A Strategic Analysis of the Special Units (LONG)

[Saint Marcus]

Dude, the hoplite is ONLY good for defense, and if you arent at war, the hoplite is extremely useless, except against barbarians, which only take gold from you anyways.

I play very defensively, and I don't want pesky swordmen killing my poor spearmen by the dozens. Hoplite are avaliable right from the start, and don't get obsolete till the musketmen pop up. I can build them from the start, they're stronger than spearmen and cheaper than pikemen, plus they don't require resources. The Immortal is all nice and well, but if you have no iron it's pretty useless. Also, barabians take out cities, colonies, lone workers/settlers, etc. No barbarian unit can beat the Hoplite. Since I'm not going to destroy my enemies early on anyway, the Hoplite is perfect. And I can go piss of the AI without fear of retaliation, cause my cheap mass-produced hoplites can defend against anything.

[jack_frost]

alright. Lets go through an example.

You are in the dark ages. You have both horseback, and iron working, and a source of both horses and iron. You now have two choices.

A) you can opt to use swordsmen, attack 3 (30 shields).

B) you can opt to use horsemen, attack 2 (30 shields).

Your premise is that swordsmen are better, as you aren't "wasting shields" on a special ability (retreat) you will not use. Mine is - using the retreat ability (you will eventually) will save you more shields in the long run.

Lets say 5 spearmen are defending each of the 4 cities you want to attack. You have either 10 horsemen or 10 swordsmen. Additonally, you have other defensive units you will use to keep your cities.

City One:
You attack with swordsmen. You should win 3 of 5 combats. And you do. 2 swordsmen die in the process of taking out the spearmen. A total cost of 60 shields.

Now we turn back time a bit, and attack with horsemen. You should only win 50% of the encounters, lets say you are unlucky, and lose 3. You have lost -no- horsemen, although you have lost 3 combats.

You take the city. Wait 2 turns to heal (you would in either case - although you'd be able to move the horsemen into the city a turn earlier, and therefore heal faster, but reguardless).

City Two:
We begin an attack on the next city. Again, 5 spearmen defend it.

You attack with swordsmen, again 2 die. A total cost of 120 shields. You only have 6 swordsmen left at this point.

You attack with horsemen again, 3 lose combat. None die.

City Three:
You attack again. 2 more swords die. You have 4 left.

You attack again. No horsies die. You have 10 left.

City Four:
You move your units into the last city. And attack..

uh oh, you only have 4 swordsmen left. You attack 4 times. Your lucky, and win 3 times. Only one dies, there are two spearmen left. You attack again. One more swordsmen dies, and both spears. Congradulations, you have now taken four cities. You have 2 swordsmen left. 8 died, total cost: 8*30 = 240.

You attack with 10 horsemen, 3 lose. None die. Total cost in shields, nothing.

In otherwords, at this point - if you went with an army of swordsmen, you would need to spend 240 additional shields to replace your losses.

On the other hand, your army of horsemen would cost nothing to replace your losses. You could continue fighting at 0 cost, and you have gained 4 cities again, at 0 cost. Should you decide to spend the 240 shields you would need to regain 10 swordsmen, you would recieve a total of 18 horsemen.

Additionally, eventually, all 18 of these units would become knights, ADDITONALLY, those -same- 18 knights would then become cavalry. Swordsmen are thrown away after the age ends.

In other words, in total. A strong fighting force that you will use all the way up to the early industrial age will cost you a -grand total- of 540 shields.

This doesn't even take into account the faster rate of attack using horsemen, and what thats worth both offensivly, and defensivly. Nor does it take into account the fact you'll end up with more elites, and a higher chance of getting great leaders.

Note: the situations are a little unrealistic, and in reality, sure you will lose a couple horsemen (like two) in the course of removing an enemy civ from the game at emperor. The AI would counter attack and the like, there'd be a lot more going on... But I wanted to illustrate my point cleanly. You have the option of building a unit which will not die. Sure you might lose more combats then you would with swordsmen, -but- losing a combat using horsemen costs you nothing.

Bottom line, your "the highest attack lowest shield cost is the most efficent way to attack" logic is flawed. I hope you now see the light, and will stop wasting shields on swordsmen.

[player1]

With most civs I use both Swordsmen & Horsmen.
But when I play Iroq. I usually use only Mounted Warriors (no Swordsmen)

P.S.
Even when playing Persians, I use Horsemen as defense from other horse units.

[jack_frost]

i usually end up with a few swordsmen too - upgraded warriors I have laying around.

But I think that fast units are abusive to the point of being 'broken'. Especially considering upgrade ability. The only other unit worth building is spearmen. Not because spearmen are good, but because for a minimal number of shields you will eventually have infantry. And you need some kind of cheap fodder to hold conquered cities.

Further the most effective method of defending a city is not to fortify spearmen. But to attack his units first out in the open using horsemen. With use of your roads, you should be able to attack his slow moving troops on decent ground (as it'll take him at least 3 turns to move into attack range while he is visible). In this way, you can avoid taking losses, as you quickly remove his entire army.

Plus, we factor in the actual value gained from the ability to move more then one square. And you have no good reason to ever build anything slow.

It makes combat sort of boring really.

[Enigma]

The M.W. may be better than the Immortal... I like the looks of it a lot and agree that fast units may very well be broken.

As far as unit losses though remember that elite immortals lose only 10% of the time against fortified regular spearmen... this means that you can start the fight with a much smaller fighting force initially, and get leaders much more easily since you are using a smaller force at any one time.

The reason I use the Persians isn't just the UU, but also because I like their civ special abilities.

Incidentally has anyone tried the egyptians? Unlike the Iroquis they have Industrious instead of Expansionist, their UU doesn't have the same offense as the M.W. but it is *cheaper*, a 20 shield 2-1-2 unit seems pretty nice...

Interesting how the "impact rover rushes" of SMAC have been replaced by Mounted Warrior rushes... that retreat ability can be overpowered.

I would like to see retreat work *only* in flat territory, desert, plains etc... NOT forests and mountains. If you were in danger building a forest in front of a city could prevent M.W. rushes etc.

Against another human Immortals are better than M.W., but until MP this is rather a moot point.

[jack_frost]

it does factor terrain into movement to decide if you can run. But bad paths can also be avoided through a bit of planning usually.

[vmxa1]

Hoplites are death to barbs that pop out of huts, they end up making the hop a vet or even elite. They of course suck for any attacking. But, man you can send them out to search huts with no fear.
I too wonder about mobility as being a little over done. With roads and rail mounted troops can cover a lot of ground and attack from no where. Not sure what else can be done, but I suspect a governor is need to limit the over all distance that can be covered. Even with roads and rails, we can not send troops over any distance (the train/truck can only go so far in so much time). At the end I send troops across two contenients with no move points lost, you can not go from NY to LA by tank instantly, so maybe a limit is required.
I am not found of swordsman, they can not do much attacking and are not upgradeable. You can leave them in a city and pretend they are defending, but if anything much shows up they are toast.
The retreat ability is so strong. Being able to send a bunch of mounted troops to the door of a city and attack and retreat really puts pressure on. It is hateful when you are attacked and the horsemen/calv hit and back off to where your one move guy can only attack and then be leave out of the city or let them slide away.

[PhillipII]

Are you aware that Immortals have a significantly higher attack rating than Horsemen?

Besides i thought we were comparing them to Knights.

As to your ideas about how many survive i think youre missing my point about surplus resources. I dont want my attackers to all survive. Then i would have to pay gold to maintain them for like 200 turns or so.

Say i have 120 extra production. If most of the units i make with it die but win me a city in the process then the new city has really cost me nothing.

Your point about Swordsmen becoming obsolete is valid though. it matters less to me though since i dont want them to live forever anyway.

[ThaddeusAlexander]

First of all, thanks for starting the thread with your great comments on special unites.

Secondly, I think for timing and all-in-all bonuses, the Immortal is key. They are slow, true, but since Persians are Industrious, you can build roads twice as fast so bringing them close to the enemy is never that much of a problem.

I also believe that Immortals come at a crucial time in the game, the early-game. However, since they are not 1st tier advance units, your enemies will have time to build up armies and such to defend... BUT! since the AI loves to focus on expansion, this isn't a big problem; in fact, its a bonus! Enemy cities are typically not defended by city walls this early in the game, and the small size of them not only negates the defence bonus, but means there will be few resisters to deal with ... bonus again! And, of course, as the cities grow, the new citizens will be persian ... breeding them out makes life easier And heck, why not build workers to ship off your enemies that way ... you'll need workers to keep your new empire tied to the capitol, the resources flowing, and of course, a fast and steady stream of immortals on their way to your next opponent.

Enemy workers are usually undefended, and waging war this early in the game means you have centuries - nay, millenia to recover lost trust. Since your empire is now massive from rapid conquering, you can start to sit back and make friends. Defend your cities and start building libraries ASAP and watch your empire flourish, and your techs come rolling in.

Most people would agree that early game conquering is a great bonus for any type of success. I've played persians and had major victories in the early game until i had a large empire that i could still manage, then i replaced my immortals with pikemen and sat back ...i ended up winning a diplomatic victory, go figure

Its all in day's work

Cheers!
~Alex

[vmxa1]

I like to attack early as well, and loved the Immortals. I am doing the Chinese and those Riders are nice if you can get them before you neighbor.

[ElitePersian]

Originally posted by ThaddeusAlexander
First of all, thanks for starting the thread with your great comments on special unites.

Secondly, I think for timing and all-in-all bonuses, the Immortal is key. They are slow, true, but since Persians are Industrious, you can build roads twice as fast so bringing them close to the enemy is never that much of a problem.

I also believe that Immortals come at a crucial time in the game, the early-game. However, since they are not 1st tier advance units, your enemies will have time to build up armies and such to defend... BUT! since the AI loves to focus on expansion, this isn't a big problem; in fact, its a bonus! Enemy cities are typically not defended by city walls this early in the game, and the small size of them not only negates the defence bonus, but means there will be few resisters to deal with ... bonus again! And, of course, as the cities grow, the new citizens will be persian ... breeding them out makes life easier And heck, why not build workers to ship off your enemies that way ... you'll need workers to keep your new empire tied to the capitol, the resources flowing, and of course, a fast and steady stream of immortals on their way to your next opponent.

Enemy workers are usually undefended, and waging war this early in the game means you have centuries - nay, millenia to recover lost trust. Since your empire is now massive from rapid conquering, you can start to sit back and make friends. Defend your cities and start building libraries ASAP and watch your empire flourish, and your techs come rolling in.

Most people would agree that early game conquering is a great bonus for any type of success. I've played persians and had major victories in the early game until i had a large empire that i could still manage, then i replaced my immortals with pikemen and sat back ...i ended up winning a diplomatic victory, go figure

Its all in day's work

Cheers!
~Alex

great post, you make a lotta good points.

It's funny how every time i build immortals in the game, im fighting against spearman, and archers, and maybe mounted warriors, immortals just dominate these units with their 4 attack since you get them SOOO early in the game.

[RobC]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I like to attack early as well, and loved the Immortals. I am doing the Chinese and those Riders are nice if you can get them before you neighbor.

Actually, your neighbor can't get riders, since they are only for the Chinese, but if you mean 'before your neighbors get knights', then that doesn't highlight any particular advantage of the Chinese UU, since just plain knights are nice if you get them before your neighbor. What's extra nice about the Rider is the 3 movement points, which means you can surprise attack cities with larger cultural bonuses and even attack deep inside enemy territory more easily.

But I agree with the others who are singing the praises of the immortals. I'm actually working on a mod to 'fix' some of the worse special units to make them more useful. In particular, the Egyptian War Chariot (which takes so long to get, since it requires both the wheel and horses, and are so quickly matched by horsemen), the Cossack (which are almost indistinguishable from normal Cavalry in actual use), and the Musketeer (which are no more useful than normal Musketmen). I might play around with the War Elephant, too, although with its non-dependence on resources, it's a little hard to evaluate (maybe I'll make them require ivory...)

[PhillipII]

Im currently taking a step back from my normal strategy and going for an all out war approach.
So far i must say i am very, very pleased with my Roman Legions. The strategy ive been using so far is to quickly take a city with a large force and then fortify everyone. Then the AI seems to go all out on the counter-attack. Once thier ranks have been thinned on the considerably durable defence of the Legions i move on to the next city.
Although i find it odd that the AI doesnt put half the effort into defending a city as it does when trying to recalim it, it certainly makes Legions versatility very useful.

[ThaddeusAlexander]

Originally posted by ElitePersian


great post, you make a lotta good points.

It's funny how every time i build immortals in the game, im fighting against spearman, and archers, and maybe mounted warriors, immortals just dominate these units with their 4 attack since you get them SOOO early in the game.

For sure

Even if you don't aim for Iron working as your first advance, you can still use immortals for a large effect later in the ancient times ... heck, they aren't really replaced until the late middle ages in many respects. If you want something fast in the middle ages, sure the knights are great and I love cavalry (cossacks being a fav unit of mine too), but if you're consolidating your empire, the quick attack of knights isn't that useful and by the time cavalry is available, its usually available to most of your opponents as well and by then, you're already nearing the 1/2 mark of the game. On my current game (playing my Cretaceous map) i researced to get literature first, i built the great library and THEN i got iron working, and still had plenty of conquering time and with all my funds diverted to the war effort and happiness, the fact that I had the great library paid for my lack of research. Bonus! Another advantage of early game conquerors - if you can get the great library, then GET IT! you can now conquer and not worry about science

Cheers!
~Alex (&Joanna)

[quinalla]

Thanks so much for doing the research! This thread is great, one of the best on the board. When I am trying to pick what civ to play it is awesome to know what I will be getting with my special unit and how it can affect my game.

-quinalla

[siredgar]

Great job on the analysis!

[notyoueither]

I'll take 3-3-1 against 4-2-1 any time in any terrain thank you very much. Man, large number envy must be prevailing.

Let's see, Legions attack Immortals with a 3 to 2 adavantage.

Immortals attack a Legion with 4 to 3 advantage.

Factor in terrain modifiers and more often the Legion attacks with odds of winning than the Immortal does.

But, that's OK. 4 is bigger than 3. You're right.

Tell me what you do when a 3 attack, 3 defence unit steps into the hills next to one of your cities in the ancient era. I know I'd kiss my *ss good-bye (that is if anyone else had such a unit other than me, Caesar, the happy Roman).

About the only thing you say to Legions before Knights is *Sir, yes Sir, how much to leave us alone Sir?* And say it with the proper respect!

That is if the stupid Roman had the foresight to pick a starting point with access to Iron.

Did you hear about the unfortunate *place civ name here* emperor? He sold Iron to Caesar in return for *whatever Caeser promised he'd pay placed here* per turn.

MP anyone?

Salve

[notyoueither]

And vs Mounted Warrior? Give me a break!

3 attack vs 3 defense, as opposed to 3 attack on 1 defense.

Who gonna win that one? The guys who can open the huge can of whoop*ss on you, that's who.

Gonna retreat from your cities? There goes that movement advantage!

When on the open plains you bounce off the Legion, but are still adjacent, do you think he's gonna say *sorry bout that*? I rather think that the Centurions are gonna say you're fit meat for the mules. And guess what, when you're crippled you don't retreat.

Yes, in open country you have mobility. That is true. But, Caesar isn't going to try to catch your warriors, he'll try to capture your cities, preferably via a forested and or hilly approach (not very uncommon). And if he can't approach through rough terrain, so what! Come bounce off our shield walls. More forage for the maggots.

The fact is that in the Ancient era and well into the Medieval, the Legions are a very potent weapon that need fear no one, but who most should fear.

Salve

[Badtz Maru]

The Panzer also has the Blitz ability, which makes it one of the best UUs in the game. The ability to attack 3 times in a turn is so awesome it could be considered unbalancing.

[player1]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And vs Mounted Warrior? Give me a break!

3 attack vs 3 defense, as opposed to 3 attack on 1 defense.

Who gonna win that one? The guys who can open the huge can of whoop*ss on you, that's who.

Salve

I already said that Legions (defense of 3) & Impies (movment of 2) are great coutermesure agains M. Warriors.
But they nicely take out Immortals or any other unit.

[ElitePersian]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I'll take 3-3-1 against 4-2-1 any time in any terrain thank you very much. Man, large number envy must be prevailing.

Let's see, Legions attack Immortals with a 3 to 2 adavantage.

Immortals attack a Legion with 4 to 3 advantage.

Factor in terrain modifiers and more often the Legion attacks with odds of winning than the Immortal does.

But, that's OK. 4 is bigger than 3. You're right.

Tell me what you do when a 3 attack, 3 defence unit steps into the hills next to one of your cities in the ancient era. I know I'd kiss my *ss good-bye (that is if anyone else had such a unit other than me, Caesar, the happy Roman).

About the only thing you say to Legions before Knights is *Sir, yes Sir, how much to leave us alone Sir?* And say it with the proper respect!

That is if the stupid Roman had the foresight to pick a starting point with access to Iron.

Did you hear about the unfortunate *place civ name here* emperor? He sold Iron to Caesar in return for *whatever Caeser promised he'd pay placed here* per turn.

MP anyone?

Salve

You cant say that a legion is a better unit than the immortal just cause 1 on 1, there's greater chances of a legion winning. What matters is how you use them in the game...again, it depends on your play style. What i like to do when i play as the Persians is to get the great library, and set my science to zero, and get a lotta cash, and pump out immortals and just plain and simple conquer everybody, without having to worry about science. Like someone else mentioned before, the industrious bonus allows you to build roads quickly towards your enemies - this gives you a speed bonus. Just remember, if you like to conquer early and dominate the early game, immortals are the way to go, if you get iron early on, you'll be using 4-2-1 against 2-1-1 or 1-2-1 units.

[Guildenstern]

I played a game with the mounted warrior and found that they are not as good as they should be. The regular horsemen is just as good.

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by Guildenstern
I played a game with the mounted warrior and found that they are not as good as they should be. The regular horsemen is just as good.

I really like the war chariot, although its potential can be limited if you are boxed in by jungles and/or mountains. If you have area to use them in you can leave horseback riding for your last tech in ancient and they are much better than horses because they only cost 20 shields. When you start pop rushing it doesn't make any difference, however. Usually I can get a few early wars done before I hit the mountain/jungle wall and before I have enough cities to start devoting some to pop rushing units.

[TiredEnglishman]

One annoying thing I would like to add about the English UU, which anyone who has tried to play as the English I hope agrees with me on. I play as them through most of my games and their traits are (as you will know) Commercial and Expansionist.

If you read Velociryx's Stratagy Thread, he will tell you that to succed as Expansionist you must have a lot of land to work with. Sound advice, I concur. But having a lot of land means less water. Less water means Navel power isn't a primary factor and thus the UU is not needed.

The Royal Navy has always had a fairly good war reputation (Lord Nelson, the Armarda etc etc) and I can understand why Firaxis gave the English a navel unit but it doesn't work with the expansionist trait. You can have an island and UU's or a big mass of continants and worthless UU's. Either way, you cannot exploit both your civ advantage AND your UU. Something has to give. Perhaps there is a fine line which exists to allow you to exploit both. It's just that I haven't found it (perhaps I'm not navy focused enough!).

Of course you could turn off the personal traits, but where is the fun in that?

Just a small rant.

TiredEnglishman.

[Aqualung]

I just tried the swarm tactic with Jaguars... unfortunately, my enemy was the Zulu. If there's one thing that Jaguars excell in, it's turning Regular Impis into Elite Impis.

I did get my GA, though. And at a good time, since I skyrocketed with tech and was able to pump out hordes of Horsemen instead!

[Dodgy Geezer]

Originally posted by jack_frost
alright. Lets go through an example.

You are in the dark ages. You have both horseback, and iron working, and a source of both horses and iron. You now have two choices.

A) you can opt to use swordsmen, attack 3 (30 shields).

B) you can opt to use horsemen, attack 2 (30 shields).

Your premise is that swordsmen are better, as you aren't "wasting shields" on a special ability (retreat) you will not use. Mine is - using the retreat ability (you will eventually) will save you more shields in the long run.

Jack, couldn't help post a reply on this one. You have given us quite a detailed analysis on this situation, but it is quite a bit more complicated than that.

1. You will be using all four HPs when attacking with Swordies, and only three HPs with the horsies. This is even worse if your units have only three HP. This reduces your chances of a success to 75%*50%, or 37.5% opposed to the swordies of 66%.

2. Terrain or city modifiers will make it even harder.

3. If both attacker and defender are on 1 HP then the horsies can be killed.

4. If you win only 50% of the battles against 5 spearmen, you may well use all of your horses (lose 3/5 first battles, 1/3 second and win third, which is 9 attacks). Of course second attacks should have a higher chance of success.

I reckon it would take a stato to work out the real odds.

To me what makes the mounted units far more powerful is firstly that the enemy doesn't appear to get promoted if your unit doesn't get killed (or at least not that I have noticed), and secondly that they can move twice as fast as swordies.

Having said all this, I only ever attack with Horsemen, Knights, Cavalry and Tanks. Having said that I haven't won on Deity yet.

[Aeson]

I personally feel that the mounted warrior is the most powerful and efficient unit in the ancient era when using pop-rushing. Likewise the war chariot assumes that role when not pop-rushing. The main reason is that in most games 80%+ of the horsemen (or UU counterparts) I build eventually end up being calvary. Any swordsmen (or their UU counterparts) I build can never be upgraded. Even if the swordsman side is balanced in the ancient era (and I don't think it is), future warfare will eventually pass them by.

One important use for 2 movement troops is defense. In your own territory, on roads, they can easily attack any invaders, and end their turn in the city. Invading armies almost never even get a chance to attack, and if they do, its after they have been considerably weakened. When people assume that an Immortal army would beat a Mounted Warrior one, they are basing that on experience with the AI, which doesn't know how to use their higher movement units at all. When this scenario is played out between two equally skilled players, the Immortals are going to be in a lot of trouble. I know that if I was playing myself, it wouldn't be any contest in most scenarios. The best that can come of it for the Immortals is a standoff if both sides play it right. And eventually, that means that upgrading to Knights (and the lack of upgrades for Immortals) will kill the Immortals off just as well. If warfare does occur then the more mobile force will be the one to dictate when and where the battles are fought. Of course a smart player will use combined forces in most situations, as other players can't be relied on to use the AI's suicide tactics.

The AI does a horrible job at defense in this game, so basically any unit that the player choses to use is going to be successful if used right. The only difference is in the efficiency that the unit can do its job. As retreat capable troops have a lower mortality rate, the production that is dedicated to producing them isn't lost as quickly either. Someone earlier mentioned that they used excess production to try to buy a few cities (through conquest). Why stop at a few cities when you can have several for the same cost?

One thought.. Why doesn't anyone ever mention the Zulu's? I think Impi's are perfect support for Horsemen. Not to mention the perfect defense against them. They can also be extremely efficient at cutting off resources and capturing workers on their own. The only ancient era unit that makes me think twice about sending my horsemen to war is the Impi. When in the hands of the AI, they have to be considered as the best of the UU's.

[King of Rasslin]

Chinese Riders do not require iron, i think.

And the Cossack is the best UU, since the cavalry is used for a longer period of time than any other unit, especially if you rush to it.

[eldoktor]

There's one more thing that makes Samurai cool - they can be carried by helicopter. They're by far the strongest two-move unit that can be. And you ought to have a bunch of Elite Samurai by the time Cav roll around.

I'm thinking airdropping units that can pillage a new square every turn will be useful. This would apply to Impi and JWs as well, but they're far less survivable once gunpowder rolls around.

[Arrian]

I have to agree with Aeson about the Mounted Warrior. It is incredibly powerful - and it upgrades. The Immortal is an excellent unit too, since there is a big difference between a 4 attack and 3 (Immortal/Swordsmen) and nearly every civ in ancient times has a 2 defender, making the odds roughly 2 to 1 in favor of the little green men. The Impi is surely a pain in the butt if you have an army of horsemen, or even knights - because they prevent your units from retreating. I've never played the Zulu, because their traits are awful, but I don't like fighting them until later on. The Greeks and Romans are also a pain to fight early on (provided that the Romans have iron). I don't think much of either of their units for MY use - I'd rather have the MW or Immortal, and in the case of Hoplites, defensive units aren't worth much in Civ III. I also like the samurai - and hate fighting them. Cavalry have trouble with Samurai. If the AI knew how to use them, Japan would be relatively safe from me until Tanks. As it is, like Aeson said, the AI doesn't use the mobile units in the game properly. I've never fought Chinese Riders, nor have I used them, but I'm sure I'd like the extra move. Kinda like Cavalry (a unit I really, really like), with a bit less attack... at the beginning of the era, instead of at the end.

For those who bring up MP: my thoughts on this matter are confined to SP. There is no MP yet, and if and when there is MP, you can play it and figure out what the best units are against intelligent opponents.

-Arrian