4 Unique units I'd like to see - Page 2

sachmo71 · November 21, 2001, 17:13

The US UU should have been a beefed up Infantry (representing better equipment, etc.) or a beefed up Marine (go ask any Marine who the toughest soldiers in the world are, they will be happy to tell you.) None of the other ideas are bad, it would just be hard to get a leader or golden age out of the UUs.

I have to disagree with whomever it was that said the panzer was the most dangerous weapon for the Germans in the war. The submarine almost won both WWI and WWII for the Germans. The panzer helped knock France out of the war, but remember at this time most of the German army was still using horses for transport. If not for a series of lucky breaks against the U-Boats (see enigma), many argue that England would have been out of the war within 6 months. Also, the entry of America into the war helped turn the tide in the Atlantic. So, I could see a case being made for the U-Boat, but I LOVE the panzer so I would want to keep it.

molly bloom · November 21, 2001, 21:34

Quote:

Originally posted by sachmo71

If not for a series of lucky breaks against the U-Boats (see enigma),

Some luck, some break:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...040/bombe.html

www.turing.org.uk/turing

http://encyclozine.com/Technology/Computers/Turing

www.wps.com/texts/enigma-review.html

www.bath.ac.uk/~ns0mar

www.math.arizona.edu/~dsl/enigma.htm

sachmo71 · November 22, 2001, 05:15

Hey, thanks for the links! Great stuff!

Elucidus · November 24, 2001, 01:34

Quote:

Originally posted by spiky82

nehow, regarding the american CSU, someone mentioned that the F-15 is gonna be obsolete pretty soon....and he/she is right.
what i wanna know is why firaxis decided to take out f-22 outa game (civ2 stealth fighter)...i 4 one think that F-22 should be the new CSU for the Americans as soon as the graphic/animations editing becomes possible...

I have to agree with spikey on this one. The F-15 is pretty much everywhere. Anyone with any money has one nowadays. The F-22 was in Civ2. The main reason I think it wasn't included is because then the US would have the only UU that does not become obsolete. And that would be a major factor with game balance.

I just think something better than the F-15. A battleship could work...though I'd still love to see a fair way to include the F-22.

Oerdin · November 24, 2001, 05:49

Quote:

Originally posted by dexters
I agree however that in the area of naval superiority, the United States of America's unique unit should be there. It has essentially ruled the seas since World War 2, with American ships outclassing the other two major naval powers of the time, Japan and England. And of course, we all know the devastating toll the US Navy inflicted on the Imperial Japenese Navy.

The U.S. has been world class in the navel department since the begining of the 19th century. When the army was starving for equipment and funds the navy was getting first rate ships in reasonable numbers. During the war of 1812 the British lost so many frigites in 1 on 1 fights against U.S. frigites that the Admiralty office actually sent out orders that no British ships are to engage American ships unless they had a 2-1 advantage.

The U.S. also built the worlds first Iron clad and the worlds first steam powered ships. The Yankee Clipper ships of the 1880's were the fasted ships afloat and one of the best armed. The British didn't really outclass the Americans until they developed the Dreadnaught class two decades later.

Oerdin · November 24, 2001, 06:02

Speaking of the F-15 has anyone noticed that the icon used in civ3 is nothing like an F-15. The picture shows a plane that has two rear stablizers while an F-15 only has one. Their picture looks more like a F-16 or F-14.

Elucidus · November 24, 2001, 14:38

Um, F-15s have two, the F-16 is the one with only one. Here visit this URL . Straight from the US Air Force, picture and description. Not trying to be a turd, BTW.

Rasbelin · November 24, 2001, 18:24

The American UU is a bit dificult one, but I would suggest a special version of Musketmen. They could be named Continentals and +1 in MP could reflect their mobility. That UU would refer to the regular troops of G. Washington in the Independece War. An another option could be the Confederates in the Civil War. But these are probably just some fairly braindead ideas...

sachmo71 · November 25, 2001, 06:40

Quote:

Originally posted by dexters

I agree however that in the area of naval superiority, the United States of America's unique unit should be there. It has essentially ruled the seas since World War 2, with American ships outclassing the other two major naval powers of the time, Japan and England. And of course, we all know the devastating toll the US Navy inflicted on the Imperial Japenese Navy.

I think the Soviet Navy would have had a little something to say about that...and I still think it should be a beefed up infantry...maybe the old stand-by extra movement to simulate the added mobility US forces enjoyed (tons and tons of TRUCKS!) and maybe 1 extra attack to simulate close air support and/or large quantities of heavy artillery inherent with the US infantry unit.

TheSettler · November 25, 2001, 06:58

Ok as for the US CSU you have to look at things differently. What is the US military most known for? It's there ability to control the skies. We have by far the most air dominant aircraft ever known to man. ( now anyway there was a time . . . ) Yes we also have a very capable navy that makes a world of difference ( just ask hitler how the US got so dang many guys over there ) But the US navy isn't what the world thinks of when they think about the US. It's the aircraft that comes to mind first. So they added something to represent that as the US CSU. I totally agree that a naval unit would have been much better but thats not what the US military is most commonly known for.

Quote:

Originally posted by sachmo71
The US UU should have been a beefed up Infantry (representing better equipment, etc.) or a beefed up Marine (go ask any Marine who the toughest soldiers in the world are, they will be happy to tell you.) None of the other ideas are bad, it would just be hard to get a leader or golden age out of the UUs.

Ok now i am 100% American man, but . . .
You have to admit that the US infantry hasn't had a whole lot of experience in winning situations on there own. After all look at out last real infantry confrontation where we got stomped in Vietnam. Desert storm was won due to our aircraft blowing the hell out of them first and then sending in the infantry to get the beaten and mentally screwed iraqi soldiers after a huge amount of bombs have been dropped. Every other confrontation our infantry have had have little none traditional wars where we didn't do very good. So i think that the CSU should not be an infantry unit.

Oh and our spec. forces where basically taken from britians SAS and although they are deadly as sin i think there are better US equipment that be choicen for the role.

Shiva · November 25, 2001, 07:22

Quote:

Originally posted by TheSettler
Yes we also have a very capable navy that makes a world of difference ( just ask hitler how the US got so dang many guys over there ) But the US navy isn't what the world thinks of when they think about the US. It's the aircraft that comes to mind first. So they added something to represent that as the US CSU. I totally agree that a naval unit would have been much better but thats not what the US military is most commonly known for.

I sorry but for the past 50 years at the first sign of trouble what everyone sees is the American aircraft carrier on its way to project power in trouble spots. People seen that far more than they have seen the F-15 or any other aircraft that has been in the American inventory.

Wulfram · November 25, 2001, 12:34

The US could have a Frigate with Privateer abilities, to represent the skill with which they harassed british shipping.

Elucidus · November 25, 2001, 14:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Shiva

I sorry but for the past 50 years at the first sign of trouble what everyone sees is the American aircraft carrier on its way to project power in trouble spots. People seen that far more than they have seen the F-15 or any other aircraft that has been in the American inventory.

What does an Aircraft Carrier carry, Submarines? He also said what do people think of not what do they see. Being in the Air Force I am a bit biased.

I guess, I should step back and let you guys discuss it.

Oh well.

TheSettler · November 25, 2001, 22:56

Yep your right the carrier is the first thing that shows up in any theater. But what is a carrier used for? Air supiority and ground attack aircraft. Once again we are at odds about the US airpower. If you take the carrier as a stand alone ship it really isn't that great. But its what it carries that makes the difference, aircraft.

Shiva · November 26, 2001, 03:30

Quote:

Originally posted by TheSettler
Yep your right the carrier is the first thing that shows up in any theater. But what is a carrier used for? Air supiority and ground attack aircraft. Once again we are at odds about the US airpower. If you take the carrier as a stand alone ship it really isn't that great. But its what it carries that makes the difference, aircraft.

As I said over the past 60 years or so the carrier has changed but it has always been there to project power. Please name me an air supiority fighter that has been effective that long. Over the past 50 years the one thing the US has done that no one else could do as well has been carrier ops. Sure other countries had carriers but none matched with our experience, skill, and shear size.

You cant say that at all with aircraft before the the fall of the USSR and even now our edge isnt that great fighter wise. Pilot wise back in the 60's and 70's Israel had for the most part equal or better pilots. And before anyone goes and says well we're better now that has to do more from our support aircraft than the fighters themselves. When nato needs tankers chances are they'll be US. When they need AWACS chances are it'll be US. When they need recon (although this is getting to be less true because of drones) chances are they'll be US. The nato countries have good fighter aircraft, what separates them from the US is the support aircraft and what we can do because of them.

Also CV's are used for Air supiority, ground attack, Anti-surface warfare, anti-sub warfare, troopstaging (see grenada, afganistan), recon, and a few others. Quite a few more than the two things you named, but then again as I said they have been at it for the past 60 years so you might have forgotten some

A UU should be something that a country is noted for and has been something special for them far above the rest of the counties, an edge. The carrier fits that for the Americans far more than the F-15 or any other aircraft does.

TheSettler · November 26, 2001, 07:29

I agree but your missing the point. They needed a unit that would stand for the country's greatest military power, and as you confirmed it was the air power of the US. I never said that our carriers arent a big role in that but rather it carries the aircraft that can provide the greatest air power and as you mentioned support. So since a carrier don't actually attack anything you can't use that in the game and have it attack to start a GA. I would have loved more then anything to see a super carrier or even a beefed up destroyer over an F-15 but its the symbol of air power that they where going for and it had to be a unit that can attack so that it would start a golden age.

Dry · November 26, 2001, 12:01

From the game point of view, the UU is the unit that will trigger the Golden Age. So if we are looking for a US UU unit, we should first think of what is the US Golden Age, when did it start, and then we may try to find what could be the unit that best symbolizes this period.

BTW: That's why I disagree with the German Panzers. Panzers? Start of a German Golden Age

Shiva · November 26, 2001, 13:40

Quote:

Originally posted by TheSettler
I agree but your missing the point. They needed a unit that would stand for the country's greatest military power, and as you confirmed it was the air power of the US.

No, I'm not missing the point at all. The point of this whole thread is about the right unique UNIT. An F-15 isnt the right one because it does not fit the bill by a longshot.

The argument that a carrier is only good because of the planes it carries is the same as saying the F-15 is only good because of the missiles and ground ordinance it carries and the support aircraft that help it. You discounting the carrier on such an argument is dishonest at best. If your going to apply such to one then do it for both. Neither would be great on thier own.

Quote:

Originally posted by TheSettler
So since a carrier don't actually attack anything you can't use that in the game and have it attack to start a GA.

I think I already stated thats why the carrier wouldnt work at the start of the tread. That still doesnt mean that Firaxis shouldnt have used their head, done a little more coding to make it somehow able to start a GA, and make it the UU since it has been the thing the US has been known for for years, just like the British fleet was known for in its time.

As for a symbol of airpower a P-51 or B-17 (or B-24 for the purists) would make more sense than the F-15 since that was the real start of our golden age in real life.

sachmo71 · November 26, 2001, 16:20

Quote:

Originally posted by TheSettler

Ok now I am 100% American man, but . . .
You have to admit that the US infantry hasn't had a whole lot of experience in winning situations on there own. After all look at out last real infantry confrontation where we got stomped in Vietnam. Desert storm was won due to our aircraft blowing the hell out of them first and then sending in the infantry to get the beaten and mentally screwed Iraqi soldiers after a huge amount of bombs have been dropped. Every other confrontation our infantry have had have little none traditional wars where we didn't do very good. So I think that the CSU should not be an infantry unit.

Oh and our spec. forces where basically taken from britians SAS and although they are deadly as sin I think there are better US equipment that be choicen for the role.

Settler,
Please understand off the bat that my intention is not to be insulting, so if this comes across that way I am sorry. Yes, airpower was dominant during the gulf war, but saying that the infantry hasn't had a whole lot of experience winning things on their own is understating the fact immensely. We have to look at all of history for a UU, not just the modern era. During WWII, the US Army had the best equipped soldiers in the world. They had an endless supply of materials. They had an abundance of air support, and artillery support down the the platoon level. All of this increased the lethality of the US soldier. For these reasons, I believe that the GI, or Doughboy, or Yank would better represent US military might than a aircraft carrier or fighter. Besides, while our modern fighters sure look impressive dropping bombs down laundry chutes, they have never been seriously challenged in combat. The GI sure was...plus, you can bomb anyone for as long as you like, but without infantry, you cannot take and hold ground.

P.S.-There also may be a couple of Gulf War vets who might have an opinion on your view that they just went in and "mopped up" after the Air Force!

Shiva · November 26, 2001, 19:56

Quote:

Originally posted by TheSettler
After all look at out last real infantry confrontation where we got stomped in Vietnam.

US losses 60,000
Vietnam NVA losses ( as thier government released in 1995) 1.1 million.

Yeah, really looks like we got stomped.

Elucidus · November 26, 2001, 20:04

We "lost" because of war-weariness, I guess. I don't know that much about it though, I'm just commenting.

ElitePersian · November 27, 2001, 04:35

Quote:

Originally posted by chocoballs

Would a Persian fanatic unit be too unsensitive?

not only that, it would be STUPID, since it has no real correlation to real life, the immortals is perfect, since the persian army dominated its neighbours with their immortals.

ElitePersian · November 27, 2001, 04:39

Quote:

Originally posted by orange

Extremely unsensitive and not accurate. Why do people keep suggesting this?

First of all it's a religious UU not a cultural UU, and this game is about units that represent the technologies of the civ to make a better unit than the one currently being used by the rest of the world.

Second - what does a "fanatic" replace?

Third - Since when are Persians fanatics? If anything it would be an arab UU but it shouldn't be since not all Arabs are fanatics, and on a greater note, not all Islamics are fanatics.

WELL SAID.

ElitePersian · November 27, 2001, 04:43

Quote:

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Martinus [/SIZE
It wouldn't be as unsensitive as it would be totally inappropriate. Persia is not (at least directly) a modern day Iran - it flourished under the Achmenid and then Sassanid (sp.?) dynasty.

Persian still IS modern day Iran, since the Persian empire was condensed to modern day Iran, it just under a different rule and dynasty.

Signa · November 27, 2001, 18:13

There is a few UU i would like to see instead of the current ones...

Siege Tower (Catapult w/ either xtra attack or movement) for the Babylonians...

Minuetman (Riflemen w/ either xtra defense or movement) for the Americans...

Fire Machine [name sucks

] (Cannon with xtra movemt or attack) for the Chinesse.

Brave (Warrior with xtra attack or defense) for the Iriquios.

The Siege Tower is ripped from the Asseryians... The Fire Machine's name absolutly sucks... The Brave makes more sense from a historical persective than the Mounted Warrior (Sioux).

siredgar · November 29, 2001, 16:20

The Koreans did. You'll see in the expansion pack for Age of Empires II, they had the turtleboats. They're fun to play with and I'd like them added. Period.

I'd also like to see camel units of some sort or another. They should replace the immortals in my opinion. I'd love to see camel units fighting the elephant units like in AoE II.

Anyhow, the German panzers are used instead of the U-boats because Germany had a strong offensive ability on the ground. The British dominated the seas. So, it wouldn't make sense for the Germans to have the powerful U-boats while the British waddle in the water with frigates!

As for the Russian cossacks, it's logical too because I believe they were used during the key expansion period for that nation.

Overall, however, I think that special units should be stronger than they currently are. They should really turn the tides for equally competing Civs at least.

Pius Popprasch · March 1, 2002, 09:35

Does any other army on the world than the Americans have Marines? They could be exclusive for the American civ and maybe get some extra power. Other tribes will have to use Infantry which acquires the amphibious ability with the corresponding technology.

Elucidus · March 1, 2002, 19:05

I think the Marine unit is a general representation, as most things are.

Personally, I still say air power is where the US has the biggest advantage over other nations, although since we haven't done much since the F-15 (1970s), that isn't the case anymore.

Yeah, we have the F-117, but isn't a dog-fighter. All the while many European powers among others have been developing their own successors to the venerable but aging F-15. If we didn't have such a problem convincing congress and other moronic leaders to fund the F-22, that would definitely take the cake, but we only have two so far.

That is sad.

molly bloom · March 1, 2002, 21:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Pius Popprasch
Does any other army on the world than the Americans have Marines? They could be exclusive for the American civ and maybe get some extra power. Other tribes will have to use Infantry which acquires the amphibious ability with the corresponding technology.

I believe the British might have a prior call to the Marine unit:

' Royal Marines
The Royal Marines trace their history back to 28 October 1664 when Charles II sanctioned the formation of a regiment for sea service to be known as The Duke of York and Albany's Maritime Regiment of Foot. On 24 July 1704 Marines under Sir George Rooke took possession of the Rock of Gibraltar and have retained "Gibraltar" as a battle honour. Briefly disbanded, they were re-formed in 1775 and have been in continuous existence ever since. The Corps' motto is 'Per mare per terram', meaning 'By sea, by land'.

Today the Royal Marines consist of 6,700 men grouped in 3 Commando Brigade, Commachio Group, Commando training Centre RM, RM Poole, the Amphibious Trials and Training Unit Royal Marines (AATURM), Royal Marines School of Music (RMSM) and Royal Marine Reserve units.

3 Cdo Bde

Commanded by a Brigadier with his HQ in Plymouth 3 Cdo Bde is a key contributor to the recently formed Joint Rapid Deployment Force (JRDF). It consists of:

HQ and Signals Squadron Royal Marines based at Stonehouse Barracks, Plymouth, Brigade Patrol Troop a force of 24 men working in six four man teams, Y Troop the Brigade's electronic warfare specialists, Communications Troop which provides secure communications, Air Defence Troop equipped with Javelin SAM, Royal Marines Police Troop, Tactical Air Control Parties which works with the Royal Navy and RAF.

40 Cdo

40 Commando is based at Norton Manor camp, Taunton, 42 Commando at Bickleigh Barracks, Plymouth, 45 Commando Arbroath, Scotland, 29 Commando Rgt RA (Army) include 1 Bty (TA); 20 Commando Air Defence Battery Royal Artillery, 1 Commando Logistics Regiment (joint service) based at Chivenor, 59 Independent Squadron RE (Cdo engineers 1 Army 1 TA), 847 Naval Air Sqn 1 light 2 support helicopter formations is based at Yeovilton; 539 Assault Squadrons based at Turnchapel, Plymouth. Medium Reconnaissance is provided by B Squadron The Household Cavalry regiment with Scimitar and Striker armoured vehicles.

Commachio Group

Commachio Group is based at Arbroath and is tasked with North Sea oil rig protection; the Landing Craft and Amphibious Training Wing is based at Poole. ATTURM is based at Instow, the RMSM at Portsmouth. There are RMR units in London, Bristol, Birkenhead and Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

The Commandant General who is based at Whale Island in Portsmouth commands the Royal Marines; the Royal Marines include men and women who are all volunteers drawn from all three services. Recruits, both officers and men pass through a 30 week training course at the Commando Training Centre Royal Marines (CTCRM) at Lympstone in Devon. The course emphasises team work and includes a 30 mile timed march with weapons and equipment. '

You might also like to visit the Royal Marines' Museum website.

Pius Popprasch · March 4, 2002, 04:26

Quote:

Originally posted by molly bloom I believe the British might have a prior call to the Marine unit:
Royal Marines

Thanks for the info, I didn't know all that. In Civ3 the Marines are certainly american, though, because they come much later in the game(late Industrial Age). Having the British Royal Marine for England would be better than the lackluster Man-O-War.