 |
| |
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Most imbalanced UUs against the AI are Mounted Warriors and Immortals.
Mounted Warriors are like Swordsmen that retreat. The lower toughness is unimportant; if you set things up right, you should rarely if ever get counter-attacked (and even then, MWs retreat!). 10 extra Shields for a Gallic Swordsmen with one extra Defense is not a good deal, IMO. The only thing that makes these two UUs comparable im power is that it's easier to upgrade from Warriors than from Chariots.
Immortals do upgrade from Warriors, and therefore are utterly ridiculous. In the Ancient era the AI does not defend its cities with more than 2-3 units, so a stack of 5-6 Immortals is sufficient for punching through any target (usually you just need 2-3). Consider that Medieval Infantry are very useful in the Medieval era, and that Immortals cost 10 fewer Shields and are avaiable as soon as you hook up Iron.
Between these two I would say that Immortals wins out as the best UU. The reason is that Immortals are useful at almost any diffulty level (not sure about Sid), while it's possible on Demigod and Deity for the Ancient era to rush by so fast that Mounted Warriors become less-than-stellar (although they're still pretty good versus Pikemen). This criteria is why I do not include UUs like Riders on my top list, because on Demigod and Deity it takes a favorable start for them to shine; while Immortals will help you come back from behind, you have to be doing pretty well already to field a decent force of Riders.
Last edited by Dominae on 26-11-2004 at 21:41
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
I would rather have Immortals than Mounted Warriors on Sid. That said, I would rather use the Iroquois than the Persians. I suspect that vmxa1 and SirPleb's choice of Iroquois over Persia is more a matter of civ traits than UUs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
True, mixed army composition can be quite potent (more against humans than the AI, but whatever). However, which is better: 5 Immortals, or 3 Medieval Infantry and 1 Mounted Warrior?
On Sid, I'll go with the former. Strategic resource concerns are not usually an issue on Sid because starting locations are often, uh, "just right", but it should be noted that the former army only requires Iron, while the latter requires Horses too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
punkbass2000
|
 |
Waterloo, ON, Canada
Feb 2002
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
True, mixed army composition can be quite potent (more against humans than the AI, but whatever). However, which is better: 5 Immortals, or 3 Medieval Infantry and 1 Mounted Warrior? |
Perhaps the Immortals are better here, but I think we both know it doesn't quite work that way  For cities producing 1,2,5,6 and 10 (we'll do without numbers above 10 for now) the ratio holds up, but there will be many core cities at this point producing 7/8/9 spt, which drops the ratio to 6:5, 5:4 and 5:4 respectively, and many smaller cities producing 4 which means 5:4 as well, though 3 is in the favour of Immortals 7:5. It would be easier to MM extra turns away for both 3 and 4 however, nulling both, generallt speaking. Also, 5 Immortals maybe better the 3 MDIs and 1 MW (MixMaster, whatcha got to say?), if you enlarge the numbers a bit to an even 900 shields and up the number of MWs (which you should, IMO), are 30 Immortals better than 15 MDIs and 10 MWs? or even 20 MWs and 8 MDIs (sacrificing 20 shields). Not to mention that the MWS will get to the front at double speed.
quote:
On Sid, I'll go with the former. Strategic resource concerns are not usually an issue on Sid because starting locations are often, uh, "just right", but it should be noted that the former army only requires Iron, while the latter requires Horses too. |
Ah yes, but if you're in a game without iron (which I think would be far more likely than one with out horses on any playable Sid map) you can use MWs to get it. Admittedly a horseless start would probably screw the Iroquois vs. the Persians, especially with the upgrades path.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vmxa1
|
 |
Oviedo, Fl
Nov 2001
time: 21:18
|
|
True the civ traits are the key point. My lack of interest in the immortals is that they are a one move unit and have no retreat.
I also want to be using knights and cavs and do not want a unit that will have no real offensive value down the road. IOW the UU is a great offensive unit itself, but none of its upgrades are and they will be one mover.
Plus as a purely anitidotal point, they seem to not fare well for me in combat. If things go well, I want a barbs bashing unit that can cover ground and not fight the AI at all in the ancient era. I have had to do it a few times, most notably with Javs in about the only game I used the Mayans at sid. Can you say early GA, but it was ok as it is was the only way I could have stopped the Koreans.
The low def value of Immortals and no retreat is why they get clobbered too often. If they attack, great, if they defend, not so great.
So in not so short, I just never cared for Persia.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by punkbass2000
Perhaps the Immortals are better here, but I think we both know it doesn't quite work that way For cities producing 1,2,5,6 and 10 (we'll do without numbers above 10 for now) the ratio holds up, but there will be many core cities at this point producing 7/8/9 spt, which drops the ratio to 6:5, 5:4 and 5:4 respectively, and many smaller cities producing 4 which means 5:4 as well, though 3 is in the favour of Immortals 7:5. It would be easier to MM extra turns away for both 3 and 4 however, nulling both, generallt speaking.
|
Playing Sid I'm assuming maximal (within human capacity!) micromanagement. The concerns you raise disappear when you waste less than 2% of the uncorrupted Shields at your disposal.
quote:
Also, 5 Immortals maybe better the 3 MDIs and 1 MW (MixMaster, whatcha got to say?), if you enlarge the numbers a bit to an even 900 shields and up the number of MWs (which you should, IMO), are 30 Immortals better than 15 MDIs and 10 MWs? or even 20 MWs and 8 MDIs (sacrificing 20 shields).
|
For straight combat, yes, I still prefer the Immortals. 
quote:
Not to mention that the MWS will get to the front at double speed.
|
And where will the Medieval Infantry be? You need to focus the bulk of your forces, else you'll get slaughtered.
Mounted Warriors do have one thing going for them that has not been mentioned yet: blocking tricks. A 2-move unit is much better at making the AI dance around (critical on Sid) than slowmovers. But this has nothing to do with mixed-unit forces.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vmxa1
|
|
Oviedo, Fl
Nov 2001
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Modo44
vmxa, what about the Ottomans then, with their (supposedly) terrifying Sipahi? |
First thing is that you are going to want to have commerce for the OCN and Alpha. You do not have to have alpha, but you sure would like it. Remember you are not going to be poping huts and probably will not have many contacts for some time.
Second their traits are not real helpful at that level. Industrial is ok, but you have BW and Mason. Too common, if you do make a contact. Masonry is nice to start a prebuild, but I don't have many opportunities to do it in the ancient age. I can't commit 30 or more turns to that. I will have to go with something much shorter, much closer to getting the tech for any wonder (I guess we are talking about the GL).
As to the UU, it is very nice, but is a bit late. I want something to deal with uprisings or a middles war. You will likely see them much sooner than you want. Now if you have an island to yourself, you may not have that problem. Chances are you will have to have a large enough island to be concerned. Contients, you may be ok, depends.
If the AI clears it for you, you have the problem of them being too large already. If they don't you may be ok as you probably have gone to war and have many units to deal with barbs.
So that is why I like a fast moving ancient UU for sid. Pangea, I have not figured out yet. I have only tried a few times, but I get clobberred. Of course barbs are no problem on a pangea. The AI wipes them out fast.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
punkbass2000
|
|
Waterloo, ON, Canada
Feb 2002
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Playing Sid I'm assuming maximal (within human capacity!) micromanagement. The concerns you raise disappear when you waste less than 2% of the uncorrupted Shields at your disposal. |
Yes, the numbers are certainly not absolute, but even MM often requires losses in other areas. Take into account I've already agreed to nulling 3-4spt cities, so the 'important' numbers here are 7/8/9 spt. eg. If a city 'normally' produces 2 fpt and 7spt, how are you going to MM it? 2 turns at 7 and 2 at 8 is fine, but if you can do eight without losing food or significant trade, this would be an 'eight' city in almost all certainty, still making a 40 shield unit at 5:4 a reasonable deal. Otherwise, it probably has to switch a BG to a forest (or something comparable) for two turns out of every four, thus slowing its growth to 75% of its potential. Again, an 'eight' city doesn't MM well either. 3 turns is almost certainly impossible unless a large trade off between an irrigated wheat and mined iron or some such is to be made. The only thing to do is drop it to 7 for two turns or 6 for one turn, probably the later if it is "truly" an 'eight', and gain 1 food and/or commerce every four turns. This may not een be a possibility. As for 'nine' cities, the round number ten is so ridiculously useful that if a city is a "true" 'nine' it probably needs to sacrifice 2fpt for 10 shields and would need to maintain this at all times to take advantage (unless a weird combo with 11 is possible). To make 40 shield units one need only MM down to 8 shields, with possible gains in food or trade. Having to drop a 'nine' to a '7/8' or 'six' city would be somewhat sad, though the gains in food and commerce could be immense and the possibilities and conclusions are far beyond the scope of this discussion.
quote:
For straight combat, yes, I still prefer the Immortals. |
Fair enough.
quote:
And where will the Medieval Infantry be? You need to focus the bulk of your forces, else you'll get slaughtered. |
I'm certainly not proposing leaving the MDI (and pikemen) behind! But I think any TBS player knows to make fast units further from the front when feasible and slower units. Given that I am in my GA from one of these UUs, my core cities can likely produce 3 (and even 2) turn MWs, which are to be the bulk of my force, while my 3-8 shield cities closer to the front with barracks will build MDI (pikemen for 3 and 6) and non-barracks cities will do cats/trebs.
BTW, thank you for engaging in civ-strat debates with me, this is really why I play the game at all and am still at the forums while not really playing SP C3C. It is only too bad that the game is old enough and Deity/Sid are such AI bonused levels that the debates have to come to such trivial minutia
|
|
| |
|
|
|
punkbass2000
|
|
Waterloo, ON, Canada
Feb 2002
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vmxa1
Second their traits are not real helpful at that level. Industrial is ok, but you have BW and Mason. Too common, if you do make a contact. Masonry is nice to start a prebuild, but I don't have many opportunities to do it in the ancient age. I can't commit 30 or more turns to that. I will have to go with something much shorter, much closer to getting the tech for any wonder (I guess we are talking about the GL).
|
Interesting, I'm glad we agree on C3C Industrious. You should see the backlash DocT at CFC (if you know him) has been receiving for speaking poorly about Industrious in his 'rating the C3C civs' thread. Maya were even in the 3rd tier after his first draft  He was later convinced to up Agr. a bit in his system, bumpng them to the 2nd tier, however. He really likes both Com. and Sea., and I'm wondering what your opinions on them are for high level play. I too think they are quite powerful and Sea., particularly, is generally underrated. BTW, there has also been controversy over Japan and Egypt being rated so low. I think this is compounded by their relative greatness in Van/PTW.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
punkbass2000
|
|
Waterloo, ON, Canada
Feb 2002
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vmxa1
Once you finish your current one, you can take on that task. It is a fairly long commitment. I have been trying to contribute to a PBEM and it is now about 2 years old.
I like to fire up a game and play 10-15 hours a day until it is finished. IOW I like to stick to what I am doing and finish it. I hate having things undone, so no more of those for me.
You have my support.
One of the big issue is there is so much to read. I was reading the one you have going, but it got too massive to keep up with. |
Well, I suppose I could run one, but I couldn't teach it. I wouldn't even want to play the first ten turns, as my experience in Sid is limited and I'm not particularly certain what the 'optimal' strats are. Maybe if I could convince a few high level AUers to all sort of teach and learn together, that would be interesting.
Sorry about going off on picayune with Dom . The granary>settler vs. settler>granary debate probably made up a lot of bulk, as well as my lengthy dissertations.
Interesting how you like to play 10-15 hours of SP a day. I can't stand it  I love the slow pace of PBEM, allowing me time to think about my long term strategy, mull over decisions and MM to my hearts content. I have a highly interesting RoR PBEM going as MAcedon that's just about rounding turn 30, and it is intense!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
The Iroquois are my favorite overall civ - traits + UU. The MW is great, and has a better upgrade path than the Immortal. Great traits, great trait symmetry (they compliment so well - Agr for faster expansion/growth, Com for higher OCN). Start techs are excellent - Alphabet for a shot at Philo, and pottery for early granaries.
The Immortal is very powerful in its day (ancient, early medieval), but it's slow and the upgrade path blows. Therefore, while very strong, I'd put it below the MW & Rider.
The Rider is a fantastic UU, but the civ is now so-so. China used to ROCK, back when industrious was really powerful and MGLs could rush great wonders. They can still be pretty powerful (Rider armies... mmm), but they're not the juggernaught of ultimate power that they used to be. Purely on the UU, however, the Rider is one of the best.
The GS is not that great, IMO. I agree with Dominae here. Extra defense on an offensive unit, in general, doesn't interest me. Gimme 4/1/2, however, and I'd be all over it.
The Siphai comes a tad late, but it's a holy terror. The civ kinda sucks (same traits as Persia - Ind/Sci).
I have come to really like the Indian War Elephant. 4/3/2 with +1 hp. The difficulty, of course, is that w/o a resource requirement, once you have Chivalry you can never go back to build horsemen and do a mass upgrade. That tends to suck if you have the Great Library and thus cannot chose the optimal time to get Chivalry. But the unit itself is very good, and I love the Indian traits (Rel/Com).
-Arrian
Last edited by Arrian on 01-12-2004 at 00:43
|
|
| |
|
|
|
joncnunn
|
 |
Maryland Heights, MO
Sep 2002
time: 23:18
|
|
Win the game UUs:
1. Ottoman Turks
2. Other Calvary-replacement UUs
3. German Panzers
4. On a small enough map : Chinese Riders
5. On an archepello map that's not too big : Viking Berserker.
Best Ancient Era UUs:
1. Celts Gallic Swordmen
2. Irq Mounted Warriors
3. Hitite 3 Man Chariot
4. Aztec Warrior (Think ultra-early rush)
5. Zulus Impi Warriors. (Use as escorts to Horsemen)
Best obsolete UU to build:
Egyptian War Chariot. Build & Upgrade to Calvary even with Military Tradition. Provided you have not had your GA yet. This also implies keeping them away from your oppoents so they don't trigure your GA prematurely.
Oddest UUs and how to use:
1. Incans Scout. It's basically for exploring.
2. Mayas UU. It's primarly purpose is enslaving barbs.
3. Spainish Conquister. It's primarly purpose is pillaging.
4. American F-15. Don't bother building bombers, just build F-15s for all your air needs.
5. All defensive UUs : Use as escorts for your attacking units.
6. All naval UUs : Attack enemy ships during it's era.
7. Korea's UU: Bombard enemy targets to soften up.
Edit to note Hittie 3 Man Chariot. (Balanced 2/2/2, needs horses cost 30, replaces Chariot & Horsemen.)
Last edited by joncnunn on 23-12-2004 at 03:46
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-11-2004 09:46
|