Unique Units.

[Agathon]

I can't find a thread on this topic so I'll start one.

I really like the UU's (especially the Musketeer for his French laugh).

Anyway, some thoughts on some UU's. I'm leaving out the ones I wouldn't change.

1. The Greeks.

The Hoplite should be replaced with the trireme which has a base attack of 2 and defence of 2. This simulates Athenian naval pre-eminence in the Classical Age and helps make the Greeks much more powerful at colonization which also was characteristic of their golden age.

2. The Macedonians.

Yes, they should be a separate Civ. Their UU should be the hoplite.

3. Carthage.

The War Elephant. Numidian mercenaries my but. If it's Hannibal, it's Elephants.

4. The United States.

Some kind of super carrier.

5. The French.

Imperial Guard. Replaces the Rifleman and is better offensively. The Napoleonic era was the time of greatest French dominance and their UU should reflect this.

More to come.

[POTUS]

French/Spanish should be the FFL or SFL if you want to replace riflemen.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by POTUS
French/Spanish should be the FFL or SFL if you want to replace riflemen.

I happen to think that riflemen suck. They should be more like Napoleonic infantry than Civil War era infantry.

What is an FFL?

[Kuciwalker]

1. The Greeks.

The Hoplite should be replaced with the trireme which has a base attack of 2 and defence of 2. This simulates Athenian naval pre-eminence in the Classical Age and helps make the Greeks much more powerful at colonization which also was characteristic of their golden age.

Meh... I like the Hoplites better. The Phoenicians (or Carthaginians) were more seafaring than the Greeks. Athens navy was IIRC mostly dominant against the Persians and the other Greeks. Plus the Hoplites help Greece better as a builder civ (which it is, being Commercial and Scientific).

2. The Macedonians.

Yes, they should be a separate Civ. Their UU should be the hoplite

More civs in Europe?

4. The United States.

Some kind of super carrier.

I think the F-15 is better in this case. It should be implemented as it was in C3 - MUCH better defense than the Jet Fighter, ROF of 2 instead of 1, better bombard, and IIRC it had lethal land in addition to lethal sea. Having a bigger carrier doesn't really represent American airpower as much as a better fighter.

OTOH the Stealth Bomber (well, they'd probably call it the B-2) might make a nice UU. Giving the Americans a monopoly on Stealth units would be very nice for representing American airpower. Plus, it wouldn't be unbalancing because not that many games make it that long, and if the Americans make it that far they deserve a nice bonus for not having anything else the rest of the time.

[Agathon]

Alexander isn't really a Greek - he's a barbarian strictly speaking. That's why he inaugurates the Hellenistic Age rather than the Hellenic Age.

The Athenian navy dominated as far as naval warfare goes. What else accounts for the Athenian domination of the Delian League?

The Spartans had excellent hoplites, but they were culturally and economically backward. When we think of the glory of Greece, we generally think of the glory of Athens at its height.

[Kuciwalker]

Alexander isn't really a Greek - he's a barbarian strictly speaking. That's why he inaugurates the Hellenistic Age rather than the Hellenic Age.

Yeah, I mentioned that in the "Western Civilization" thread in the OTF but what does that have to do with what I said?

The Athenian navy dominated as far as naval warfare goes. What else accounts for the Athenian domination of the Delian League?

The Delian League was the alliance of Greek city-states to defeat the Persians, right? So that means that all it did was dominate the other Greeks.

Plus, as I mentioned before, it strengthens them as a builder civ.

[The Slayer]

If you're concentrating in history, so it's right to say that the hoplites shouldn't be the Greek UU.

Let me say, the another day I saw a documentary in Discovery Channel, and, they say that when one of the main battles between Greeks and allies and the Persians was going on, the Spartans (the Hoplites), were celebrating a religious ceremoney, that don't allow them to fight for... 3 days?.

Anyway, when they were to the battlefield, the battle was already over, won by the Greeks....

And, in that battle the Greeks used their ships to soften some parts of the Persian army.

But, (back in game), we can't afford for more european/mediterranian civs, as you said, so, why not make Civ4 gives 2 UU's to each civ?, That could solve a lot of problems, for the players that lost their moment to build one of them (because they lack the resourses needed) and so, have their golden age secured.

So, about the civs we have now I think....

Rome : 2 kinds of Legionaries. The "vanilla" one we have now and one with a Pillum and the short sword, that in fact this shoud be the "real" one.

Egypt: well, another from the War Chariot, dunno, I'm not an historial researcher

Greece : the one we talk about, the Trirreme and the Hoplite.

Carthage : The "Merc." Elephant and the Numidian Spearman.

Bizantines : the Dromon and the Cataphract

Spain : the Conquistador is ok, but I don't like the actual graphics of it. He looks more like an ancient hunter with that spear and the dog. Real Conquistadors had Iron Armor and fire weapons. And the another one could be the "tercio", is and infantry defensive unit...

Germany : The Panzer and the ME262. The first jetplane on history IIRC . Or it could a an SS unit

France : The Musketter and the Guard Nap. Infantry.

England : The Man-O-War is ok. And the another one must be the longbowman. Longbowmans where more used in english armies that in the rest of europe. They used the Crossbowmans.

Russia : The Cossack , and ... many names on my head, so you think just one

Netherlands : The Swiss Merc , and the Merchantman (played Colonization? )

Celts : Gallic Swordsmen and no ideas....

Vikings : Berserk and the Longship. The middle ages one from the scenario

Portugal : ok with the Carrack and ... ¿?¿?¿?

Zulu : Impi , and ... well, no idea

Arabia : Ansar Warrior is ok, and, dunno.. Muslim fanatics?

Persia : Inmortals yay!, and ... think about one.

Ottomans : Sipahi and a Bombard (yes, another arty as UU). Ottomans, or better saying, actual Turks, were masters in huge and heavy bombard building for great sieges.

Babylon : Bowman and no ideas...

Sumerians: Enkidu Warriors and a clueless poster

Hittites : Three man chariot and... ???

China : Rider ok and a sort of primitive "bamboo bombard" carried by a person. Remeber they were the first one to use the gunpower in wars, to scary their enemies...

India : War Elephant and..... ???

Korea : Hwach'a and no clue....

Japan : Samurai (the Sengoku scenario one) and the Kamikaze, as an "cruise missile" unit.

Mongols : The Keshik and the Tarkhan (sp?) an mounted slingerman, IIRC.

American : F15 and... you guessed, is up to you again....

Aztecs : Jaguar Warriors and Eagle Warriors, as a replacement of the Pikeman, but with a very enhanced damage

Maya : Javelin Thrower and a Macanman. Yes, Macans where used for the Incas too, but I have an idea there....

Incas : Ok, leave the Chasqui Scout, and add the "Inca Slinger". Slingers were very used over this part of the world, more than spears and bow with arrows.....

Iroquois : the Mounted Warrior and nooo ideas...

Ah!, yes, sorry for the long post also

[POTUS]

@ Agathon,
FFL=French Foreign Legion, SFL is the Spanish Foreign Legion, the Spanish version.

Napoleon's troops used muskets. The Civil War was the first war where rifles were used by the regulars.

@The Slayer,
Also, the Gloster Metor was the first jet plane. The ME-262 came out a week later.

Janissaries for Turks, they were the Turks' real elite force.

China's UU should be the rocketeer, or the Chu-ko-nu. Rocketeers were the guys who launched gunpoweder rockets, chu-ko-nu archers fired an automatic crossbow in the 1000s.

Americans, GIs.

Korea Turtle Ships, first ironclads.

Japan, a kamakazie is a typhoon, should use Yamato-class battleships with sammuri.

Netherlands, did not use Swiss mercenaries, that is the Pope.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by The Slayer
If you're concentrating in history, so it's right to say that the hoplites shouldn't be the Greek UU.

Let me say, the another day I saw a documentary in Discovery Channel, and, they say that when one of the main battles between Greeks and allies and the Persians was going on, the Spartans (the Hoplites), were celebrating a religious ceremoney, that don't allow them to fight for... 3 days?.

Anyway, when they were to the battlefield, the battle was already over, won by the Greeks....

And, in that battle the Greeks used their ships to soften some parts of the Persian army.

Um hoplite is just a name for a kind of soldier. Spartan hoplites were the best though.

The Athenian navy was the best in the world. I suppose the Persians had a good one, but were smashed at Salamis by the Athenians.

[Kuciwalker]

But, (back in game), we can't afford for more european/mediterranian civs, as you said, so, why not make Civ4 gives 2 UU's to each civ?, That could solve a lot of problems, for the players that lost their moment to build one of them (because they lack the resourses needed) and so, have their golden age secured.

Usually the only civs that would ever have that problem are the ones with early ancient age UU's, which they DON'T want to use to trigger a GA. Plus, you can always use wonders.

[DarkCloud]

Agathon, I somewhat agree with you- the Unique Units thread perhaps should be under its own banner- it doesn't really fit in Civilizations or in Units thread on its own... when Asmodean gets back, maybe this can be made into an official thread section

Good idea starting it up, as this promises to gain quite a lot of activity!

[Optimizer]

I don't like the concept of units unique to a civilization - there should rather be certain units that require special techs, governments or rare resources.

But if Scandinavia is included with several units, they should not only have units relating to the viking era. They could have field cannon, Carolean cavalry or fighter aircraft like the Flying Barrel.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Agathon, I somewhat agree with you- the Unique Units thread perhaps should be under its own banner- it doesn't really fit in Civilizations or in Units thread on its own... when Asmodean gets back, maybe this can be made into an official thread section

Good idea starting it up, as this promises to gain quite a lot of activity!

I did make a point of looking through the other threads to see if there was anything on it.

The UU's do need to be carefully balanced though. As it stands the Iroquois Mounted Warrior is the best UU in the game and makes conquests pretty easy.

[Kuciwalker]

The UU's do need to be carefully balanced though. As it stands the Iroquois Mounted Warrior is the best UU in the game and makes conquests pretty easy.

Be careful about statements like this - many people would disagree about ANY blanket statement about the "best" UU, and quite a few others would disagree with attaching it to that specific unit.

[ThePlagueRat]

I think Civ4 should go with a SMAC-style Unit Workshop.
Then we could have Unique addon Items instead. Would be more neat. And the Unit Workshop should of course be better than the SMAC- version. (it has its flaw)

Some Unique Item ideas:

Roman shield and spear:
- To use with phalanx units(addon to inf) to make them a Legion, and increase the att. def. To get this item, you must have: a tech, some iron, and a blacksmith building in one of the cities.

German Volkswagen:
- Addon to inf.unit, makes them move faster as a motorized inf.
Would require access to a factory, some rubber and steel and a tech.

US Marines:
- Addon inf. unit, better bonus to amphibious attack...
(then others have regular marine addons, with normal amphibious attack. )

Korean Rockets:
- Addon to inf.unit, gives an ranged bonus...

Viking Longboat hull:
- Addon to ships, better speed and defence...

Mongol Heavy weapons:
- Addon to cav.unit, attack bonus...

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Agathon
The UU's do need to be carefully balanced though. As it stands the Iroquois Mounted Warrior is the best UU in the game and makes conquests pretty easy.

I have to echo Skywalker's comments on this. A dubious generalization to say the least. a great unit, but the best?

[TechWins]

I think the idea of 2 UUs for one Civ is horrible to be blunt about it. Think of the Civs that receive two early game UUs. Those Civs are gaining a huge advantage over a Civ like the Americans who wouldn't get their UUs till later on. It would be far too unbalancing to allow 2 UUs per Civ.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by TechWins
I think the idea of 2 UUs for one Civ is horrible to be blunt about it. Think of the Civs that receive two early game UUs. Those Civs are gaining a huge advantage over a Civ like the Americans who wouldn't get their UUs till later on. It would be far too unbalancing to allow 2 UUs per Civ.

I agree with this. And if you restrict it to one per era, then what are you going to do for a one era civ, ie. aztecs? make up some modern unit for them? blech

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by TechWins
I think the idea of 2 UUs for one Civ is horrible to be blunt about it. Think of the Civs that receive two early game UUs. Those Civs are gaining a huge advantage over a Civ like the Americans who wouldn't get their UUs till later on. It would be far too unbalancing to allow 2 UUs per Civ.

Actually, they may be worse off than America. Having 2 UU's early on would make it very difficult not to trigger your GA without avoiding war completely. America is actually better off because they can save their GA. Plus, America has good traits for REXing.

[TechWins]

Actually, they may be worse off than America. Having 2 UU's early on would make it very difficult not to trigger your GA without avoiding war completely. America is actually better off because they can save their GA. Plus, America has good traits for REXing.

Slightly hard for the Americans to get that late game GA when they're deceased.

However, the point wasn't about the Americans per se, but that it's too unbalancing having 2 UUs for each civ. Some even believe 1 UU for each civ is unbalancing as is let alone adding one more to each civ. 1 UU for each civ is good, and it should go no less no more.

I do like the idea of other unique units being in the game via wonders and such (i.e. Statue of Zeus & Knights Templar). I hope this is done again in Civ4.

[Kuciwalker]

Lack of an Ancient Era UU isn't going to kill you. Many civ's have UU's that you almost never use, and they're fine. America isn't going to just flop in the early game, especially because of its traits.

[Sandman]

Add me to the list of those who dislike UUs. The less time they spend on them, the better.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

The UU's do need to be carefully balanced though. As it stands the Iroquois Mounted Warrior is the best UU in the game and makes conquests pretty easy.

Be careful about statements like this - many people would disagree about ANY blanket statement about the "best" UU, and quite a few others would disagree with attaching it to that specific unit.

The most powerful UU's tend to be those early in the game like the Immortal. The Egyptian Chariot sucks as the Horseman quickly renders it worthless. The Legionary is good as a defensive unit as is the hoplite. But for speed and power the MW has no peer up until the Knight.

Whereas normal Horsemen have a tough time attacking cities defended by spearmen, MW's get the job done quite easily. And if you add to that the Expansionist trait then it is very easy to get a good overview of the world quite quickly and then send the hordes out to destroy.

If you do as I do and have masses of Mounted Warriors conquering the hell out of everything then you either win by conquest or end up dominating so much territory that you will inevitably win the game.

[polypheus]

I would prefer that all UUs be available only through Wonders. That way, they are not pre-destined to any Civ. This was one of my major philosophical objections to UUs during the development of Civ3. I still feel this way although I grudgingly play with them despite this objection due to their value of differentiating Civs and introducing a uniqifying element to the game.

It's true that UUs might no longer match their real life counterparts. But then again, that was the whole point of Wonders. Pyramids could be built by anyone not just Egypt for example. So I see no problem if "Legions" were built by, say, Germany rather than Rome. This also makes more sense in that if England ends up being landlocked, it makes more sense that England might build the Wonder for making the UU "Cossacks" or some such rather than "Man-o-War".

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by TechWins
I think the idea of 2 UUs for one Civ is horrible to be blunt about it. Think of the Civs that receive two early game UUs. Those Civs are gaining a huge advantage over a Civ like the Americans who wouldn't get their UUs till later on. It would be far too unbalancing to allow 2 UUs per Civ.

Hmm, I think I do agree... but it should be 1 UU coming in the end of a unique tech-branch. That branch can contain a unique unit, a unique building, and a unique wonder. In that case, you should have to build the unique wonder to get access to the unique unit! Then all Civs can have a wonder too. Nice thing on higher levels.


This would look a bit like the C3C medieval campaign, where there are different trees meant for the different civs. So you can in theory get another UU, but it's all up to the player...

So for reasearching your particular branch there should be a bonus, or there should be a penalty for reserching another civs unique branch, so that the AI and the player would not prioritize another civs unique branch. Nevertheless, tech-trading could make several civs get another civ techs, but that's not a big deal since you can only build the unique wonder. They could also be coded non-tradable. It this a better idea than Unique Items?

NB:
I played C3C with 5 civs all having the Berserkir, it was a bit weird but it was fun...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
The most powerful UU's tend to be those early in the game like the Immortal.

Yup, the Panzer and the Sipahi are so worthless

Oh, and btw, your statement IS partly true by virtue of the fact that nearly all of the UU's are from the Ancient Era or early Medievel

The Egyptian Chariot sucks as the Horseman quickly renders it worthless.

No, they don't - it costs 2/3 the amount a Horseman does, so you can have HALF AGAIN AS MANY OF THEM. Wouldn't you say 15 horsmen are more powerful than 10?

The Legionary is good as a defensive unit as is the hoplite. But for speed and power the MW has no peer up until the Knight.

Try the Gallic Swordsman, perhaps? I would argue that the GS, the Immortal, and the Hoplite (among many others) are more (in some cases, much more) powerful than the MW.

Whereas normal Horsemen have a tough time attacking cities defended by spearmen, MW's get the job done quite easily. And if you add to that the Expansionist trait then it is very easy to get a good overview of the world quite quickly and then send the hordes out to destroy.

So the UU is good. So what? It isn't unbalanced (in case you didn't notice, many people play civs OTHER than the Iroquois) and it is definately not "the best". Also, horsemen don't really "have trouble" with those cities, because of retreat (yes, I know MW's have this too).

If you do as I do and have masses of Mounted Warriors conquering the hell out of everything then you either win by conquest or end up dominating so much territory that you will inevitably win the game.

Trust me, the Iroquois don't in any way guarantee the game.

[ThePlagueRat]

skywalker, this is all civ3 units... Why not discuss potential civ4 units? Would be more interresting!