26-11-2002 22:16									#31
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Sir Ralph Not quite. Their Conquistadors are awesome pillagers, with two moves and all terrain as roads.

So are explorers. Conquistadors won't be that much better against counterattacks to make it worth spending three times as much for them.

	27-11-2002 01:31									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Arrian 3) Egyptian War Chariots. They're just so cheap! I especially like these guys on Emperor (highest level I play) because time is so short - you need to assemble your stikeforce very quickly. No gold needed for a chariot -> horseman upgrade, can be used for other things.

I'm playing an Egyptian game right now just to re-verify how I feel about War Chariots. I'm into the late Middle Ages now, but wow, the War Chariots were great while they lasted. They're so cheap, I had a ton of them.

I could have sworn they vanished, though, once you had Horseback Riding and had started your Golden Age. It didn't happen. In PTW at least, they stick around as a buildable unit until Chivalry, which I was quite grateful for.

The flip side is you can't upgrade them to Horsemen if you need to get at a remnant city surrounded by jungle! They do still upgrade to Knights, though.

quote: Wow, the Siphai look awesome, despite the extra cost

They're nice, but not as nice as people make them out to be. Their lifespan is precisely the same as Cavalry, not one moment longer. Good until Infantry shows up, and after that only good if you're willing and able to bombard the heck out of the Infantry first.

They do take slightly lower casualties against Riflemen than Cavalry, but I never felt at all worried tackling Riflemen with Cavalry.

quote: - The Mongol unit is mediocre unless the map generator provides the perfect terrain to maximize their special ability.

The main thing about them is the slight reduction in cost. The "treat mountains as plains" thing is rarely useful.

quote: - The Carthaginians got jobbed. 30 shields for a Hoplite with +1 offense?

My exact feeling. Or, to put it another way, a Legion just one tech earlier, with no Iron requirement and -1 Offense?

- Gus

	27-11-2002 01:49									#33
	Tired of ads?

I'm clearly deep in the minority, but I love the Merc.

I see the increased cost at offset by the fact that I'm industrious instead of Scientific and having an Archer-strength attack for the very rare times I run out of archers and need to knock off a single hitpoint.

Then again, I'm a fan of Defensive UUs. I prefer them to offensive ones especially in the Ancient Era, since I can often avoid a despotic GA by being proactive, whereas the Legion, WC, Immortal, MW all force a very early GA.

To each his own, but playing Carthage, I sure don't feel jobbed.

	27-11-2002 02:24									#34
	Remove this text

There's no need to have a GA with Legions, WCs, Immortals.

For Swordmen replacement, just don't build Warriors with intentions to upgrade, and instead build Spearmen as defensive units and Chariorts / HorseMen as offensive units.

With War Chariots, build lots of WCs, but upgrade them to HorseMen before battle. (Later on build WCs but upgrade to Knights before battle.)

	27-11-2002 02:43									#35
	Put an end to popups!

I know you can do that, joncunn, but doesn't that undermine the whole point of grading the units based on how "strong" they are relatively?

If you don't intend to use it, then it's grade is somewhere between C and F - the exception, I think, being Defensive Strength, which is a deterrent to attack, which is where I think the Merc and Hoplite shine, particularly since you save all the money on upgrades at Feudalism when you want to upgrade to Knights instead.

Basically, if you don't intend to use the UU, then it's "grade" doesn't matter, IMO.

	27-11-2002 03:19									#36
	Full PM-box? Change here!

For me, the biggest advantage of the Eqyptain War Chariot is still building them when you have Chivary (and upgrading them to Knights.) This is a huge production advantage even if you never use the War Chariot in combat.

Non use of Swordmen replacements do make their grades competly irrevlet.

	28-11-2002 05:46									#37
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Mazarin Why do you consider the immmortal that weak. It is -IMHO- one of the game's best UUs. Using the attack of a knight for half the price makes them useful -even against musketmen. I would say, the immortal is the best UU on medium maps or smaller.

Well compare the Persian immortal to the same base UU unit Legion. If they were to go at it agst each other:

Persia attacks = Persian advantage 4/3
Rome attacks = Rome advantage 3/2

Notice Romans have much more percentage bonus. And they are militaristic too which unevens the balance more. Persia is pretty good at attacking but their lack of militaristic trait and the sheer fact that Romans are just Persian killers (despite them being both UU) devalue them IMO. They do good at killing other non mil civs though... I'd take Legions any day still... they have far more uses. (Pikemen/Swordmen roled into one ) I concede to the fact they have sci/ind trait over Romans but if you wanna warmonger, why have those traits? eh, I guess I made it down to a matter of opinion.

Also, Samurai should get a better prop in this thread, they are knight/musketmen hybrid for 10 more shield of musketmen. And we all know how useless musketmen are! So it's great to have Samurai as multipurpose unit in the medieval age and later be upgraded as a calvary.

Berserks can be thought of as cheap guerilla that has to be stacked with riflemen and you can get early. It's not bad if you think that way.

Impi and Conquistadors are excellent pillagers. That fact alone should bump their grades a little bit. Oh and in MP you will build alot of impis so dont worry.

Siphais need better grade as well. They chew up musketmen in medieval era (8 to 4!!!!) then live to serve auite well into industrial era. I say this makes up for price increase.

Also creator of this thread devalues the concept of "does not require resource" too much. Try playing a game where you actually didn't have those resource. Ouch.

Finally even though Jaguar warriors got an A, I still wanna rant about how thread creator made it sound it just bearly got an A. It's a unit that gives half the function of expansionistic trait to a non expansionistic civ!!!! If you've never liked expansionistice civ, I guess you wouldn't understand me here, but you do agree having 3 civ trait (in a way) is powerful don't you think?

More like A+++++ to the ninetieth power if you ask me.

	28-11-2002 06:27									#38
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Calc II Also creator of this thread devalues the concept of "does not require resource" too much. Try playing a game where you actually didn't have those resource. Ouch.

In the last dozen Emperor games I've played, getting Horses or Iron has been a serious issue in the Ancient era. Before I start my first war, the AI covers significantly more area than I do, so there's luck in getting either one.

However, again in a dozen games, not once have I been short either Iron or Horses when Chivalry reared its head, because by that time I've taken substantial bites out of two or more civs.

Heck, in my last Scandanavian game (a Continents map), I took my entire starting continent with Horsemen. Neither the Germans or the English survived to tell the world what a bad, bad person I was.

Not requiring a resource is primarily useful if your playing style is a peaceful builder. Of course, playing at Emperor or above, being a peaceful builder is an invitation to being a retarded backwater, and eventually some other Civ's newly conquered province.

quote: Finally even though Jaguar warriors got an A, I still wanna rant about how thread creator made it sound it just bearly got an A. It's a unit that gives half the function of expansionistic trait to a non expansionistic civ!!!!

Jaguar Warriors are pretty nice, but they have four severe drawbacks: high attrition, high upkeep cost, an early Golden Age, and a relatively short lifespan.

Unlike Horsemen, you can expect to lose several Jaguar Warriors taking each city. 30% casualties is pretty normal against Spearmen, simply because 1:2 is poor odds even against a defender that's down to 1 HP. You end up spending a lot more shields replacing casualties.

In the early Ancient era, you typically have 4 cities, 8 units serving as police / defense, and couple of Workers. You leaves you with 6 free units. 6 units is enough for a Horseman attack force, but not a Jaguar Warrior one. You really need at least 10 Jaguar Warriors and a couple of spearmen to start a war, which means you're paying 6+ gold per turn upkeep, which is serious money that early in the game.

An early Golden Age is often a huge waste, due to the 2 shield limit of Despotism.

Finally, the window for Jags pretty much ends when the other civs start using Horsemen against you. It's like trying to fight Knights with Horsemen. The other civs do get Horseback riding pretty early at Emperor and above, usually by 1000 BC on most maps.

That said, Jaguar Warriors make for a good, strong start. And yes, you do get some of the advantages of Expansionist, but calling it a "3rd civ trait" is an exaggeration.

- Gus