You know, I'm all about the diversity in this game. that why I keep proposing Balance chances, sometimes obnoxiously, sometimes accurately. In that context, I came to notice how badly balanced UU are. I mean, badly balanced not in cost or stats, but in viabilty and functionality.
I think they're 3 types of UU that are viable, balanced, and sometimes mandatory for a civ:
There're UU that are an straight upgrade for a vanilla unit the civ have, but does that better (Mangudai are an "upgrade" from CA. Woad Raiders are an Upgrade from Champions)
Then, there're UU that fill specifics roles in their civ, and do things no other unit from that civ can do (Camel Archers for the Berbers, Genovese Xbow for Italians)
Then, you have some units that fill small situational niches for a civ that usually doesn't need them, yet they have no other way to fill that niche. Shotel Warriors are a good example (we saw MBL winning a game and surprising everyone with that).
Then, there're the Units that are either hyper good, or plain OP, that carry an otherwise lackluster civ. In particular, I think Conquistador is the former, and Arambai are the latter. I'm really no fan of these ones. I think civs should be balanced, and have other options besides their UU.
Also you have plain bad UU. Basically both Elephants that shot things
And then, and this is the main point of the post, there're units that seems to be viable in Paper, yet are NEVER seen.
Boyars made me think about this issue, and are a really good example for this: Slavs are usually used as a cavalry civ, altough they only have vainilla FU Cavs (and a great eco bonus). The logic would indicate that they should transition to Elite Boyards in Imperial age, yet we never seen this. I don't think I saw E. Boyars once in the WC. why is this? In my humble opinion, this could be solved with a little tweak in the creation time.
Longbows are the same situation. Mamelukes. and so on. Units that are both too expensive, but mainly too hard to mass.
why Is woad raider viable but not boyar? for me is creation time. You can afford 80G per unit in TG post imperial game. is the creation time that kills that possibility.
Also, Units that depends on UT for being FU are also lackluster. Mamelukes, War elephats (Highly situationals, a I know), Cataphracs and now even the Zerks are never seen. In some cases, because the UU do not align with the way their civs are played (Saracens are played with archers, also Vikings and Bizantines). I really dislike this. I would love to see this unit more, even if that means tweak the civ in other places (in particular I don't like the saracen bonus, neither I do the last nerf to zerks in reponse to a quite OP Viking eco)
There're also units that are not BAD, but the price difference doesn't justify what the do agains other option the civ have (Karambit being a great example of this: why should I spend 15 G when I have trash 2hs?). Samurai is pretty much the same (Expect agains condos, where they do an awesome job)
Anyway, this may be a rant, and a long one, but I would like to know everyone's opinion about the importance of the UU, and if there's one in particular you would like to see more often.
I think they're 3 types of UU that are viable, balanced, and sometimes mandatory for a civ:
There're UU that are an straight upgrade for a vanilla unit the civ have, but does that better (Mangudai are an "upgrade" from CA. Woad Raiders are an Upgrade from Champions)
Then, there're UU that fill specifics roles in their civ, and do things no other unit from that civ can do (Camel Archers for the Berbers, Genovese Xbow for Italians)
Then, you have some units that fill small situational niches for a civ that usually doesn't need them, yet they have no other way to fill that niche. Shotel Warriors are a good example (we saw MBL winning a game and surprising everyone with that).
Then, there're the Units that are either hyper good, or plain OP, that carry an otherwise lackluster civ. In particular, I think Conquistador is the former, and Arambai are the latter. I'm really no fan of these ones. I think civs should be balanced, and have other options besides their UU.
Also you have plain bad UU. Basically both Elephants that shot things
And then, and this is the main point of the post, there're units that seems to be viable in Paper, yet are NEVER seen.
Boyars made me think about this issue, and are a really good example for this: Slavs are usually used as a cavalry civ, altough they only have vainilla FU Cavs (and a great eco bonus). The logic would indicate that they should transition to Elite Boyards in Imperial age, yet we never seen this. I don't think I saw E. Boyars once in the WC. why is this? In my humble opinion, this could be solved with a little tweak in the creation time.
Longbows are the same situation. Mamelukes. and so on. Units that are both too expensive, but mainly too hard to mass.
why Is woad raider viable but not boyar? for me is creation time. You can afford 80G per unit in TG post imperial game. is the creation time that kills that possibility.
Also, Units that depends on UT for being FU are also lackluster. Mamelukes, War elephats (Highly situationals, a I know), Cataphracs and now even the Zerks are never seen. In some cases, because the UU do not align with the way their civs are played (Saracens are played with archers, also Vikings and Bizantines). I really dislike this. I would love to see this unit more, even if that means tweak the civ in other places (in particular I don't like the saracen bonus, neither I do the last nerf to zerks in reponse to a quite OP Viking eco)
There're also units that are not BAD, but the price difference doesn't justify what the do agains other option the civ have (Karambit being a great example of this: why should I spend 15 G when I have trash 2hs?). Samurai is pretty much the same (Expect agains condos, where they do an awesome job)
Anyway, this may be a rant, and a long one, but I would like to know everyone's opinion about the importance of the UU, and if there's one in particular you would like to see more often.