Too many anchient Unique Units?

[monkspider]

If I may quote poster Monolith94 for a moment,

"I think that overall there have been entirely too many ancient units. I mean, it's tough for them to do considering they have so many ancient civs but what it seems like will happen is a whole bunch of civs reaching golden age in the first 4,000 b.c. to 1 a.d. and after that maybe like 5!

/me worried"

With 4 major time periods, it would stand to reason there would be a reasonable effort made to spread the unique units out as evenly as is practical. However, it seems an unpreportionally large number of UU's will fall into the age of antiquity. Let's try to break this down

Antiquity (8)
Egyptians- War Chariot
Aztecs- Jaguar Warrior
Babylonians- Bowman
Greeks- Hoplite
Persians - Immortal
Romans- Legionarry
Zulus- Impi
Japanese- Samurai

Renaissance (3)
Indians- War Elephant
Chinese- The Rider
English- Man 'O' War
(Note, the War Elephant and The Rider are based on the knight, which is presumably a Renaissance age unit)

Industrial Age (2)
French- Musketeers
Russians- Cossacks

Modern Age (2)
Americans- F-15
Germans- Panzer

I have left off The Iroquois as their unique unit is as of yet, unknown. But if screenshots of a Horseman type unit prove to be indeed accurate, they are most likely an anchient era unit as well (or renaissance at best). I think the overwhelming number of anchient aged unique units could prove to be somewhat problematic, at least on paper, to proper game balance. Of course I speak having never played the game. What is this board's opinions on this subject?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Samuri would actually be Renaissance (or whatever) I'd think.

But yeah, there are a lot of ancient UUs, because most of the civs existed from ancient times (and their Golden Ages then).

[Sun Zi 36]

I thought the Russian UU was MIG-29 fighter (or similar). When did they change it?

I think with wonder building as an alternate trigger for golden age it is possible for every civ to reach golden age very early on. So it rreally doesn't matter which time period the UU's fall in.

[jdd2007]

they changed the mig to a cossack because of the f15

[Tarquinius]

Since when are musketeers an industrial unit, aren't they a renaisscance unit

I agree with you that there are many ancient UU, but it isn't easy to think of any industrial units for the Romans, Greeks, Aztecs, Iroquois, Persians, Egyptians, Babylonians or Zulu's (Japanese might be possible)

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Tarquinius
Since when are musketeers an industrial unit, aren't they a renaisscance unit

I agree with you that there are many ancient UU, but it isn't easy to think of any industrial units for the Romans, Greeks, Aztecs, Iroquois, Persians, Egyptians, Babylonians or Zulu's (Japanese might be possible)

You make good points, at the time of my initial post i considered Musketeers to be about early industrial age, but I see that I could definitely be mistaken. In fact, you are almost certainly right. But that would leave us with only ONE industrial age UU!
While your point regarding the lack of more modern unique units for many civilizations is definitely true, all I can say is that in spite of this there needs to be more modern units anyway. As monolith said, it could be rather bothersome to see nearly all the Civs in the current game all having their golden age at roughly the same time.

[Patriqvium]

IIRC, you get early Tanks (and thus also Panzers) with the Motorized Transportation technology, which is located in Industrial Ages' tech tree. So, the Panzer is an Industrial Age UU...

[Tarquinius]

You make good points, at the time of my initial post i considered Musketeers to be about early industrial age

Thanks, but now I am thinking about it again, you might even be right. As there is no "Rennaissance" anymore, it is medieval now . That would make a musketeer probably a late medieval unit, but it is not impossible that it is an early industrial unit.

IIRC, you get early Tanks (and thus also Panzers) with the Motorized Transportation technology, which is located in Industrial Ages' tech tree. So, the Panzer is an Industrial Age UU...

That sounds very logical to me, and it means that there is only one modern unit. But when I started searching for other UU modern units, I could only think of a Japanese, English and a Russian modern UU... And Russian and English wouldn't help much as they already have a industrial unit (Man O War can be a medieval unit too, don't know actually )
So only a Japanese Modern UU would help IMHO, any suggestions for it??

[Christantine The Great]

I think that antiquity can be divided up into two sections. Most civs will get their UU maybe a Level 1 or 2 tech (there are 4 per age) Then, with one or two cities, techs start coming slower until you get some trade/libraries up. The heyday of the early units, like War Chariot, Bowman, and Jag will end there. They are, afterall, for early expansion and conquering. Then come the heavy infantry units, like the Legion and Immortals. They will rule the battlefield from then on. The hoplite, which the Greeks can build from step one, will endure this all and stay until the pikemen throws him out because of the new wave of mounted units.

[Sirotnikov]

Well, as I understand it the unique units are supposed to represent the rise and fall of civs.

Most of the civs included in civilization III are anciaent civs which flourished in ancient times.

Plus, we simply can't imagine what kind of tank the babilonians would have had now, and we can't exactly say the Iraqis are in a golden age.

I agreee this creates problems, and I for one think the golden ages should be random and no unique units should be allowed into a Civ game, but firaxis have made thier choise.

[Theo]

Originally posted by Tarquinius
Since when are musketeers an industrial unit, aren't they a renaisscance unit

I agree with you that there are many ancient UU, but it isn't easy to think of any industrial units for the Romans, Greeks, Aztecs, Iroquois, Persians, Egyptians, Babylonians or Zulu's (Japanese might be possible)

Romans were followed by Italians in a way, Egyptians still existed after the roman occupation and greeks were followed by Byzantium -that had a special unit- and then by modern Greece.
Is it possible that another special unit could be assigned to those civs, it does not have to be the most known one. In its effort to be united, Italy may used some special unit called I don`t know how - I am guessing here-. Souldn`t playing civ give us the chance to learn something ?

[PGM]

Re: Too many anchient Unique Units?

Originally posted by monkspider
Too many anchient Unique Units?

Probably, but if the game went the other way, I fear it would be too historically unrealistic. Many of those civilizations ended rather early in time, or had their famous units long ago, so there's no chance of escaping that. There's not a lot of innovative militaristic units on modern times that are radically and distinctively different from one civ to another.
Anyone can suggest alternative CSUs for most of the 16 civs, but most of them wouldn't differ that much in time periods.

[Theo]

Re: Re: Too many anchient Unique Units?

Originally posted by PGM


Probably, but if the game went the other way, I fear it would be too historically unrealistic. (...)

is it then realistic historically to begin the American or French civ in 4000 BC?
If historic accuracy is the issue not all civs should be allowed to start in 4000 BC

[PGM]

Re: Re: Re: Too many anchient Unique Units?

Originally posted by Theo
is it then realistic historically to begin the American or French civ in 4000 BC?
If historic accuracy is the issue not all civs should be allowed to start in 4000 BC

No, that's gameplay compromise. There should always be a balance between realism and gameplay. And the 4000 BC date is an insignificant problem if compared with making up units that never existed.

[Theo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Too many anchient Unique Units?

Originally posted by PGM


No, that's gameplay compromise. There should always be a balance between realism and gameplay. And the 4000 BC date is an insignificant problem if compared with making up units that never existed.

Noone I know suggested inventing units. All I suggested is that there may be some real ones that need some dig up to be revealed.
Byzantines had a weapon called liquid fire (ygron pyr) which allowed them to defend their capital against the Arabs (pretty ironic don`t you think?) for more than 300 years. There is no way Egyptians stoped inventing because of roman occupation, I don`t know what they did but since they still exist, there must be something there, no?

I really believe the game could be more realistic if one or two of the AI players started in -for example 3000 BC and 2500 BC respectively.Of cource they could start with either three or four settlers or a city of pop x having everything the weakest civ had at that time. Is my thought so "crazy" ?