Worst unit poll

[Pyros]

Skeleton

[jab2565]

Hm tough one, I also don't like the skeleton, also agree with the cutpurse.

[Andre]

Thee worst has got to be the Human's Archangel. Too expensive, too slow, and not much armor (he's flying, so no terrain bonus), and relatively few hitpoints.

If his Peaceful attack could last for an extra round he might good to disable other top tier units. But for the money (6 human cities worth of income) and my style of fighting, I'd rather have 2 Paladins or 3 Wolf Riders.

[Pyros]

My answer was based on the "worst" unit... not the "less cost effective" unit!!! LOL
...and I will keep it that way....

cheers

[Hiro_Antagonist]

Okay, it's time to come to the defense of the Skeleton and the Cutpurse, I guess. =)

There's really not too much to say about the Skeleton, other than the fact that its low cost *is* its special ability, and it's a darn good one! More than any other unit, you can build one at each city each turn while still saving up money for more powerful units. The Undead have their own playing style, and overwhelming your enemies with hordes of cheap skeletons is part of their strength. But I guess if you're just trying to find the unit with the lowest stats, then yup, the Skeleton is it. But I don't think it's the worst unit!

The Cutpurse is a bit more complicated though. Yes, it's $200 more for basically the same stats, but it has 2 abilities that help make up for the difference: Nimble and Mug.

The way I see it, Mug will usually recover most of the money difference with one attack, and if you can get two attacks with it, it becomes cheaper than a Skeleton! And I think Nimble is one of the most underrated abilities in the game. At worst, if your enemy is totally on the ball, they'll have to drastically adjust their screening/blocking tactics to account for Nimble. At best, your opponent will forget your Cutpurses can pass through their units and you can deal a costly deathblow to an expensive unit or move onto a city that they didn't expect. Both of those things can really turn the tide of a game.

Another point with the Cutpurse -- although many people think they're lucky to get one hit in, I've found otherwise. If you use Cutpurses with more powerful units, the enemy usually focuses their attention on the more expensive units (Wolf Riders, Legendmakers, etc.). That means the Cutpurses are generally ignored, which lets them earn a surprising amount of money in the long run. I've played several games with Cutpurses that have turned a profit after paying for themselves, and dealing a ton of damage in the meantime!

So yeah, in a 1-on-1 fight, a Cutpurse isn't that good. But they really start to shine when they are present in a much larger battle where screening/blocking comes into play and where there are bigger fish for your opponent to fry first.

Of course, if you still think those units aren't very good, I'd love to hear why. Talking about balance/strategy stuff like this is a lot of fun to me. =)

-Hiro_Antagonist

[jab2565]

Heh I know, you had some real fun with the afficted disscussion during beta testing

[Andre]

Cost is a stat; wouldn't the cutpurse argument be moot if he was free Maybe there's a different question in this we could ask:

If you could stick your opponent with just one unit, and that's the only unit he would have the rest of the game or until it dies, which unit would it be?

[Pyros]

... How we call the vampire (flying) unit who paralyze the victims...? (sorry I don't remember the name...)

this is the best for one on one !!!

[Hiro_Antagonist]

Pyros said:
... How we call the vampire (flying) unit who paralyze the victims...? (sorry I don't remember the name...)

this is the best for one on one !!!

Haha, very true. And the Gardener is probably the worst. =)

-Hiro_Antagonist

[Psitticine]

Andre said:
If you could stick your opponent with just one unit, and that's the only unit he would have the rest of the game or until it dies, which unit would it be?

I'd second the vote for the Gardener. He's great as part of a force, but since he can't attack . . .