iroquios for both MP and SP

this is for standard and above sizes, anything other than archipelago.

for arch-sp-english are good-quick to mapmaking, unfortunate with the UU though.

for arch-mp-not sure what I would choose, haven't faced it yet. would choose most likely something on the route to mapmaking-a commercial or expansionist civ with a decent ancient or middle aged uu.

[Zero]

Iroquois lovers!
arabs are also Religious and expansionistic too. and their UU while may not be as good early rusher as a iroquois, the ansars are cheap and fast version of knight at price of one less defense. Sometimes the less defense is actually better since those damn veteran pikemen will finally defend instead of the elite knights!

And if u read above on my previous post, my opinion is that ansar is far better than keshik.

[Zero]

My favorite SP/MP civ is aztecs. I get both mil/rel a lethal combination and a pseudo expansionistic trait. I dont get a passive barb more friendly trait but i sure do have a cheap scout that can even defend itself too!

[Minmaster]

i was hoping they had janissaries as UUs for ottomans. a ground infantry unit with bombard capability. needs saltpeter and a captured worker perhaps.

as for koreans, does the hwacha have lethal bombardment? im reading civ profiles on civ3.com and it says "The Hwach'a is a more advanced artillery unit, capable of bombarding adjacent targets and unlike other siege weapons it is even able to kill them rather than simply reducing their health." hopefully this is true, i havent gotten ptw yet.

edit: nevermind, i re-read the first post of the thread and says they dont lethally bombard.

[jshelr]

Just want to repeat this earlier comment that looks right to me, based on "one game's experience."

"gallic swordsman are definately worth it. even though it takes forever to build, they are very, very good. about 6-8 of them can EASILY take out a medium sized civ. the retreat is useful to. think of the sheer number of swordsman you lose in battle. then immagine of 60% of them RETREATED. worth 20 shields?

my gripe about it is that you can't build it when you get feudalism. they become obselete to medieval infantry! rediculous!"

I like the survivablity of these units and, since you need far fewer of them, the gold saving for upkeep is a real hidden plus. The key is the mobility factor brings them to the battle lines far faster than swords can get there. You are always able to fight on your terms and you mow down any archers near you.

They are not as good as MWs on price grounds, but no UU is.

[player1]

Only thing I would change is adding Hills to no penalities to Keshik.

All other units are worth of their price.

P.S.
And Conq. shouldn't be used for pure offesne.