UU Should be better than their counterparts

[mkorin]

It seems to me that UUs are understrength compared to their initial units. IE If an IMPI is that much better than a spearman, it should get +25% against the spearman along with the other bonuses. The whole idea of elite troops are that they are better than their counterpart. The Immortals were supposed to be the best swordsman of the day. (Why Firaxis put them on horses and took away their swords is another arguement altogether) Basically Immortals should be +x% against other swordsman of that period. A norse berzerker was known for his ability to soak up punishment and defeat his counterpart in combat, thus he should be +x% against maceman(in the game). I beleive this logic should fit for all the UUs. I don't think giving minor abilities really shows their elite status. Any comments.

Mike

[Kuciwalker]

I don't think UU's are supposed to be "elite" per se.

[mkorin]

The Impi, Immortals, Praets, Navy Seals, Panzers, Cossacks etc are all elite troops in history. The horsemen of Genghis Kahn almost overran the word. The spartans (who I believe the Greek UU is based on) were so fearsome they are legend. Don't see the movie 300, but read the history. I could probably go on for all the rest. However, my point is that the elites should have a bouns over their counterpart.

Mike

[Solver]

UUs don't represent "elite" soldiers. They just represent some units (or sometimes battle tactics even) that were unique to that particular culture. Immortals weren't elite either, actually, there were LOTS of Immortals, whereas the elite are few. Navy SEAL is one UU that does represent elite soldiers, but most don't.

[LordShiva]

Every civ should also have a UU that's worse than their counterparts. Makes things more interesting

[Will9]

Originally posted by mkorin
The spartans (who I believe the Greek UU is based on)

The Spartans weren't the only one of the greek city-states to use the Phalanx. Every Greek city-state used that he Phalanx. The Spatans were just best at it until the Macodonian Phalanx came.

[Virdrago]

The Immortals were supposed to be the best swordsman of the day. (Why Firaxis put them on horses and took away their swords is another arguement altogether)

The Sassanid Persian Immortals were cavalry. The Achaemid Immortals weren't, but if the Apothecary can be the UB for the Persians, I guess the Sassanid Immortal can be the UU.

[Wiglaf]

I DESPISE this idea. For the love of god, this is a game that has Americans in 400 BC and Oxford University in Carthage. Let's chill out and stay focused on that puss-ay.

[Hellcat]

So fast workers should get +25% against regular workers?

[Pinchak]

UU Should be better than their counterparts

They are. ANY advantage at all by definition makes them "better".

[Guynemer]

I agree with mkorin. I think a minor bonus (say +10%) against the base unit would be appropriate for UUs. Most of the time it wouldn't matter, since UUs typically don't go up against their analog, but against counter units. But in those rare instances where UUs do face off against their analog (ie Immortal vs. Chariot), the Immortal should get a modest boost.

[couerdelion]

I’m not sure I see the point. How many of our combats ever are truly UU vs equivalent. Normally, there’ll be a host of other factors involved (defensive bonuses, promotion bonuses, defender selected from a stack). In the case of the berserker, if you are attacking a maceman, the most common example would be when the defender is in a city in which case you get a bonus for attacking the city. If the maceman is somewhere else then they are likely to be on their own – in which case a crossbow would be the unit of choice for you.

Most cases you’ll find, I think, that the standard unit has an alternative anti-unit which would be the one you should select to kill it.

In short, if a unit is not designed to do something - Chariots were never designed to attack Spears – then you don’t use it for this purpose. In the same way, Impi’s are not in the game to attack spearmen, neither are Immortals here to charge at enemy Chariots or Quecha for attacking Warriors. So why do you want them to do this?

N.B. The big exception here is the Jaguar. That one has always puzzled me.

[Cyrus The Mike]

Mkorin, I agree. but I just wish their were more UU's (not every civilisation used a knight.)

Solver Immortals were elite They were called immortals because once one died or retired there would be another to go in its place. but durring the conquest of Greece, no Persian army could defeat the Greeks, so the king... (was it Darrius?) called in his immortals which were his elite force.

and Virdrago. I think sword immortals should come back since Cyrus is part of the Achaemid dynasty, not the Sassanid.

[Virdrago]

From Wikipedia:

Immortals were required to be of Persian bloodlines, a good shot with a bow, and able to ride well.

Persians were known for their horsemanship even before they became the Achaemid Empire, and I thought I had read somewhere that the Immortals were horsemen and was confused by the Civ III portrayal. So I don't mind them being on horses now.

[Cyrus The Mike]

Persian boys were required to know how to ride and shoot a bow. Its not like today where you learn warfare when you enlist.