Too many anchient Unique Units?

[PGM]

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

Originally posted by Theo
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.

Now that's an interesting modern times CSU: ygron pyr, invented more than 5 centuries ago. Or maybe they researched some more and now they have some sort of improved liquid fire???.

Originally posted by Theo 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.

Totally disagree with this idea. It would make it more realistic, no doubt, in fact, too much realistic. That's the proof that realism isn't always the most important. For instance, where in Earth would the French or German start up, if the Romans or Greeks had already colonized all of Europe? Southern America? Australia? Is this more realistic? What about the Americans? Starting with a delay of over 5000 years could be a bit of a problem I believe... That F-15 would turn up pretty late.
I can't talk about civ3 because I haven't played it yet, but I've played civ2 literally hundreds of times and IMO if this was in civ2 it would turn out simply absurd.

[Madine]

One reason I think that the units tend to be towards earlier times is that as time goes on the world became more unified and military units aren't as unique.

[Gangerolf]

The Zulus' most active period was the 1800s. That would make the Impi a industrial age unit. Primitive or not, they did make quite some trouble for the white man down in South Africa. Based on this, the impi could be an improved version of the rifleman unit (their tactics etc weighing up for poor equipment). I'm sure they at some point got hold of rifles anyway.

[Sarxis]

I think the Golden Age/UU relationship was included to give civilizations advantages in eras that are historically accurate (to an extent).

Thus, the ancient civs in the game have a better possibility to overtake their 'later era' neighbors, while the civs that are more modern will have that opportunity in their appropriate time.

Dunno

[DonJoel]

Anyone thinks that the russians should have a late game UU?
I mean, they have never been so powerful as during the cold war.
And it would make things a little bit more even since most civs got their units early.
Perhaps they can take in the mig-29 or if they want something better than the f-15 the su-37.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

I think it's good, as I almost never play a game thru to the end, anyway. All the modern units bore me somewhat. I like the game for its early exploration and such, so it suits me fine.

[Akron]

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

Originally posted by PGM


Now that's an interesting modern times CSU: ygron pyr, invented more than 5 centuries ago. Or maybe they researched some more and now they have some sort of improved liquid fire???.

He never said it was a modern age UU.

Totally disagree with this idea. It would make it more realistic, no doubt, in fact, too much realistic. That's the proof that realism isn't always the most important. For instance, where in Earth would the French or German start up, if the Romans or Greeks had already colonized all of Europe? Southern America? Australia? Is this more realistic? What about the Americans? Starting with a delay of over 5000 years could be a bit of a problem I believe... That F-15 would turn up pretty late.
I can't talk about civ3 because I haven't played it yet, but I've played civ2 literally hundreds of times and IMO if this was in civ2 it would turn out simply absurd.

Since the ai is so weak, instead of delaying it, how about delaying the human player? That would make things more interesting. It doesn't have to be for more than 10 turns though. Maybe in civ 4 you could have real rise and fall of empires, in which it is possible for the Italians to emerge from the fallen Romans, though that would be hard to implement.

The reason why there are so many ancient units is that the Ancient era was from 4000 BC to say 1000 AD (this is debatable, it depends on what part of the world you're talking about). Thats 5 times as long as the rest of the eras. And of the remaining 1000 years, only about 250 is of the industrial and modern eras. However, in the game, the industrial and modern ages are emphasized, even though they are only a fraction of time in comparison to the scope of the game. Also, important medieval/ rennaisance civs such as the spanish and turks were left out.

[jdd2007]

japan could use a number of modern or industrial period UUs to balance the game. some suggestions-
-upgraded battleship
-upgraded carrier
-EARLY cruise missile (kamikaze)
-upgraded fighter (zero)

[PGM]

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

Originally posted by Akron
He never said it was a modern age UU.

Well... it is the thread subject. Otherwise, why change the CSUs we have now?

Since the ai is so weak, instead of delaying it, how about delaying the human player? Maybe in civ 4 you could have real rise and fall of empires, (...)

Yes very interesting, but I'm kinda focusing on civ3 here.

[PGM]

Originally posted by jdd2007
japan could use a number of modern or industrial period UUs to balance the game. some suggestions-
-upgraded battleship
-upgraded carrier
-EARLY cruise missile (kamikaze)
-upgraded fighter (zero)

I find a bit hard to waste Samurai though.

[HalfLotus]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
I think the Golden Age/UU relationship was included to give civilizations advantages in eras that are historically accurate (to an extent).

Thus, the ancient civs in the game have a better possibility to overtake their 'later era' neighbors, while the civs that are more modern will have that opportunity in their appropriate time.

Dunno

This seems to be the most reasonable explanation.

[Sun Zi 36]

Yes, i think Russia should have a late UU. Anyone know why they changed it from MIG-29? I thought the whole point for MIG-29 was to match the American F-15. So when someone said to me they changed it BCOS the American one was F-15, i was really puzzled.

Anyway, modern UU is most historically accurate for Russia as the golden age for the Russians was during the cold war.

[DonJoel]

I agree Sun zi! The russians have never been so powerful as during the cold war!
And the cossaks werent even russians any way.

[jdd2007]

it wouldnt be fair to the russians or the aamericans if they both got an advanced fighter at the same time.

[Sun Zi 36]

i can't think of any reason why it would be unfair or even uninteresting to have 2 unique fighters. The Chinese and the Indian unique units are both from the knight. the Roman legion and Persian Immortal are both from the swordsman. so why is it unfair?