How about this for the American UU?

Knightblade pDM · January 31, 2003, 02:26

I saw this over at CFC and decided to throw this out to you guys here

Someone mentioned making the cruise missle unique to America or just an upgraded version of it instead of the F-15

I mentioned that give it Lethal Land/Sea and upgrade the bombardment strength/range. And make the F-15 available to all Civs.

Also, to give lethal Land/Sea to the Korean UU..

MoonWolf · January 31, 2003, 03:23

Maybe it's better to increase the capabilities of the F-15? I guess many players already have trigged the lethal bombardment(s) for lots of the bombardment units.

Jawa Jocky · January 31, 2003, 10:23

I'd rather see an M1a1 - Abrahams tank to replace the MA

Mad Bomber · January 31, 2003, 15:14

You could exchange half a dozen modern units for the American UU .

examples are; Super Carrier, Sea Wolf sub, M1 Abrams, M2 Bradley, MLRS, B-52, and numerous different fighter bombers including F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18. F-22, F-35.

The F-15 is a good choice for a UU, just the stats need to be improved in the editor.

A cruise missle as a UU? I wouldn't care for it at all. And why would you make the F-15 available to al civ's when there are only 4 countries which fly the F-15 (US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Japan)

Jawa Jocky · January 31, 2003, 15:29

F22 would've been a better plane.

HolyWarrior · January 31, 2003, 18:16

In my mod that I play, I've given the hwacha lethal bombardment. I'm trying to decide whether or not to give that ability to other units such as bombers and battleships as well.

My choice for American UU would've been the Green Beret, a souped-up marine. Only problem with that is marines don't become obsolete, as every UU is set to do sooner or later.

CiverDan · January 31, 2003, 18:49

I disagree on lethal attack for the F-15. It would allow the Americans to attack just with F-15s until all defenders are done. Kind of reminds me of civ 2 where I would simply attack units repeatedly with a stealth fighter, completely unrealistic. This unit just needs better range and bombard power, IMHO.

HazieDaVampire · January 31, 2003, 19:53

British Army uses MLRS.

arslankhan · January 31, 2003, 22:50

I always thought the best UU for America would be either Rifleman or Marine (especially since the Rifleman seems to be wearing an American Civil War era uniform).
I m not crazy about machines being UUs.

Mad Bomber · February 1, 2003, 02:24

Civer Dan: You would need a lot of F-15's to follow that plan. Even with lethal bombardment, planes do not eliminate many units in cities. If you wanted to take a city you would still have to send in the ground pounders, which is realistic IMO (and I do play with a modded F-15 w/ lethal bombard)

Master Zen · February 1, 2003, 14:25

Lethal bombardment on city units would not make much of a difference. However, bombing units in the open is very effective and I mod this ability into Stealth Fighters and F-15s.

Master Zen · February 1, 2003, 14:29

I still think the F-15 was a good choice for a UU, few countries other than the US use it, it is the best fighter in the world today (well, maybe the Rafale...) and has been since the late 70's. It's ground-attack variant, the F-15E is also the best of its kind. Considering US military doctrine is based upon overwhelming air power, the F-15 is pretty much a representative of US military might. Sure, there might be more F-16s or the carriers might get more of the action. But when F-15s are deployed, you know the US means business.

Fosse · February 2, 2003, 12:58

I played for a while with a standard infantry unit that I added 2 bonus hitpoints to. I called him a Doughboy, and deleted the F15.

Underseer · February 2, 2003, 13:07

I think it would be fun to make the UU a homesteader, but that's just me.

GhengisFarb™ · February 2, 2003, 13:43

The best real life based UU for America is a larger than normal Aircraft Carrier. That's what it uses to project its influence everywhere.

Master Zen · February 2, 2003, 13:58

The "supercarrier" would be a good idea too. Maybe carry 8 units instead of 4 and a higher defense. But since the unit already looks like a Nimitz carrier, perhaps we need a graphic of a smaller carrier to represent the regular one.

Then again, the carrier by itself does not project influence. It is the aircraft on board that does it so it all goes back to massive airpower being the advantage of the US military.

Centauri18 · February 2, 2003, 20:47

A nuclear supercarrier, maybe? It might need uranium for a balancing factor?

The Mad Monk · February 3, 2003, 07:58

If it was a supercarrier, you could add decent attack and bombardment capabilities (to mimic the on-board missle complement, and the rest of the battlegroup). As it is, I set attack on carriers to zero, because I have already bumped into one caravel to many...

That said, I think I would have preferred a marine-based UU.

Daz · February 3, 2003, 07:59

How about a land unit that can shoot down flying units (Patriot?). On the other hand, why not make it available to all...

Kizami · February 3, 2003, 16:45

this may be a stupid answer but, A supercarrier is useless with out aircraft. So i think the american UU is fine the way it is.

Master Zen · February 3, 2003, 17:17

Supercarriers do not carry armament beside a few SAMs and Phalanx close range guns.

The real flaw with creating battlegroups in Civ3 was not giving Aegis Cruisers the AA capabilities they had in Civ2, sadly it can't be modded either.

The Aegis Cruiser would have made a great US UU if given this AA capability. Other civs would do with a regular cruiser which would be identical in stats to the current aegis cruiser.

I actually mod the Aegis to carry a tactical missile. I also mod the cruise missile to have the same caracteristics as a tactical nuke except for the nuke of course. This makes Aegis cruisers true missile carriers. I take away the see invisible and give that power to destroyers to make them useful.

Mad Bomber · February 3, 2003, 19:57

Raguil:

Keep the detect invisible flag for The Aegis cruiser as they are also formidable ASW ships (the Ticondroga class as well as the Burke class each carry 3 Sea King ASW helos) instead mod them to carry 2, and also give them the ability "transport only aircraft" in addition to the "transport only tactical missle" flag. This will allow you to carry aircraft as well (the idea here is to carry modded helos or Jet fighters (such as the Russian Minsk Class, the British Invincible class, the Italian Garibaldi class ) which would simulate the use of VSTOL aircraft. You could also mod the carrier to carry foot units and helos, making it a amphibious Attack ship if you wish. Of course I also mod the destroyer to carry 1 and carry tactial missles or aircraft (helos or jet fighters)

As for the Carrier, The Sea Sparrow SAM system can be used to attack ships as can the standard and Standard II systems aboard most NATO ships. I understand that most Russian SAM systems have this capability as well, So having the Carrier have a modest attack capability is completely correct, besides I rarely have my carriers go anywhere without an escort.

Centauri18 · February 3, 2003, 20:51

Well, we could give this supercarrier the ability to carry a large number of aircraft, and maybe give it additional armaments of its own. Or at least you could give it a decent defensive rating - it would be an utter wate to be attacked and sunk by a caravel or something.

Master Zen · February 3, 2003, 20:59

I doubt a caravel could since a carrier, but a Man O' War might... 3 vs 8 makes it a distinct possiblity

Mad Bomber:

It would be cool to have an amphibious assault ship as a new unit. Ticonderogas are formidable sub-hunters I agree, however, if I give them the ability in Civ3 then there's really no reason to build Destroyers.

Carriers should have a defense of 10. I first though about modding it to 12 but if I escort it with cruisers, any attack would hit the carrier first, wouldn't it? Anyway, a defense of 8 might not be that unrealistic since a carrier, alone in the sea without aircraft, wouldn't even be a match for a destroyer.

Brizey · February 3, 2003, 21:03

Holy Warrior:

F15s do not become obsolete. Jet fighters do not upgrade to stealth fighters. So there should be nothing wrong with a marine based UU.

Centauri18 · February 3, 2003, 21:08

Exactly. The only problem is if you play on a Pangea map.

Mad Bomber · February 4, 2003, 00:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
I doubt a caravel could since a carrier, but a Man O' War might... 3 vs 8 makes it a distinct possiblity

Mad Bomber:

It would be cool to have an amphibious assault ship as a new unit. Ticonderogas are formidable sub-hunters I agree, however, if I give them the ability in Civ3 then there's really no reason to build Destroyers.

Carriers should have a defense of 10. I first though about modding it to 12 but if I escort it with cruisers, any attack would hit the carrier first, wouldn't it? Anyway, a defense of 8 might not be that unrealistic since a carrier, alone in the sea without aircraft, wouldn't even be a match for a destroyer.

Not true, the game engine selects combatant units for defense over transport units, as for the defense my new ratings for modern units are as follows

Destroyer: 12.10.6
Battleship: 18.14.5
Carrier: 1.12.6 (6 unit transport)
Aegis Cruiser: 14.18.6
Submarine: 10.6.4
Nuc Submarine: 18.16.6

If you want a role for Destroyers reduce the cost a shield level or two. Still, they are cheaper and faster than BB's and it takes a lot longer to get the Aegis cruiser making Destroyers viable for a good timeframe in the game.

Master Zen · February 4, 2003, 01:01

Cool, didn't know about the transport thing, just thought the best defenders were first in the stack.

These are my mods:

Destroyer: 8.8.8
Battleship: 18.14.7
Carrier: 1.10.7 (6 transport) gonna change D:12
Cruiser: 10.10.8 Can transport 1 tac missile
Sub: 12.2.5
Nuc Sub: 16.3.6

Mad Bomber · February 4, 2003, 12:24

Master Zen:

I realy do not like your mods and I will tell you why:

1) the BB is to powerful relative to other ships, the destroyer in particular. The destroyer is also meant to represent the normal cruiser so it should be able to take on a BB and do significant damage.

2) The Aegis cruiser is meant to represent all modern ships including the Burke, Mutsu, Kiev, Minsk classes. These ships are at least as powerful as a BB that relies more on a 16" rifle than anything else.

3) the defense values of your subs are far, far too low remember that just because they cannot detect an invisible unit, they can still attack it if they happen to run into it (and I have often had Nuc Subs be attacked by a wandering BB)

If I were to play with your mod I would only build 1 DD per taskforce (just to see the subs) a lot of BB's and a few Carriers to protect them against air attacks. No reason to build the Aegis Cruiser and why build a sub if it can be destroyed so easily.

The only think that I think I would keep is the 12 attack on the Sub making it a 12.6.4 in my mod.

The reason for having the Aegis Cruiser and Destroyer have the ability to carry aircraft is so that they can carry a helo for ASW.

Centauri18 · February 4, 2003, 19:16

Hm. That would work. But these ships would have to able to carry like maybe one or two planes.