What's the worst basic land unit?

[alexman]

It has always bothered me that musketmen, while more technologically advanced than pikemen, are actually less cost effective defenders.

If you want numbers, two pikemen cost exaclty the same as one musketman. Two veteran cavalries attacking a fortified veteran musketman in grassland win 91% of the time. The same cavalries win only 78% of the time when attacking two fortified veteran pikemen. This doesn't seem right.

So what exactly is the relationship between unit stats and cost? A good fit to the basic units in the game, is this formula:

Cost = (MajorStrength-1) + 0.5*(MinorStrength-1) + Movement

MajorStrength is the maximum between attack and defense strengths. MinorStrength is the other one.

Here is a comparison of basic unit costs to what the above formula predicts:

Unit      cost formula overpriced (%)
-------------------------------------
Warrior      1    1      0.00
Archer       2    2      0.00
Spearman     2    2      0.00
Chariot      2    2      0.00
Swordsman    3    3.5  -14.28
Horseman     3    3      0.00
Pikeman      3    3      0.00
Longbowman   4    4      0.00
Knight       7    6     16.67
Musketman    6    4.5   33.33
Cavalry      8    9    -11.11
Rifleman     8    7.5    6.67
Infantry     9   12.5  -28.00
Tank         10  20.5  -51.22
Mech Inf     11  24.5  -55.10
Modern Armor 12	 33.5  -64.18

From the above table, we can see that:

• The ancient age is very balanced. Swordsmen are a pretty good deal, but they don't upgrade so it's not a no-brainer.
• Musketmen are 33% overpriced. No surprise here, as stated in the example above.
• Knights are 10 shields too expensive. No wonder some players prefer to skip them and go directly for cavalry!
• Cavalry is 10 shields too cheap, but just like swordsmen, they don't upgrade.
• Industial and modern era units are in a different ballpark. Much more cost-effective, according to this formula, than older units.

In general, I have to say that Firaxis did a good job in balancing the units. But for the next patch, please, please, please let them do something about those musketmen!!

[Jawa Jocky]

Chariots

I don't actually have a big problem with it, but I have never been able to use them sucessfully. All you get is the extra movement point, but you lose mobility. Vel has a good strategy for fast attacking with them if you build a road network (need Industrious), but I haven't been able to impliment it successfully myself.

Personally, I'd rather get a few cities down and by that time you just build archers, swordsmen, or horsemen instead.

[Arrian]

Archers. They suck, and the upgrade to a unit that also sucks (though I have used longbowmen once when I didn't have horses).

I build warriors and chariots, not to fight with, but for upgrading to swords and horsemen. This is central to my strategy, actually.

Musketmen are a bit pricey, you're right. Otherwise, I think things are fine... ok, Tanks might be too cheap.

-Arrian

[MiloMilo]

Most people agree, the jump in cost is too much from pikemen to musketmen. This is simply remedied, however, by reducing the cost in the editor. I have found that charging 50 shields instead of 60 is a mild but effective change.

This is something that should probably be made official, everyone seems to agree that it is a necessary change. But they have resisted putting simple unit alterations into a patch, and probably for good reason. People also generally agree that ships should move faster, but that hasn't changed either. These values are already published in manuals etc., and it's easier to simply let people mod their own games as they see fit. I just worry about multiplayer compatibility.

[Sean]

I don't bother with chariots. The attack is too little, and most exploring is pretty much done with original scouts or warriors.

[alexman]

I see chariots are leading the vote! That's quite surprising to me. As Arrian said, you don't build chariots to actually use them, you build them to upgrade them to horsemen.

In Civ3, shields are much more difficult to get than gold. When I'm in Democracy I find myself buying improvements in corrupt cities all the time. You can't do that in Despotism, but building cheap units like the chariot and then upgrading them is effectively the same thing.

Actually, it's even better. Rushing costs 4 gold per shield (8 if rushing from scratch). Upgrading a unit costs 2 per shield (or one if you have Leo's).

If you accept the fact that shields are more valuable than gold, then the these strats are a logical consequence:

• Always build up your army just before discovering the upgrading technology, or just before connecting the required resource. You might even go so far as to diconnect iron, build many horsemen (or even better, chariots, if you have managed to avoid horseback riding), re-connect the iron, and mass-upgrade them!
  
• Never build wealth, unless you have absolutely nothing else to build. Actually, before economics you save gold from building and disbanding units (4-to-1) than building wealth (8-to-1) in one city and rushing improvements in another, but that's another story.
  
• Always maximize production over commerce (for the same food) in your cities, by carefully selecting the worked tiles. Don't trust those default city governors! This is worth doing in the beginning of the game. It becomes tedious fast though. [BTW, I wish Firaxis would fix those governors. When I set "max production", why does that grassland tile get worked when there is a mined hill available!!]

[dunk]

How did you come up with your formula? Seeing as how just about every modern unit is underpirced by your calculation, it doesn't seem too good. It doesn't matter what the cost of modern armor is because there's not really an alternative to build at that stage of the game... AND everyone else builds it at the same cost (Regent level assumed).

The fact that chariots cannot move through jungle or mountain tiles isn't reflected.

I would think most people are voting on the usefulness of each unit in combat or in terms of their game strategy. I have never built a chariot, never. I'll build a settler or a worker before I would even consider building a chariot.

[Harovan]

I'm into ultra-early warfare now and find Archers very useful. Even if I already have Iron Working, I still use them, because they're cheap and they are perfect to finish off a wounded spearman.

I use all land units in your list, less or more, and find none of them useless. I use musketmen less, I find them too expensive, but not bad. Also, I seldom build longbowmen, because Musketman/Longbowmen come in a time, when I'm either out for prey with Knights, or avoid to fight and build wonders. But I can see circumstances, where they are useful.

I never use Paratroopers and Marines, but they are missing in your list.

[alexman]

Originally posted by dunk999
How did you come up with your formula? Seeing as how just about every modern unit is underpirced by your calculation, it doesn't seem too good.

This formula was meant to determine the smoothness of the units' cost. I'm not saying that it should be used by the game, but it does fit most units well so you get a good comparison of cost-effectiveness between units of the same era: You can easily see units that are too cheap or too expensive for their stats.

By the way, it also works for other units:

Unit            cost    formula overpriced (%)
----------------------------------------------
Paratrooper       10       10.5  -4.76
Marine            10       10.5  -4.76

Scout              1       0.5  100.00
Galley             3       3      0.00
Caravel            4       4      0.00
Frigate            6       5.5    9.09
Galleon            6       5     20.00
Ironclad           8      8.5    -5.88
Transport         10       8     25.00
Carrier           18      11     63.64
Submarine         10      11.5  -13.04
Destroyer         12      19.5  -38.46
Battleship        20      27.5  -27.27
AEGIS Cruiser     16      20.5  -21.95
Nuclear Sub       14      12.5   12.00

A couple more points of interest:

• Destroyers are more cost-effective than battleships. Maybe I'll start building some!
• Marines and Paratroopers are actually quite good, especially compared to riflemen (even not taking account their special ability), but since infantry is so much more cost-effective, that's why people don't build them.

[dunk]

I see the point of the formula, but I still won't build Chariots.

It doesn't work for all units either, Scouts, Transports, Carriers, Missle Boats are notable exceptions. To me, these are non-combat units.

Marines are good. Paratroopers are difficult to use for their intended purpose.

I understand your argument about Battleships and Destroyers.

There's not just the pure shield cost to consider... I think more importantly, we have to look at how many turns something requires to be built. If I can build a Battleship in 5 turns or a Destroyer in 3, I'll build the Battleship.

It all depends on how you like to play. Bombard isn't included in your formula either. This is what I use Battleships for primarily.

[King of Rasslin]

Archers and Longbowmen aren't very popular here. Maybe you should go back and look at the unit. Notice that it doesn't require any resources! You can't appreciate some units until you can't make the other ones. Really, the fact that you don't need resources to make a 2/1/1 or a 4/1/1 is awesome. I hate the stupid chariot so much. Who is going to use horses to make a 1/1/2? Not only is it a bad unit, it requires horses! That makes it way, way too expensive. It can't even go on rugged terrain.

Finally, I don't believe in upgrading chariots. I make spearmen early on, and make horsemen when they become available. The only upgrading I do is from riflemen to infantry and knights to cavalry.

I am still shocked to see Longbowmen regarded so poorly. They are so powerful. When PTW comes out and you face someone smart enough to cut off your resources, you will begin to appreciate Longbowmen more.

[DrFell]

Originally posted by Jawa Jocky
Chariots

I don't actually have a big problem with it, but I have never been able to use them sucessfully. All you get is the extra movement point, but you lose mobility. Vel has a good strategy for fast attacking with them if you build a road network (need Industrious), but I haven't been able to impliment it successfully myself.

Personally, I'd rather get a few cities down and by that time you just build archers, swordsmen, or horsemen instead.

Chariots rule... but not for actually fighting. They're great if you build tons and upgrade to horsemen->knights->cavalry. It's great having like 20-30 chariots (depending on the map size) instantly upgraded to knights. It truly is death to the AI after that, because they can generally not handle such numbers. You should try it.

Personally, I find longbowmen as the most useless unit, along with musketeers. Neither I build any of, and muskets are too expensive while longbowmen are obsolete by the time they are available (too weak defence, slow, and no retreat coupled with mediocre attack) and not along any upgrade path.

[chiefpaco]

Originally posted by alexman
I see chariots are leading the vote! That's quite surprising to me.

Your question was "Which of these do you build less often?" A bit different than "What is the worst" or "Which is overpriced". Just because some are overpriced, doesn't mean I don't build them. And the worst is not necessarily the most overpriced, it could just be outmatched in its era.

Which do I build least often?
- Chariot to actually use

Which is the worst?
- Archer. Outmatched in its era. Especially on Emporer & Deity.

Which is the most overpriced?
- Indeed the musketman. I play with player1's mod which reduces the price to 5, I think.

Nice post, once again, alexman.

[Jamski]

Going with Chiefpaco's 3 choices strat...

Least often - Rifleman. ???? you all say. I ALWAYS skip Nationalism and head for Infantry and the Hoover Dam. I always get rubber, as I seem to start in an endless jungle half the time (sound familiar)

Worst ? Pikeman. The unit's not good enough to sto it main opponent - Knights. Its got the same stats as a Hoplite, for cring out lound and the Greeks are building these in 4000 BC

Most Overpriced. I would have to say Musketman like everyone else, or maybe Knights.

This is a great poll.

-Jam

[ShredZ]

I voted Longbowman, I think in the last 6 months of playing Ive had 3 from upgraded Archers..

On the topic of Musketmen vs. Pikemen: Isnt there something that, even tho it may be a better deal price-wise to get Pikemen, since they will be facing units of the next age it puts them at some sort of mathematical disadvantage ??? And Musketmen dont get that disadvantage b/c they are within the same age as Knights and so on...