What's the worst basic land unit?

[Unregistered]

Humm. I don't ever build chariots. I may have to rethink that though, I'd never really considered the 'cheapness' of the upgrade angle to cavalry. The first horse unit I usually build is horseman.

I don't build archers much either, but I do when I find myself in an early war. (I tend to avoid early warfare for the most part)

Musketmen do seem to be a bit on the expensive side, but I find that 'fits' pretty well historically. They were more expensive to train and outfit compared to the other ground-pounders of the day, causing them to be just a part of the mix on the battlefield for a long time.

Cheers,

[Cyclotron]

I would build chariots, but I always seem to get Horseback Riding before I get horses...

[DrFell]

Originally posted by Unregistered
Humm. I don't ever build chariots. I may have to rethink that though, I'd never really considered the 'cheapness' of the upgrade angle to cavalry. The first horse unit I usually build is horseman.

Chariots upgrade to horsemen for only 20 gold - even better if you have mounted warriors.

Musketmen do seem to be a bit on the expensive side, but I find that 'fits' pretty well historically. They were more expensive to train and outfit compared to the other ground-pounders of the day, causing them to be just a part of the mix on the battlefield for a long time.

True but as they're only really good as defensive units, and as pikes are cheaper they generally aren't worth building. If they cost say, 50 shields, they'd be much better

[Jawa Jocky]

damn, I need to take my vote back. I started a new game as Egypt and brought Rome to its knees with nothing but War Chariots. I don't think there really is a bad unit as long as you have a lot of them.

[Solver]

I voted for the Chariot. While Musketmen are not too effective cost-wise, I still want that defense factor of 4, not 3 - and Musketmen are good in the field fighting off Knights, as I discovered.

The Chariot is though near to useless. Can't pass those Jungles, attack value of the Warrior... why?

[DeepO]

Originally posted by alexman

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 great poll, alexman, and also a nice formula to work from. However, for the transports and the like, you should take their ability to transport stuff into account, wich makes it even smoother.

For instance, working from
Cost = (MajorStrength-1) + 0.5*(MinorStrength-1) + 0.5*(TransportCapability-2) + Movement
(with the TransportCapability factor capped, so it can't go negative)
you get

Unit            cost    formula overpriced (%)
----------------------------------------------
Galley               3       3        0.00
Caravel             4       5      -20.00
Galleon             6       7       -14.29
Transport         10      11     -9.09
Carrier             18      12      50.00
Submarine       10      11.5  -13.04
Nuclear Sub     14      12.5   12.00
Helicopter         8        7       14.29

With this formula, you see that carriers and nuclear subs might be a bit overpriced, but they can carry highly powerful units. (submarine added just for comparison to nuclear sub).

Does anybody ever build helicopters? I can see it could have some use, in very specific cases, but I'd rather drop a paratrooper than use a helicopter to fly in some reinforcements.

BTW, In the manual it is indicated that the nuclear sub and the carrier both have a cost of 16. That should make for a 33% overpriced carrier, 28% nuclear sub. Although this was quite balanced, they decided to change it somewhere (before release?) So, I don't see any problem why they couldn't change the cost of the musketman to 50, the manual isn't correct at this moment, there shoudn't be a problem adjusting another stat.

DeepO

[Marquis de Sodaq]

I've never built a longbowman, but have lost a city to them! I had muskets, and had cut off my neighbor's resource supplies. Over the next turns, a crowd of longbowmen butchered my pikemen and muskets and knights. It took a bit of rebuilding to turn the tide back my way.

Calling the scout overpriced is ridiculous. One tipped hut will result in far more value than the pittance he cost to build.

Chariots are lame, too. Their only real value is as a shield storage for future upgrades. So basically, they suck, but can be used to get something better for cheap.

Musketmen are too expensive. Perhaps this was intended - consider the material differences between them and pikemen. If they are supposed to be scarce, it makes sense. However, I agree that it is not so good for game balance.

[jshelr]

As some have noted above, those voting for chariots should read Arrian's comments in the ancient era war thread started by Thunderfall. The comments are a real eye opener. He advocates building as many chariots as you can while hoarding gold. Don't research horseback riding until you're ready. Then upgrade (it's cheap) to horsemen, allowing you to rampage through the early tribes at will. It works. Combine it with warrior upgrades to swordmen and you will rule. Too easily IMO. This makes the chariot a key starting point to the most successful strategy I've seen.

[King of Rasslin]

Cheap? As in 20 gold per chariot to upgrade? No thanks, man. That's useful money in the ancient era. I think the upgrade from horseman to knight (80 gold, I think) is a better deal because knights own the middle ages. Horsemen have a harder time killing spearmen than knights have killing pikemen. And only a really, really lucky person is able to get horses before researching horseback riding.

Besides, that early on, I get out spearmen to fight off the barbs. I make horsemen after my empire is set in stone and defended. I don't make early chariots because early spearmen are better. Also, try attacking and pillaging the AI with spearmen. It just isn't designed to fight off that kind of attack.

[Jethro83]

I definitely find chariots to be the worst land unit. The next unit up is only one tech away, and since I am an early warmonger, I go straight to Horseback riding, so as to be able to build my horsemen. I have never actually found any use for them at all. And building them for the purpose of upgrading to knights didn't work either, since I rarely have enough cash floating around for that kind of thing.

Even if I'm Egypt and use War Chariots, they are still somewhat useless. Sure, horsemen cost more shields, but at least they can cross unroaded jungle and mountains. I also like to avoid the early golden age.

I also agree that musketmen are too pricey for what they are worth. Either increase their defence or decrease their shield cost. I know I'll mod that soon.

[DrFell]

Can't believe some people don't like chariots. I ought to post some saves of me using them to great effect (via upgrading of course).

[jshelr]

You are right. It's pretty incredible. They just have not tried the upgrade routine. If anything, it could make the early game so heavily weighted in favor of the human player it becomes uninteresting.

[King of Rasslin]

Upgrading is too expensive that early on. And chariots are obsolete by the time you acquire horses, unless you restart every time you aren't next to horses and cattle

In a few rare circumstances, I could stand upgrading them to horsemen. The only reason it is unexpensive to some people is that they lower the science so low they can get horseback riding very late and use the gold to upgrade the chariots. It just isn't useful, in my opinion.

[Arrian]

Rass,

I find that shields are harder to come by in the early going than gold. I also find that locating and hooking up a horse resource is pretty easy on the settings I play (Standard maps, normal continents, 8 civs), particularly when playing Japan, which starts with the ability to see horses.

Yes, I lower my science rate to 10%... though only after discovering 4-5 other advances at 50%. Only horseback riding is at 10% (or 0% + one scientist). And then, for the bargain-basement price of 800 gold, I have 20 horsemen and 10 swordsmen.

It works, and I find it very useful. I'm sure your way works too.

-Arrian

[King of Rasslin]

Do you make the Great Library? That is the only way I would lower science so low. 800 gold is a lot, especially in the ancient era. If the attack fails, you are going to have a hard time catching up in the tech tree. You are placing all of your faith in making an AI submit and give up all of his techs. I wouldn't bet on that.