A question regarding "Ranger" units.

[White Shadow]

Hello. I can't seem to find this piece of information anywhere; not on the three wiki pages I've visited at least. I was wondering if you guys could help me out.

I was just curious as to whether or not the "ranger" unit can capture cities. I am confused, because scouts (their earlier iteration) are melee units, whereas rangers are ranged units. I was wondering if they were able to attack with melee as well, or if they are more like machine guns.

The reason why I ask, is because I am in a domination game, but it is getting close to the industrial era, and my swordsman are getting outdated. I have not stumbled upon any niter yet, which is irritating but it happens. My current army consists almost entirely of swordsman right now, but I will build field cannons soon. I have a LOT of scouts that have a lot of exp, and it will save me a lot of hammers if I can just upgrade them instead of building cavalry or anti-cavalry units. I know rangers aren't meant for front line combat, but with enough long-range support from field cannons I'm trying to make them work.

Thanks in advance!

[Tatanka]

I havent used them in awhile, but dont they operate like muskets do? Theyre "ranged" but still function as melee units.

[White Shadow]

Originally posted by De Zeis:

I havent used them in awhile, but dont they operate like muskets do? Theyre "ranged" but still function as melee units.

This is what I was thinking, except technically musketmen don't have any ranged strength at all. Pure melee. Rangers have a ranged strength. Anyways, I am about to find out soon enough. I'll update you when I know for sure.

[White Shadow]

***UPDATE***

The answer is "no." They only have a ranged attack, and can not capture enemy cities/encampments. Very sad day.

[Tatanka]

heh its same with persians immortals, replacement for swordsmen, they cant capture either.

[zxcvbob]

Use knights until you can get cavalry or upgrde your swords to infantry

[ambershee]

Originally posted by De Zeis:

heh its same with persians immortals, replacement for swordsmen, they cant capture either.

When I discovered this I was greatly disappointed. Swordsman replacements that cannot capture - might as well use archers!

[Tatanka]

Originally posted by ambershee:

Originally posted by De Zeis:

heh its same with persians immortals, replacement for swordsmen, they cant capture either.

When I discovered this I was greatly disappointed. Swordsman replacements that cannot capture - might as well use archers!

so much for one of histories badass units that ever walked the earth ... and no, not saying that because i watched 300 movies.
Im saying because they where, at the time, badass military units. yet this game manages to make them utterly useless.

[zxcvbob]

I don't have the Persia DLC yet; waiting for it to go on-sale. So, you swarm the city with Immortals to tear it down, then capture with a chariot or spearman? Do Immortals get a bonus for using a battering ram?

What promotion line do they follow?

[Tatanka]

Originally posted by zxcvbob:

I don't have the Persia DLC yet; waiting for it to go on-sale. So, you swarm the city with Immortals to tear it down, then capture with a chariot or spearman? Do Immortals get a bonus for using a battering ram?

What promotion line do they follow?

swarming a city with immortals is pointless, they have same attack as archers, you can never capture a city with immortals even though they cost iron, archers cost nothing.
Dont know about upgrade path, i dont use them, since they cant capture cities.
Youre better of with using warriors and skip the iron working upgrade. So much for one of the most famous military units ever ... they cant even assault a barb camp, its the same as assaulting them with archers.

[zxcvbob]

Are you sure they cost iron?

Archers have a 15% penalty against cities. Immortals probably not, but I don't know. They should be able to tear down the city walls without taking much damage, then you ride in with a horse to capture the city.

I think an archer with twice the normal melee strength and no penalty against cities sounds pretty cool if they get melee promotions (because they upgrade to muskets and infantry) But they will need support from cavalry and/or anti-cav units.

I like ranger units too, but they are awfully expensive.

[White Shadow]

Originally posted by zxcvbob:

Are you sure they cost iron?

Archers have a 15% penalty against cities. Immortals probably not, but I don't know. They should be able to tear down the city walls without taking much damage, then you ride in with a horse to capture the city.

I think an archer with twice the normal melee strength and no penalty against cities sounds pretty cool if they get melee promotions (because they upgrade to muskets and infantry) But they will need support from cavalry and/or anti-cav units.

I like ranger units too, but they are awfully expensive.

I am pretty sure (about 90% sure), that ALL "ranged" attacks suffer the -15% combat penalty vs cities. It's not tied to individual units; rather it is applied to damage type.

What I mean by this, is technically siege units (and bombers) have what's called "bombard strength," and ranged units have "ranged strength." What this means is, ANY non-siege unit's ranged attack will suffer from the -15% penalty.

Though I am 100% sure immortals require zero iron. Most, if not all, unique units don't require strategic resources to build.

I am kind of 50/50 on immortals' usefulness; I see the argument from player A who says "yeah, but I can build two archers for the same cost as one immortal."

But I also see player B's logic:

Better defense for immortals means they stay alive longer, earning more EXP and promotions for when you upgrade them to musketmen; plus they are better if you get ambushed and are caught out of formation.

Overall, I think immortals are somewhat lackluster for a unique unit, but not COMPLETELY useless like some folks will tell you.