Rating Special Units

[Rotten999]

The local bar has been shut down for health code violations, so I thought I'd share some thoughts on the unique units. Yes, I know it's been done before...hopefully my thoughts are somewhat original. In any case, please don't expel me from your territory!

Jaguar Warrior

With the combat system as it is (read: f-ed up completely) a 1/1 unit with retreat is more powerful and annoying than it probably should be. This guy excels at harassing the enemy. On the down side, there's the early golden age issue, and the rather quick obsolescence.
C+

Impi

See above for Attack 1 plus retreating commentary. Even so, inhanced move on a unit with little attacking ability isn't terribly useful, baring a "raider" role. Call me crazy, but I'm not big on pillaging enemy terrain. After all, that territory will soon be mine anyway. On the plus side, good defensive support for a mobile (horseman?) ancient offensive. The negative is the early golden age issue, and the dubious usefulness of scortched earth campaigns in the early game.
C

Hoplite

In my opinion this fellow comes closer to being a "broken" unit than the overrated expendable, er, immortal. Do the math: a middle age strength unit available in 4000 B.C. with no resources needed. When I draw the Greeks as an early opponent I want to put my fist through the screen, because an early conquest is almost out of the question. On your side, these guys are great for city defense (really?) and also screening offensives. Useless fact: Socrates and Plato were hoplites, as well as philosophers and such.
A


Mounted Warrior

I like this unit. Retreat, the same attack as Swordsmen, and only horses needed to build. A pretty good mix, in my opinion. Great for conquest. Only the Greeks (see above) are likely to stand for long against a sustained Mounted Warrior offensive. The lack of defense is less of an issue in a unit with retreat.
A

Legionairy

Swordsmen are the best ancient attacker, and any improvement on an already strong unit is welcome. The added defense of the Legionairy makes it versatile enough to be the only unit in your army. Rules open territory, and does well in the attack role. A good deal. Writing self-congratulatory histories of your victories and declaring youself "dictator for life" is optional.
A-

Immortal
It's a good unit, but this talk of it being "broken" is pretty silly. The attack bonus is moderate compared to the bonuses afforded Hoplites and Mounted Warriors. Still only a "2" defender with one for movement, so horsemen can beat these guys in open territory. The strong attack is quite useful of course, but I don't see this unit as being too powerful. Give me Mounted Warriors vs. your Immortals in Multiplayer (assuming it existed) and see who's left standing. Still, an excellent unit, especially for warlike types (98% of us, probably).
A-

War Chariot
A slightly early horseman, that still requires horses. Pinch me.
Yes, it does have all the benefits of the horseman, which is a good early unit, but anyone can build those. In fairness, it is cheaper, which can be a difference maker. Still, it doesn't tickle me with a feather. I picture Yul Bryner in that ridiculous helmet leading his men into disaster. "Onward! Into the temporarily parted sea!"
C-

Samurai
All the knight replacements tend to blur in my mind, quite honestly. Samurai are good for those without horses, and the added defense is nice as well. Certainly not a huge difference maker, but a good unit anyway. No hara-kiri option is available when you're dishonored, which is a bit of a disappointment.
B

Rider
Another knight knock-off, with the benefit of added move. Added move would mean more with a blitz ability, which this unit of course does not have. It's still useful, but I want multiple attacks!
B+

War Elephant
It's all about the resources. Freed of concerns for strategic resources, when you pick the Indians you know you're guaranteed there knight stand-ins. Unless, of course, my mounted warriors overrun you before Chivalry Also good for carrying an invasion into enemy territory and unconnected conquered cities. If you are in iron/horse poor territory this unit is
A+++, otherwise B .

Cossack
Cool graphic and concept. Less cool bonus. A very moderate defensive edge, especially compared to the larger (% wise) ancient bonuses. How often does a three move unit defend anyway? The "+1 ability cap" creates a certain sense of design cohesion, but it also cheats the more modern units somewhat. It's all about ratios. Still, it's fun to imagine spreading rapine and suffering with these guys, at least if you have a very sick mind.
C-

Man-O-War
No, not the racehorse. When was the last time a game was decided by naval power. If you answered "Never" you're right. Add to this the fact that this unit is quickly obsolete with the arrival of Monitors/Merrimacks and you have a doubly sad unit. The British deserved better. Why not Commodores (inhanced paratroopers) or Spitfires (fighter) or even Anzacs! Sun never sets...yeah, right.
D-

Musketeer
If Dumas had these units for heroes, most of those overdone action novels would not have ended happily, I would think. Let's give a minor attack bonus to a one move defense specialist. I really hope someone got fired for that. The graphic is the only good thing, got to love that blown kiss and flamboyant outfit! Bonjour, you surrender monkeys!
D

Bowman
Nearly forgot him, and he is, in fact, rather forgetable. Added defense creates a "poor man's legion." A nice early unit, with all the attedant negatives (early golden age, early obsolete). Nice to see the more "old school" civ2 archer stats back, though.
B-

Panzer
Before I comment on game play issues, I'd like to point out the early WW2 German "blitzkrieg" armor was in fact inferior to Russian, British, and even French armor. They won with superior tactics and the use of combined arms. The Panzer simulates this with the added move ability. It's a great bonus, and allows for some fun late game offensives. I do kind of wish they'd called this unit the Panther or Tiger and picked a more appropriate graphic, but those are minor quibles, mainly illustrating my bizarre personality more than anything else.
A

F-15
Air units lost their teeth, so a special air unit is about as exciting as a special sea unit now. If you haven't locked down victory by the time the F-15 arrives, it's not going to be the silver bullet that wins the game for you. Why aren't marines specific to the USA?
D-

Well, I feel much better now. Reactions? None of this is gospel, and most of it is light hearted fun, so don't tear into me too badly. I'm just trying to improve the "purity of the game."

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

I like your writing and I kind of agree with your stats, although I've never experienced big successes with jag.wariors yet:
most of the time they are obsolete very fast.
Pillaging you say?
When my adversary is strong, you may be sure that he'll kill my jag when it crosses the border (roads you know...).
Of course mil and rel traits are a good combination. If I just could identify myself more with Japanese people, I would choose them most of the times. Meanwhile I'll take the Egyptians.

(as Belgians weren't and probably will never be mentioned in a game ...)

AJ

[Skanky Burns]

I would put the Jaguar Warrior at no less than an A-
More likely an A+

This guy can set you up for the rest of the game with a lightning-quick assault on your nearest neighbour, doubling your territory while most other civs are still struggling to found their initial defence forces.
Add to that their ability to explore the map as fast as other civs with explorers. And the ability for your exploring units to defend themselves.
Obsolete too soon?? Bah!! These units don't go obsolete!!
At the beginning, they are your main attack and explore units. Once pikemen appear, the JW hordes lose their role of primary attacker and become a pillager/disrupter. Along with your standard invasion force, send JWs everywhere to disrupt trade routes, cut off strategic resources, force the enemy to waste attack units removing cheap 10-shield JWs from their territory, and even pick off obsolete enemy units and capture workers.

Also if you really wanted to, you could use JWs to completely wipe out a civilization at any stage of the game. I remember someone once just built warriors and triremes until sometime into the 1500's. Then he invaded the main continent and wiped out the other civs, despite their massive technological advantage.

At only 10 shields and with an ability to retreat, these little guys are extremely useful and very easy to replace. They are the quickest army to be built without pop-rushing.

[Jaguar]

Re: Rating Special Units

My opinions...

Jaguar Warrior - A-
Impi - B-
Hoplite - A-
Mounted Warrior - A+
Legionairy - A-
Immortal - A
War Chariot - C+
Samurai - B-
Rider - A-
War Elephant - B+
Cossack - D
Man-O-War - D-
Musketeer - D
Bowman - B-
Panzer - B+
F-15 - D

[Solver]

Sorry, no time now to write a longer essay, but I disagree with many points. I've also fought a modern age war as America, and saw F-15 planes useful there. Some more objections, too...

[Rotten999]

Skanky Burns: The point about Jaguar Warriors is well taken...the idea of a 1/1 unit being effective makes me wince, though. That's the combat system for you. Do you think the weakened retreat ability in the new patch moves them more toward the "average" score? I don't know...I haven't played them since before the patch changed the rule.

Weakening retreat = best patch change so far. Multiple moves and fairly regular retreats is still a huge advantage.

Firedragon and I seem to be on the same page, barring my prejudices against the jaguar warrior. Panzer, also I suppose.

AJ Corp: Yup, yup, yup. Love Egypt, even if the chariot isn't that great. I find myself shouting at the screen "This is a job for a butcher, not a pharoah!" as I send my chariots and swordsmen to attack the jaguar warrior in open terrain. Then they lose due to a "bad seed number." "I'll give you anything you want Anubis, gold, grain, worship, just bring back my units from the land of the dead!"

Unrelated side note: You can play Belgium in the "Low Countries" scenario in the old "Panzer General" war game.

Solver: When you're right 51% of the time, you're wrong 49%. I have my own bizarre prejudices, most of which stem from my style of play. I suppose that makes a big difference.
I'm still not high on the F-15, though. It's so late in the game, and it gets such a minor bonus. Who knows?

I think we can at least all agree about the musketeer. To be honest, I once used him on offense when I had a tech lead, iron, and no horses (warlord). Still, a terrible idea and I really hope someone lost his job, or at least got a severe dressing-down over it.

[DrFell]

I'd rate the War Chariot a bit higher up. Since the new patch, cheapness is a much more important issue. A 20 shield unit can be built in 3 turns in a city producing 7 sheilds, or 4 turns in a city producing 5 shields. These types of cities are quick and easy to set up, and throw a barracks in there and you've got a large offensive force to be reckoned with ready to attack before 1000bc. Also, you're just 40 turns away from being able to build the chariot at the start (just set sci to minimum and wait, use the cash to buy workers off your opponents). Add on the retreat ability and you've got a powerful, flexible unit. Therefore, a rating of A seems a bit better.

I also think one thing you're forgetting about Immortals is how early you can get them. From the start you're one tech away from them (40 turns), and you can build warriors and upgrade them to Immortals when the time comes. So you can get a big offensive force out quite a bit earlier than you could do with Mounted Warriors. In multiplay assuming I started close enough, I'd go in and take you out with my Immortals before you'd got your Mounted Warrior factory up in action. If I started further away in a game with several players then you'd likely have to take on someone else first, either way I win or at least draw. Therefore, A+ seems appropriate.

Otherwise I agree pretty much, but I think you do underrate jags. Try out a jag rush (you need loads!). Combined with the militaristic trait which means more elites fighting in more battles, and you have the opportunity for more leaders. You can also upgrade to swords I believe, if you have the cash. I'd rate them B+

'the idea of a 1/1 unit being effective makes me wince, though'

What's wrong with it? It wouldn't be fair giving them a useless UU, and it's not as if they're invincible. They're not very good when attacking swordsmen etc, and do terribly against the impi.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Originally posted by Rotten999
...
Unrelated side note: You can play Belgium in the "Low Countries" scenario in the old "Panzer General" war game.

Yes, yes, yes ... I hope as a full equipped civ and not just as
'a passing gate for enemies'.

Thanks, will try that one.

AJ

[DilithiumDad]

I mostly agree, but I must defend the Musketeer. It rates a B-, not a D. The biggest advantage is the late Golden Age. As the French, I was able to go golden just as I got nationalism. Let me tell you, having Mobilization and Golden Age at the same time is a whizz-bang way to get a huge armed forces in no time! I went from last place to first place in military in under 10 years.

Musketeers are good for one manuver only. They live inside cities because they are defenders, but unlike musketmen they can slip out of town and finish off a damaged retreated attacker. This happened maybe 4 times, but it helped turn the tide against the Chinese.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Rotten999
Skanky Burns: The point about Jaguar Warriors is well taken...the idea of a 1/1 unit being effective makes me wince, though. That's the combat system for you. Do you think the weakened retreat ability in the new patch moves them more toward the "average" score? I don't know...I haven't played them since before the patch changed the rule.

Actually, I haven't tried it either post-patch. However, I did have a game where my JW's completely lost their ability to retreat. (They were up against the Zulu's). But even then the sheer weight of numbers spelled the Zulu's doom. So what that my first 3 units all died before killing off one of their Impi defenders?? The next turn I had more than replaced that many JWs. And their 2 movement meant that they could get to the front very quickly (especially after my road was complete).

So while having their retreat weakened certainly takes some stuffing out of their attack, I still think they are very powerful considering their price.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by DilithiumDad
I mostly agree, but I must defend the Musketeer. It rates a B-, not a D. The biggest advantage is the late Golden Age. As the French, I was able to go golden just as I got nationalism. Let me tell you, having Mobilization and Golden Age at the same time is a whizz-bang way to get a huge armed forces in no time! I went from last place to first place in military in under 10 years.

Musketeers are good for one manuver only. They live inside cities because they are defenders, but unlike musketmen they can slip out of town and finish off a damaged retreated attacker. This happened maybe 4 times, but it helped turn the tide against the Chinese.

Musketmen can do that too. Its not hard to kill off 1 hit point.

[DrFell]

Best to have an offensive unit around to do the finishing off. Just bring one back from your army in his territory.

[Rotten999]

Wow, a musketeer apologist! It's a truism that none of the unique units are "worthless" but sometimes you don't get the bang for your buck. Our French Fop has nearly the same stats as the Roman Legion, which is available much sooner and for a cheaper cost. The Samurai, also available earlier is superior in every way (higher attack, retreat move) and only slightly more costly. The point about later golden ages is a good one though, and one of the reasons I'm not as high on Jaguar Warriors, Impis, or War Chariots.

Does anyone like the Man-O-War?

When a unit with a "1" defense beats a Swordsmen in open territory I have to wince a little, yes. I do agree with the cost effectiveness point regarding the Jaguar Warrior. I'll have to give them another shot.

AJCorp: They're fully realized in one scenario, but there chances of beating the massive German blitz are pretty much zero. It's a fun strategy game anyway, and probably dwelling in a bargain bin at a computer store near you.

Looking back, I have to admit that sheer mass is often better than quality in Civ3. The combat system being as it is, there's not a huge confidence interval, even for obvious mismatches.

Well, I'm off to play the Aztecs!

[Allemand]

I've played the Aztecs, and found the JW to be a very nice unit in the Ancient Era. But once knights became available, the JW was history. They die in droves against strong units. Sure, you can build a zillion of them, but what's the maintenance costs on a zillion Jaguar Warriors? The Aztec AI has never done well in my games.

The Musketeer is the wrong unit for the French. They should have had an artillery unit, maybe a cannon with a range of 2. The French artillery was exceptional in Napoleon's day, and in World War I they had the best gun on the battlefield. Of course, they didn't know how to use it effectively.

[Barchan]

Maybe I'm missing something, but once I had networked some iron and had my (frustratingly early) Golden Age as the Aztecs, I found myself unable to build Jaguar Warriors. I could only build swordsmen; no JWs to be found anywhere on the build list. I still had a few JWs in the field, so they weren't entirely extinct. I'm using the 1.17f patch, no other mods.

Anyone else noticed this? If it's true, I'm less enthused about the Aztecs then ever before. I mean, if you can't keep pumping out the little el cheapo pickmasters forever, what's the point?