4 Unique units I'd like to see

[Serb]

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.

What is it, a joke?

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

Yeah, really looks like we got stomped.

Never ask yourself how many civilians in this list?
The amount of NVA casulties so big because of napalm cuppert bombardments, not because of US infantry so good warriors.
USA UU should be a carrier or an air unit, in this field you have unique things, but not in infantry. There is nothing remarkable in US infantry.

[korn469]

shiva

i still think you are missing the point, i think that each unit in civ represents a military unit not a single vehicle, so one could argue that the jet fighter represents everything from a wing of Me-262's to a wing of Su-27's

not only does it represent the vehicles but it also represents the tactical doctrine employed by that unit, so to me the F-15 represents american tactics, planes and support since like the korean war, and not just the F-15 vehicle by itself, i think that this makes it a better candidate for the American CSU because i think air power has been the area that the US military has dominated the most, though US carriers are second to none as well

btw didn't the airforce change it's logo from "aim high" to "no one comes close"?

[Serb]

Originally posted by korn469

...not only does it represent the vehicles but it also represents the tactical doctrine employed by that unit, so to me the F-15 represents american tactics, planes and support since like the korean war, and not just the F-15 vehicle by itself,

Exactly.

[Elucidus]

Originally posted by korn469
btw didn't the airforce change it's logo from "aim high" to "no one comes close"?

Yeah, we no longer Aim High. I guess we aimed high long enough so that now no one comes close. All the services recently changed. The army is an army of one, the navy is accelerate your life.

Maybe I'm a little partial but I prefer no one comes close.

I got some files, I'll have to put a link to later. they are pretty funny.

[Elucidus]

Here they are



There is an image that is pretty funny and a movie. The movie is funny, but after seeing it maybe everyone will understand that the Air Force isn't just about the Pilots and Air Crew. Most members of the Air Force, in fact, have no contact with aircraft.

www.angelfire.com/games4/balancer/airforce.html

[John Biles]

Air Power failed miserably to win the Vietnam war; Air power can't win any war by itself. Ultimately, it comes down to the infantry man who must go in and get killed cleaning out the people who were bombed. In Vietnam, the problem wasn't our Infantry not being up to snuff. The problem was that we couldn't send ground forces into North Vietnam to finish the enemy off because we were afraid of another Korea (In Korea, when US forces overran North Korea, hordes of Chinese 'volunteers' marched across the border and ran wild over us, pushing us back).

Instead, we eventually went over to just bombing them because they couldn't shoot down our planes very well, which didn't accomplish squat, except to kill NV civillians.

But basically, in CIV terms, we lost due to war weariness. People got sick of watching American soldiers die on TV and we couldn't finish the enemy off.

[Elucidus]

So you're saying Air Power is useless? I hope you just meant it didn't help a lot in Vietnam, because otherwise that is just asinine.

No, it cannot do everything by itself. If you send in Foot Soldiers without the support of Air Power, then you deserve what you get. If used correctly Air Superiority can win a war. Given it cannot conquer territory but it can make light work of the opposition. Bring down its headquarters, its communications center, power plants, and other targets and it can bring the opposition to its knees. When the Foot Soldiers do finally move in there isn't much of a threat left. That saves many footsoldiers lives. That is the whole point of Air Superiority.

Look at Operation Allied Force, no better example in the history of mankind of the capablity of Air Superiority. Air Superiority is one of the most important aspects of a military in todays society.

Oh and in Vietnam there was more than just one problem.

[Da_cOmRaDe_MiKe]

id like to see the british unique unit improved

also maybe marines for americans as unique units?


maybe the u-boat for germans...

if it were up to me id make special units for all civs and not have regular units...
it would make it a lot more fun having to find out which units r best..

[Beren]

Maybe someone could make a mod, where the number of units every civ can build are extremely limited, so that all units become in a certain way unique.

Give all defensive units (from spearman to mech inf) to all civs
Give some universal units to everyone (Warrior, Galley (necessary for transport))
Then you could limit the avaiability of other units.
For instance:
America cannot use Horseman, Chariots, Knights
Babylon cannot use Tanks, Modern Armors, Marines
Germany cannot use Chariots, Longbowmen, ...
I'm just guessing here.

[Herr David]

U-Boats for the Germans? WTF???
Before you guys start thinking "How can we possibly replace as many Apolyton-made UUs as possible" remember that no one likes the Brit UU simply because it's a ship. Ships suck in Civ3 and if you give the Germans a ship you're turning them into a useless civ. Germany never was a maritime power. No, the only point in time where German armed forces were feared for their qualitative superiority throughout Europe was at the high time of the Blitzkrieg. And the Panzer is quite good at representing that.

As for the US UU... hmmm hard choice, if I had to make on myself it would be some kind of GA-capable carrier for the exact reasons mentioned already.

If there was a Royal Marine replacing the British Riflemen, that should fit well into the British theme, right? Britain's golden age was throughout the late 18th / entire 19th century, exactly the time when riflemen become available. Their naval edge should be institutionalized through the "maritime" trait (all ships +1 movement) which is possible with the editor as it is.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Elucidus
So you're saying Air Power is useless?

As useless as artillery.
In classic strategy there is following rule:
Artillery destroys, cavalry conquers and infantry holds.

Of course, modern air power is a little bit more than just destroy (recce, air/ground interdiction,...), but bombers can be seen as heir of classic artillery.
You need it to break the defense.
But then you need an equivalent of cavalry to conquer the ground, and later infantry to hold it.
Each one must play its role.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by dexters
It is kind of difficult to give the Americans a unique unit because of its short history as a nation and the fact that it has never, until recently, had superior military hardware. In worldwar 2, German tanks generally outclassed American ones. It was really material superiority that won the war.

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. . .

Initially, the IJN was better than the USN with great torpedoes (American ones barely worked at all and often didn't), superior tactics, and better torpedo planes and fighters.

The USN eventually added radar for all its ships (helped fire control and spotting planes), got working torpedos,a dn improved its tactics. Of course, overwhelming production also helped.

I changed the American UU to a mobile musketman. I Edited the stupid original mod and made musketmen all 3.5.1. So I made the American unit (call it a "Minuteman" for lack of a better term) a 3.5.2.

Yes, I know Minutemen in reality were militia, not regulars. Call it an AMmusketman if you wish.

[Iron Chancellor]

Originally posted by brandon749

P.S. You're wrong about German tanks outclasing American tanks. At the beginning of the war, yes, Nazi tanks would have blown US tanks to smitherenes but germany and america did not engage ;on land until the final years of teh war when the American sherman and others were the finest on the field.

Sorry to intrude, but you are the wrong one. American tankers were trained to assume the Sherman was the best tank in the world. Unfortunately for the recruits, this was ignorance. Towards the end of the war the Germans had the most powerful tanks. The Tiger, King Tiger, and Panther all were superior in armor and firepower. Only in speed was the Sherman the best model. What doomed the Germans was that their economy could no longer support such large, expensive armored vehicles. America pumped out vast numbers, and her tankers developed tactics that allowed them to hit and run, and ambush, and swarm.

[Beren]

I'm not sure, but my cousin told me that originally the French had better tanks, but they could not use them properly.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor
Only in speed was the Sherman the best model.

Not even. The sherman (25 mph) was a little bit faster than the tigers(24 mph), but slower than the late panther G model (28.5 mph) and surely slower than the russian T-34 (34 mph).
The fastest tank of ww2 was indeed an american one. It was a tankdestroyer: the M18 Hellcat (45-50 mph)

For more info on ww2 tanks, I have found this very interresting site:
http://www.shadowsfolly.com/index.htm

[Elucidus]

Originally posted by Dry


As useless as artillery.
In classic strategy there is following rule:
Artillery destroys, cavalry conquers and infantry holds.

Of course, modern air power is a little bit more than just destroy (recce, air/ground interdiction,...), but bombers can be seen as heir of classic artillery.
You need it to break the defense.
But then you need an equivalent of cavalry to conquer the ground, and later infantry to hold it.
Each one must play its role.

Ever hear of smart weapons? Air power or should I say air superiority makes the life of infanty, amoung others a hell of a lot easier. I never said they weren't necessary, but to wage war without air power is just plain stupid. Artillery on the other hand can't hold a candle to an adequate bomber. They are more strategic than artillery.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Elucidus
Ever hear of smart weapons? Air power or should I say air superiority makes the life of infanty, amoung others a hell of a lot easier. I never said they weren't necessary, but to wage war without air power is just plain stupid. Artillery on the other hand can't hold a candle to an adequate bomber. They are more strategic than artillery.

That was more or less the meaning of my post. The words 'useless' and 'little' were of course ironical.
When I spoke of 'classic artillery', I meant the artillery of Napoleonic times. To wage war in that time without artillery was to just plain stupid.

Note: Artillery lost its destuction effect when people learned to dig. At first world war artillery had lost much of its destruction ability because of the trenches. The main effect that remained was the morale effect.

Note2: Air power today has taken most of other arms missions. It is able to:
- recce (light cavalry)
- destuction (physical & morale: artillery)
- tank hunting
- interdiction (move restriction, cut supply lines: cavalry)
- ...
but it still is unable to hold ground.

[Elucidus]

Okay, I agree with you then. Sorry I misunderstood what you were saying. Yeah, it is a given without ground forces Air Power cannot hold any ground.

[lorddread]

Originally posted by chocoballs

The Chinese rider represents the fact the the stirrups were invented by the chinese but chinese armies were rarely noted for the blitzkreig style of attack the mongols were famous for. Where are the Mongols? They ruled China for crumb's sake!

Again we have history being rewritten. For the record, the Mongols did not invent the stirrups. The Tuetonic Knights did. The ability it gave them to crouch a lance was the reason they were able to withstand the Mongol Hoards.

What the Mongols did invent (sort of) was silk armor. As crazy as it sounds the silk shirts they wore saved many from a death from wonds inflicted by arrows. The silk wrapped around the arrowhead lessening the damage it caused and making it easier to remove!


LD
KATN

[lorddread]

Originally posted by Beren
I'm not sure, but my cousin told me that originally the French had better tanks, but they could not use them properly.

At the start of the war the French had the best tanks, and in reality best army. Their problem was their leaders could not grasp modern tactics and paid the price for it. The French generals though WWII would be like WWI hence the walls they built to keep the Germans out of France. They could not comprhend that they simply would go around the walls.

Germany showed the world that you cannot fight the last war over again you must be able to look ahead and take advantage of modern equipment.

I would have loved to see Heinz Guederian (sorry if I butchered his name) and Sherman slug it out. These were probably the most inovative, tactics wise, generals of the war.

[siredgar]

The Vietnam War does bring in the question, "Does Civ3 focus too much on conventional warfare?" I wonder how guerrilla warfare tactics could be introduced into the game. Anyhow, what the hell happened to Partisan units?

[Beren]

Certainly: too much conventional warfare, but it has been a great improvement over Civ2. Though no partizans near captured cities, you have retreating units. Ideal for partizans. With a few patches or even XP, it might beat the original partizan.

It could still be more realistic, but that would have to include:
-Training of units based on terrain. You can train units for combat in different terrain types.
-Movement factor depends on distance to capital. Units move slower when they are far away, because of supplies and communication problems.
-Defence bonus, when coming closer to your own destruction. They fight harder then.

All of these changes will decrease the gameplay and clarity. We might have to reconsider...