A Strategic Analysis of the Special Units (LONG)

[player1]

First, on open, IT IS THE BEST.

On enemy territory when attcking cities, you should attack in waves of several M. W.
So he can't kill all of them.
Also some spearmen can always help.
Heling is no probem, you move 2 points, and you can get to border in one or two turns.
And mobility means quick mobilisation:
-If you have roads, your M.W. move 6 points, so you can transport M.W. from distant cities in no time.

It is especialy imprtant for HUGE maps.

In most cases more then 50% of defeated M.W. will survive.
That is huge cost-efficency bonus.
While enemy lost all defeated Swordsmen, more them of 50% of yours Survived.

While playing Iroq. I almost NEVER use Swordsmen.

Still Zulus Impi are best way against them (they move 2 points also, so no retrieting).

Only other Cavalry units & Impi are good defense against these guys.

[player1]

And there is no point of attacking Iroq. if you don't have mobile units.

---TIP---
One strategy for Zulus:
Use Impi in combnation with Horsemen (retreat + high defense).

[ElitePersian]

well healing CAN take pretty long, the city could be surrounded by mountains or forests and it'll take a couple turns to get out and a few turns to heal. While the mounted warrior is standing in the SAME SPOT and healing, he could get attacked by a 1 movement unit like an immortal

In my regent game, i was wiping out the iroquois with immortals. why? cause everytime they used their 3 attack on me, my defense would come through, he'd run away, and stand in the same spot to heal, and id attack him while he's healing - since he cant run while healing. If he did try to run away instead of healing, then he'd be no threat, since he'd be far away.
But then again, which UU is the best also depends on your playing style as well, so maybe the mounted warrior is the best for your playing style...but overall i think the immortal is the best.

The main reason why i say the immortals are the best UU is cause even knights, which come one whole era after them, dont have a higher attack rating, and require wayyy more shields, which proportionately, is simply not worth the extra shields it takes to build them. So immortals will last you a VERY VERY long time...basically, you gotta wait till cavalry becomes available before you stop using immortals as your main attacking unit.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by RobC

Chinese Rider (4/3/3 – note the manual incorrectly states 2/2/2 and civ3.com still incorrectly states 4/4/3): Knight with an extra movement point (can also exert ‘zone of control’ to automatically attack passing enemy units, which normal knights cannot). Requires chivalry and sources of horses and iron. Gives you an extremely flexible and mobile unit in the early middle ages with a movement rating of 3 long before you can discover military tradition and the equally fast cavalry (and doesn’t require saltpeter). Make sure you have a good network of roads to use your Chinese Riders to maximum effect – quickly moving from one front to another to attack or defend against different enemies. Chinese Riders are also great for staging attacks deep into Indian territory to sack Delhi when your spies report that Ghandi is about to finish JS Bach’s Cathedral two turns before you do! The Chinese Rider can be very effective for players who are going for a non-military victory like winning to race to Alpha Centauri, since their extreme mobility means you can have a much smaller standing army to pay under republic or democratic governments, and you can devote that much more resources to science or building improvements.

Nice post.

Apart from the retreating behavior of units with a higher movement rate than their attacker, there is also the ZOC issue you speak of in the quote above. It is not true that the Chinese Rider has ZOC whereas Horseman or Knight doesn't. ZOC is exerted any time when a slower moving unit passes a faster unit. I've had my warriors take blows from Horsemen.

What *is* a bonus of the extra movement point of the Rider is that it is now able to retreat and exert ZOC over enemy units that have a movement rate of 2 (very common), instead of only over units of MR 1.

Correct me if I am wrong.

[player1]

I don't see how on open could Immortal beat M. W.
Still, when attacking cities you'll need lot of them (attacking in waves).
So when one is injured, next comes, etc..
Similar to Aztec startegies.

M.W. are also a good counter-attack unit, when defending (attack, heal in barracks, etc)

Defeated Immortal will not heal, it will die!

I always though that Immortals are awesome, but they are pretty vunerable on open (especially agains M. W.)

On maps with lost of forsets & hills, Imoortals are better.
Depending on terrenian these two UU are probably two best (offensive) UU in ancient age.

M.W. speed give also "a mobilisation advantage".
I mean, your units come, much quicklier on front, because of quicker movment (especialy important for huge empires).

P.S.
AI isn't good tactican.
(at least not to good)

[player1]

Both Horsemen & Mounted Warror have ZOC, but Knight doesn't.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by player1
Both Horsemen & Mounted Warror have ZOC, but Knight doesn't.

Isn't that a bug then?

[Dis]

I feel it is necessary to post a bad thing about my beloved aztecs.

As has been noted earlier, an early special unit produces an early golden age. In my first game this did not happen, because I did not war early. But my last game I went to war with horseman technology. I produced a golden age while in despotism .

but I still don't think the french are all that great. It is important to peak either in the beginning or middle. The aztecs are great for early. And yes the early golden age ensured I got the pyramids plus plenty of war production. I did have about 8 to 10 cities when this happened. So I did get a significant bonus to my war machine.

[Grumbold]

I'm currently a big fan of the Romans. Not because their UU is the best in town, but because of the combination of all their abilities. The legion pops up just late enough in the early game to ensure that you are reasonably well established (hopefully at the expense of one of your nearest neighbours before they got spearmen) to have a profitable Golden Age. Their defensive bonus helps them bull their way through to an objective, especially in rough terrain where any faster moving opponents lose their advantage.

Their multiple role as best attacker and best defender ensures they get plenty of combat experience, which is exactly what you want to have to ensure that early leader shows up as your prize for choosing a Militaristic Civ, and means you don't have to be moving different units to hold what you capture with your assault force. Hold back on building your first legion until you are preapred, then a quick win against a soft target will allow you to go into a Golden legionary building phase. Swamp your target(s) of choice until they are destroyed or you have swallowed as much territory as you can profitably hold. Being a Commercial Civ, that's quite a lot Make sure you turn your leader into an army to secure the ability to build ther Heroic Epic and Military Academy. Now its time to sit back, trade all those resources you just captured, be friendly to everyone and wait until your size and corruption damping advantages really begin to be felt in the industrial age.

The only drawback to the Roman Legionary IMO is its poor (non-existent?) upgrade path. Perhaps it is because of its versatile nature as a foot unit that it cannot migrate to the next generation of units. Migrating to musketman would lower its offensive potential and the superior offensive units are all cavalry based. I normally end up disbanding them in new starter towns to make the rush buying of early improvements much cheaper - along with any excess hordes of foreign workers.

[ElitePersian]

well the reason that my immortals wiped out the MW was because i was on a forest or something usually, and immortals have good defense naturally. And every time the MW would retreat, the computer would move him away for some reason - im guessing cause he was healing or something, so i just attacked it in its red zone wiping them all out one by one.
But you're right, which unit is better depends on play style, and on the map.

but these two are definately the best for their time.

[player1]

Exactly!

[vmxa1]

In my last game as Persia I had a lot of Immortals whack Mounted Horsesmen. They rarely won a battle and mostly retreated. It did not help them. 4/2/1 beat 3/1/2 with regularity if all else is even, that is reg or vet for both, terrain bonus the same. Most of the time I faced the Mounts and they where regulars, while my troops are all vets as I built barracks as soon as I can (I am a conquering type). When Mounts attack a city they are in real trouble and they are very weak as defenders of cities. When you are going against warriors or single units then they can shine. Then retreat has value as you will not be persued. Against humans your retreat will fail as they will have a fresh persuit unit.

[RobC]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy

quote:
Originally posted by player1
Both Horsemen & Mounted Warror have ZOC, but Knight doesn't.

Isn't that a bug then?

Maybe not...after all, when the lookouts spot a passing enemy, horsemen just grab their spears/lances and ride off, mounted warriors grab their bows and quivers and ride off, and cavalry/cossacks grab their rifles and ride off, while Sir Lancelot's squires are still trying to strap that huge breastplate onto him and set up the pulley you need to get him up onto his horse.

[rugbyprop3]

With unique units you can upgrade them into then next step on the evolutionary chain, but earlier units can not be upgraded into elite units.

The one civ where this comes into play is the french. Pikeman CAN NOT be upgraded into Musketeers. On the otherhand Musketeers CAN be upgraded into rifleman.

Hope this clears up any confusion.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by RobC


Maybe not...after all, when the lookouts spot a passing enemy, horsemen just grab their spears/lances and ride off, mounted warriors grab their bows and quivers and ride off, and cavalry/cossacks grab their rifles and ride off, while Sir Lancelot's squires are still trying to strap that huge breastplate onto him and set up the pulley you need to get him up onto his horse.

LOL ok then. This reasoning is good enough.

[nato]

French Pikemen can be upgraded to Riflemen though ... they just have to skip the Musketeer step.

[vmxa1]

One more thing, it was stated that waves would be used, that is fine for Humans on AI, not fine on humans. Your wave will be met with numbers and have a tragic outcome.

[carpo]

Originally posted by nato
What I really want to talk about is the forced golden age....

I guess the question is - how valuable is a well timed GA? ...

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.

Im in the middle of the tournament game, and hit my Golden Age when i only had 3 cities, very early in the game. I was annoyed at first, but thought "what the hell" and started to build a large army of bowman. The main city quickly reached 6 pop, and i was getting 12 shields a turn. I was pumping out bowman from it, and a few more from my other cities, along with only a couple of settlers. By the time the GA had ended (or a few turns after ... i had to wind down my war effort.. hehe), i had taken 3 Aztec cities, 4 persian cities, and made peace with both only having 1 city left each. I made a few gold a turn in exchange for peace (worth alot in those days ) , and then sat back.

Its now 1310 AD. Persians eliminated. China eliminated. Aztecs decimated, very nearly useless, except for the gold they give me for resources . Ive invaded greece and taken 6 cities. Invaded Zululand and taken 4 cities. Wining on points, way ahead in culture, own crap loads of resources. All-in-all i was very happy with the early GA strat that was forced on me. It really gave me a headstart, and completely hobbled 2 of my closest nieghbours.

So, i think, if you take advantage of it, an early GA can give you a big lead.

[player1]

Originally posted by vmxa1
One more thing, it was stated that waves would be used, that is fine for Humans on AI, not fine on humans. Your wave will be met with numbers and have a tragic outcome.

Since Mounted armies have movment advantage on footmen armies, you CAN COOSE wich TARGET to strike.
You won't choose a super defended place.

Plus,
M.W. ARE GOOD FOR DEFENSE.
Of course, you won't fortify them in cities.
You'll use them for attcking from cities to enemy units.
(then intant heal in barracks)

Plus in order to be attacked, enemy footmen must come near you.
Then, you attack & retreat.

[Grim Legacy]

msg deleted

[jack_frost]

Uhh... I don't know how people are arguing against 2+ move units being utterly and completely dominant.

It isn't useful for attacking deep in enemy territory. Its -required- for a) a good first turn attack that should net you at least 3-4 towns. b) very rarely losing units. c) guarenteing his fast units die.

The only thing 1 move units should be used for is as cheap **** to stick in the city to stop it from defecting until you get infantry (since they are just dominant).

Do musketeers really cancel out knights? heh, hell no. The movement rate of knights with smart play guarentees all your knights end up as cavalry. And hey in reality.. your horsemen (who still rape pikes for the same reason) will all eventually end up being knights. Funny how that works.

Using units that might actually die when attacking is risking shields.

I even find cavalry to still be very useful once tanks are running around because of the three move. Hey, sometimes you need to move 2 squares through his terrain to attack. I don't want to leave tanks out in the open undefended. Cavalry run in, take the city that turn, my border expands, I use his railroads to move tanks in to the next city.


----


My favorite golden age is the english, since it happens right at the start of the industrial age when -two- things are happening.

A) I'm building factories everywhere, and the initial boost against my opponents is increased further (plus the factories finish faster).

B) I'm usually putting up my forbidden palace after taking a lot of land during chivalry (the most effective time for offense). So the build time is reduced (in case I didn't get a leader), and the corruption in all those conquered cities is balanced out a bit by the increased production, or rushing is easier due to increased commerce. How ever you cut it, its gotta be the best GA time.

Its a shame the unit itself is so worthless.. end up having to build them to trigger the GA..and sometimes I need to declare war with someone who I don't want war with just to kill a frigging naval unit.

[Isle]

On the babylonian bowmen. They are really nice defence units to start with costing the same as spearmen. However they are considered special archer, and can therefore not be upgraded to pikemen.. I think 3/1/1 would have made more sense.

In my latest emperor game I was babylonian, and used waves of bowmen to wander over the persian territory. By the late war they had iron, but by then I had horses so I leed my horsemen feast upon the (not so immortal)s.. Keep remembering retreat=defeat, the power of fast units is persistency. I you loose you loose, but if you attack with enough horsemen you'll win and they will ALL survive... (think of weak fast units like they were piranha)

[PhillipII]

just throwing my two cent in about the Immortals.
i beleive them to be a truly excellent unit and i will explain why.

A UU is basically a temporary military advantage right?
To make the most of you need to go out and accomplish something with them or else you will have wasted your temporary advantage.
A defensive UU might not acheive anything if no one attacks you during its effective lifespan. (the exception being the Hoplite which saves you from spending cash/production time to upgrade)

Therefore the UU whose attack value is significantly higher than the enemies he is likely to encounter is the best.
i dont think the retreat from combat ability is that great because it wastes time.I would rather kill the enemy unit right now and barely survive than wait for next turn and get him with ease.
I dont go to war for no reason and will sue for peace the instant my advance begins to slow or too many units need to be replaced due to casualties. The longer you are at war the more your social/scientific/cultural advancement is undermined by the war effort.
Thus the best units are those who are going to chew through defenders quickly while taking minimal casualties.
Immortals are therefore the best. hell if they are Elite they will even be able to take out Hoplites most of the time.

[jack_frost]

a) i agree. being able to attack quickly is just as important.

b) "being able to run away wastes time"?

huh?

if you lose a combat, press w. Attack again with horse/knight/cav/tank till you win. Cycle back to damaged unit. Move damaged unit into city. Press F.

Wait three turns for damaged units to heal while moving 1 move units in to hold the city.

Attack next city.


But hell, I don't like building more then around 35 or so units. So I don't like throwing them away (i have been building more recently - you need to otherwise defection becomes more then annoying). And I can still remove pretty much any enemy civ with ease.

[ElitePersian]

Originally posted by PhillipII
just throwing my two cent in about the Immortals.
i beleive them to be a truly excellent unit and i will explain why.

A UU is basically a temporary military advantage right?
To make the most of you need to go out and accomplish something with them or else you will have wasted your temporary advantage.
A defensive UU might not acheive anything if no one attacks you during its effective lifespan. (the exception being the Hoplite which saves you from spending cash/production time to upgrade)

Therefore the UU whose attack value is significantly higher than the enemies he is likely to encounter is the best.
i dont think the retreat from combat ability is that great because it wastes time.I would rather kill the enemy unit right now and barely survive than wait for next turn and get him with ease.
I dont go to war for no reason and will sue for peace the instant my advance begins to slow or too many units need to be replaced due to casualties. The longer you are at war the more your social/scientific/cultural advancement is undermined by the war effort.
Thus the best units are those who are going to chew through defenders quickly while taking minimal casualties.
Immortals are therefore the best. hell if they are Elite they will even be able to take out Hoplites most of the time.

I agree, and the Immortals last for a HELL OF A LONG TIME! (not to mention you get them almost right away) Like i mentioned previously, even when knights become available one whole era later, they still cant match up, cause you get 5 immortals for every 2 knights.
Nuff said.

[player1]

You can upgrade Mounted Warriors to Knights (80 gold per unit)

And later to Cavalry (additional 20 gold).

[player1]

Producing NEW foomen unts WASTES TIME.

Mounted units heal in 3 turns most, so you don't need to produce new one (it's also easier to producte Veterans & Elite).

Plus, they quickilier come to front (2 point movment).

[PhillipII]

maybe i should have explained that a bit.
By my logic, which i use to be somewhat anal about time/production efficiency, any ability you dont intend to use is a waste.
If ability X doesnt really help you then you are wasting time/production by getting units that have it. Whether oir not san ability is any good you are paying (shields in this case) to get them.

[jack_frost]

so your saying the additional shield cost for two movement is greater then the additional shield costs to replace units that just die if they lose combat?

Sorry dude, your logic although reasonably sound the application is flawed.

[PhillipII]

Why is my logic flawed?
The cheapest possible unit with the highest possible attack rating is perfect for conquest.
If too many die then i cancel the war and make peace. the result being the cheapest/shortest possible loss of resources.
If they win then i have taken some cities for cheaper than it would cost if i had used Knights, who are more expensive.

I think i understand why you think im wrong. You are coming from the point of view that you want to conquer some cities at any cost. In this instance then certainly Knights are better seeing as how your primary concern is voctory, not cost cutting.

I however am coming from the PoV that i want to take a little bit of surplus production and see if i can "purchase" some new cities with it.

If i win then either way the attacking units are going to be replaced by specialist defenders. that way i can take those attackers and either move on to beseige another city or hold on to them for a few turns in case i end up with a bit more surplus production again.