Do you find Poland's Winged Hussar useful ?

[Magnus]

I just found it useless because right after Winged Hussar's(31 strength) tech ,you can research the other cavalry unit's tech which has 35 compat strength and can be upgraded to tamk later. I don't know if you guys find this special unit useful in any way???

[PhailRaptor]

Publicado originalmente por The Rock God:

Publicado originalmente por PhailRaptor:

Meanwhile, Camel Archer.....

Not a mounted unit.

Straight from the Civilopedia page:

"Fast Medieval ranged Unit, weak to Pikeman."

"As a mounted unit, the Camel Archer is weak to Pikeman attacks."

[Matthew]

I'm glad a thread about a lancer unit was necro'd just so we could discuss the finer points of what does or does not qualify as a mounted unit :P

Srsly tho, it is a lancer unit. I'm betting if this UU wasn't on Poland (UA is considered one of the best in the game), this UU wouldn't get nearly as much love as it does. It is like trying to pretend Babylon's archer and walls are of any use, but they aren't and you don't play Babylon for archers and walls, you play it for the free academy and GS production.

[Matthew]

If the analogy wasn't clear, Winged Hussar is the weakest of what Poland brings to the game. I suppose you can use them as spotters for an artillery push since both cavalry and hussar quickly become obsolete if the game lasts for air and bomber stacks, but all in all recruiting knights/cavalry out of Ducal Stables is just as effective and has a better upgrade path.

[The Rock God]

Publicado originalmente por PhailRaptor:

Publicado originalmente por The Rock God:

Not a mounted unit.

Straight from the Civilopedia page:

"Fast Medieval ranged Unit, weak to Pikeman."

"As a mounted unit, the Camel Archer is weak to Pikeman attacks."

But... the Civilopedia line you quoted is... wrong.

When a Pikeman attacks a mounted unit...

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=433483786

...it gets an attack bonus. When a Pikeman attacks a Camel Archer...

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=433483738

...it doesn't. Because the Camel Archer is not a mounted unit.

A Horseman has 4 movement points...

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=533431050

If you are the Mongols, your UA gives mounted units +1 movement. So your horseman has 5 movement points.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=533431032

A Camel Archer has 4 movement points.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=533431019

So a Mongol Camel Archer has...

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=533431112

...4 movement points. Because it's not a mounted unit.

"But", you say, the Civilopedia! Yeah. Let's take a look there. It says a horseman is a mounted unit.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=533431069

The Camel Archer is a...

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=533431089

...wait... why doesn't it say mounted there? It says "Archery Unit". Because it's not a mounted unit.

But maybe you still don't believe me. Maybe you refuse to believe that the line you quoted is wrong about the Camel Archer being mounted, despite that same sentence also being wrong about it being weak versus a Pikeman. How about we go to the most reliable source: The game files themselves.

Let's look at the Horseman:

<Class>UNITCLASS_HORSEMAN</Class>
<Type>UNIT_HORSEMAN</Type>
<PrereqTech>TECH_HORSEBACK_RIDING</PrereqTech>
<Combat>10</Combat>
<Cost>75</Cost>
<Moves>4</Moves>
<HurryCostModifier>20</HurryCostModifier>
<CombatClass>UNITCOMBAT_MOUNTED</CombatClass>

Yep, it's mounted. How about the Knight?

<Class>UNITCLASS_KNIGHT</Class>
<Type>UNIT_KNIGHT</Type>
<PrereqTech>TECH_CHIVALRY</PrereqTech>
<Combat>18</Combat>
<Cost>120</Cost>
<Moves>3</Moves>
<CombatClass>UNITCOMBAT_MOUNTED</CombatClass>

Yep, looks like it's mounted, too. So the Camel Archer, as a unique unit replacement for the Knight is obviously...

<Class>UNITCLASS_KNIGHT</Class>
<Type>UNIT_ARABIAN_CAMELARCHER</Type>
<PrereqTech>TECH_CHIVALRY</PrereqTech>
<Combat>10</Combat>
<RangedCombat>15</RangedCombat>
<Cost>120</Cost>
<Moves>3</Moves>
<Range>2</Range>
<CombatClass>UNITCOMBAT_ARCHER</CombatClass>

...hmm... not a mounted unit.

[Matthew]

I laughed

[Malvastor]

Okay, didn't mean for that line to get taken so seriously. I included 'melee' because I wanted to exclude Keshiks and Camel Archers. My point was that Winged Hussars might be the best thing to sit on a horse. And yeah, it's not the best thing about Poland, but most UUs aren't. Doesn't change the fact that it's a really good unit.

[freebiscuit2002]

The Camel Archer cannot be a mounted unit. Just think about it. Obviously, those camels all rear up on their hind legs and shoot those arrows themselves.

[freebiscuit2002]

On topic, though, i’m playing a game now with Poland’s Winged Hussars. They’re okay, but not on their own. You still want experienced ranged units and foot soldiers as the core of your conquering army. I’m finding WH are good for covering your flanks and distracting/scaring the bejesus out of your enemy. I’m using WHs to provoke enemy units to come out of their defensive positions, then kill them before I siege the crap out their cities.

[just.nuke.em]

Publicado originalmente por freebiscuit2002:

The Camel Archer cannot be a mounted unit. Just think about it. Obviously, those camels all rear up on their hind legs and shoot those arrows themselves.

They can't be camels either, since they take horses to make them...

[Grendalcat]

Eh, about as useful as Lancers. Best use is for scouting, spotting for artillery, and pillaging enemy territory.

[Athena]

Winged Hussar is hands down the best unit in the game. Stupid strong with it's ability to push back enemy units.

[Malus]

I somewhat like my winged gunsknechts.