Civ of the Week: Russians

[ancient]

russia still uses Ak's and are still developing new ak's but they cant make a profit because those things will work for ever and its already the most common rifle in the world..

[PGM]

Very nice, very cool CSU indeed. I also agree with the Russian CSAs. All good.

[Gangerolf]

From CIV3.COM:

Modern Russia dates from about 770, when Viking explorers began an intensive penetration of the Volga region. From bases in estuaries along the eastern Baltic, Scandinavian bands, probably in search of new trade routes to the east, began to penetrate territory populated by Finnic and Slavic tribes, where they found unlimited natural resources. Within a few decades the Rus, as the Viking settlers were known, together with other Scandinavians operating farther west, extended their raiding activities down the main river routes toward Baghdad and Constantinople, reaching the Black Sea in 860. In the period from 930 to 1000, the region came under complete control by the Rus from their capital at Novgorod. The lifeblood of this sprawling Kievan empire was the commerce organized by these Viking princes.

Looks like the Vikings are in after all

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by JT3
In the past two decades, Russia has been ahead in unorthodox war technologies more than orthodox ones.

Good point, but they are really good at that. Did you hear about the new torpedoe that achieves incredible speed by using cavitation to fly underwater within an air bubble? This is as unorthodox as it gets.

[monkspider]

I love the cossack and Cat the great is one of my favorite historical leaders as well. Good show Firaxis!

[Dark Scorpion]

Youre mistaking. The MIG 29 (by the way there is also MIG31 which is even better) has an ultimate speed which overruns even missiles, so its almost imposible to shoot it down.
As a matter a fact many US soldiers in Vietnam war used AK47 because it was imposible to clean or discmantle the M16 without loosing small parts of the rifle AK never had such prolems. Its a cheap, good and easy to use weapon. Some can fuly dismantle and combine AK in 5 seconds can you do it with M16?
I was talking about taks during the whole history period not just modern time, but tooday there is no better tenk than T-98
By the way when S300 was used in Vietnam war thay once shot down 200 planes in a single day.
Also check the history of the first Iraq war. The ONLY army which didnt loose the single tank in the desert because of the enviroment was Syrian army which used Russian tanks. Shoold I say that US tanks didn't go that smoothly
I forgot to meantion the Russian helicopters for example KA50 "Black Shark" or KA52 "Alligator".

[joer]

From a strategic gameplay point of view, I think the cossack sucks. Here's why:

The cavalry is a great, fast attacking unit. I imagine it stands pretty unrivaled as a fast invader during that time span. Its purpose is to be fast enough to shoot everybody down before they can come any closer -- that's what the high movement rate is for. Since I expect the unit to be pretty expensive -- both in ressources and production (since it has excellent attack and movement, reasonable defense), it is probably too expensive to be used mainly as defensive stacking unit. Musketeers should be much cheaper and more handy.

So the cossack gets an advantage in an area which the unit doesn't need anyways. And that advantage is 33 percent -- as opposed to 50 percent or more for most other UUs (Greek Hoplites defense upped from 2 to 3, lots of 'early uppers' from 1 to 2, Chinese Riders getting two bonuses, etc). I cannot see how that difference is going to make a significant change on the battlefield. Oh, sure, it's nice if somebody bothers to attack the cossack with another unit, but I believe your tactics should be built around positioning the cavalry/cossack in such a way that it is the attacker, rather than defender. And it's far from invincible put versus ordinary cavalries.

Finally, it comes in 'relatively' late in the game. Early UU units have the advantage that you can get the bonuses from early on in the game and reap the rewards of their bonuses throughout the game. A great early attacker lets you maybe gain one city more, an early defender allows you to spend less production in defenders and expand faster. Those early, critical decisions pay off in the later stage multiple times.

The cossack enters the stage at a time when the critical expansion is already done and time is not yet ready for high-tech warfare (via tanks and planes) and the ultimate victory. So bleh!

I still think the best UU so far is the Greek Hoplite. Or at least the most appearling to me. Spearmen/phalanxes will most likely play a big role throughout the whole early game defenses. With a +50 percent bonus in defense, it will be quite a pain to kill. Fortified behind city walls, it should be almost invincible for some time to come. What does it mean to mean? Less investment in defenders, easier defenses of my borders. While others have to put two spearmen in their border cities, I can just use two and use the other ressources to build a library and get new techs faster. That advantage allows me to build earlier better attackers and so on.

And, perhaps much more critically than city defenses is the matter of ressource defenses. While cities can always be equipped with walls, your worker encampment on your coal mine or bronze ressource needs protection just as badly and could be an easy target for any marauding enemies. Sticking a bigger defense unit on it can make quite a difference.

I can see points and uses for most other UU, and if it's only for popping huts (Jaguar warrior). But while the actual effects of each unit remain to be seen until the game is out, I will still keep my point that the cossack will be a pretty irrelevant unit.

[Comrade Tribune]

We don´t know anything about the costs of the Cossack yet. It may be cheaper than an ordinary cavalry.

Furthermore, do you really think a cavalry that has reasonable defense against rifles, high attack and immense speed, and that will be viable, though marginally, up to and including WWII, 'sucks'?

[Ironwood]

In all these land based 4x games, one thing I often find myself doing is sending out some cavalry, artillery, and riflemen. The group is slow, because the artillery can't keep up, and I need that rifleman, anyway, since a rifleman, if he wants, can take out a calvary unit. If I don't need the artillery, they could move faster, but it's still nice to set up on a nearby mountaintop, keep an infantry unit (rifleman, musketeer, whatever) and spend the next turn pounding from there.

The Cossak doesn't have so much of a weankess in this area. The added defense seems small, but is multiplied when one considers terrain bonuses. Thus the cossak is master both of the plains (since he can outrun anyone there) and the hills (the extra defense makes him impervious to most attacks when multiplied. Put him on a mountintop, and I'll bet he can't even be touched by the contemporary artillary unit. Or at least, it won't be an easy win.

[joseph1944]

Re: Re: SCIENTIFIC?!

Originally posted by Dark Scorpion

And if you consider todays weaponry: MIG29 is better than F15. If you compare the Russian tanks and US tanks during the history, the Russian tanks were always better.

The F-15 Several kills against the Mig 29
Mig 29 against F-14/15/16/18 =000
MIAI & M60A3s vs. T-62/72/80s in Gulf war, No American tank was killed by enemy Tank. Oh well.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by Dark Scorpion
Youre mistaking. The MIG 29 (by the way there is also MIG31 which is even better) has an ultimate speed which overruns even missiles, so its almost imposible to shoot it down.

The Mig 31 is a Mig 25 with a second seat for RIO. It is a interceptor only and if it started to dog fight with either the American or West European fighter, it would loose big time. The Mig 25 & 31 was design to take on the B-70. Many times the Mig 25 try to shoot down a SR-71 but failed each time. The SR-71 is faster.

I was talking about taks during the whole history period not just modern time, but tooday there is no better tenk than T-98

Is the T-98 in service yes? I don't remember hearing that yet.

By the way when S300 was used in Vietnam war thay once shot down 200 planes in a single day.

Since I was in the Navy at the start of the Vietnam War maybe you better remind me what day did the north shot down 200 of our planes. I sure as he!! don't remember it.
Communist have told many big lies, don't believe all of them.

[Felch]

Re: Re: SCIENTIFIC?!

Originally posted by Dark Scorpion


Really!!!??? The Russian scientist were always at its peak if you start thinking from 1800. TNT was first used in Russian laboratories, the table of elements which helped to discover aluminium and helped chemistry a lot. Radio and heavy bombers were first invented in Russia. And I think that the H-bomb is also worth mentioning. And the US didn't even kept with Russia until the 20th century! As a matter a fact before world wars the US was just a far village. And if you consider todays weaponry: MIG29 is better than F15. If you compare the Russian tanks and US tanks during the history, the Russian tanks were always better. US even today doesn't have good air defense that can compete with S300 which was designed 30 years ago . And what is the favorite assault rifle in the world? Kalashnikov NOT M16. So the Russia is truly scientific nation.

First, Russia would probably be considered militaristic before it would be considered scientific. I think a lot of people would agree with that at least.

Second, a large amount of your evidence seems to me to be pretty misleading. Let's just go through it bit by bit. . .

Alfred Nobel is generally accepted as the inventor of TNT. Although the Russians may have been the first to apply it, that's hardly what most people would consider to be most important.

Radio is attributed to Marconi. I'm not so sure if he's Russian. I haven't heard of any Russian heavy bombers that predate the Anglo-American four engine bombers. So provide me with evidence about that.

The Periodic Table of the Elements was based on prior work by other European scientists, who had recognized that different elements in certain "octaves," or groups of eight, behave similarly. Which is not to discredit the Russian acheivment, just remind you that it was done by standing on the shoulders of giants.

The Hydrogen bomb was first tested by the United States. the Soviets were about nine months later.

The U.S. was hardly a far off village before the 20th century. In fact Russia was the first foreign country to purchase machine guns from America, when their military placed an order for Gatling guns. Not to mention other 19th century inventions such as the telephone, the incandecent light bulb, the phonograph, motion pictures, the cotton gin, and the ironclad warship. At the turn of the century America was a modern industrial nation, while Russia was still mostly agrarian.

Is leave the rest of your rant to the others to pick apart, although I would like to point out that THAAD is an air defense tool that is far more advanced than anything the Russians have.

If I made any errors, and I probably have, please enlighten me.

[JT3]

I don't think so.

Youre mistaking. The MIG 29 (by the way there is also MIG31 which is even better) has an ultimate speed which overruns even missiles, so its almost imposible to shoot it down.
As a matter a fact many US soldiers in Vietnam war used AK47 because it was imposible to clean or discmantle the M16 without loosing small parts of the rifle AK never had such prolems. Its a cheap, good and easy to use weapon. Some can fuly dismantle and combine AK in 5 seconds can you do it with M16?
I was talking about taks during the whole history period not just modern time, but tooday there is no better tenk than T-98
By the way when S300 was used in Vietnam war thay once shot down 200 planes in a single day.
Also check the history of the first Iraq war. The ONLY army which didnt loose the single tank in the desert because of the enviroment was Syrian army which used Russian tanks. Shoold I say that US tanks didn't go that smoothly
I forgot to meantion the Russian helicopters for example KA50 "Black Shark" or KA52 "Alligator".

First off, it's "mistaken," not "mistaking." And secondly, no I'm not. The MiG-29 cannot outrun missiles, unless you're talking about those developed in the early 50's. No aircraft can outrun advanced air-to-air missiles except perhaps the SR-71, and even that would fall prey to the most modern weapons. The MiG-31 is, quite frankly, a cockpit and wings strapped to two big engines. It cannot dogfight, it cannot fly low, and it most certainly cannot defeat the F-15.

The stories of Americans using AK-47s are true in part because they were using M-14's until the late 60's. In the final years of Vietnam, M-16s were used, but they were the basic versions without the many refinements of today, so naturally they had flaws. Those flaws were fixed.

There is no T-98. I have no idea where you pulled this one from.

The S-300 was most definitely not used in Vietnam, and it also most definitely did not shoot down 200 planes in one day. I'd like to see where you got this info from, as it probably also says that Elvis designed the F-22 and that we're using UFOs to contact Mars and get more technology from them.

The US army did not lose a single vehicle in the Gulf War.

The Ka-50 and Ka-52 are quite good, but the AH-64D is marginally better.

If you doubt me, try asking anyone who participates in the Destiny of the World forum. We talk about this stuff a lot. You can find it here if you're interested: http://www.tb3.org.uk/cgi-bin/forum/ultimatebb.cgi

[joer]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
We don´t know anything about the costs of the Cossack yet. It may be cheaper than an ordinary cavalry.

I believe I've read somewhere 'official' that the UU always have the same production cost (not neccessarily ressources) than the standard unit they are based on. I cannot quote it now, though. Correct me if I am wrong.

In case the cossack is indeed cheaper, sure, that'd give it a nice advantage.

Furthermore, do you really think a cavalry that has reasonable defense against rifles, high attack and immense speed, and that will be viable, though marginally, up to and including WWII, 'sucks'?

I don't think the cavalry sucks, I just think that it sucks if a civ has to give its single one important UU away for a marginal advantage in an area which isn't especially useful. Yes, cavalries are highly useful. But the real question is, are the cossacks so much better than ordinary cavalries to give the Russians a real edge over others in that era? I still have my doubts.

Originally posted by Ironwood
In all these land based 4x games, one thing I often find myself doing is sending out some cavalry, artillery, and riflemen. The group is slow, because the artillery can't keep up, and I need that rifleman, anyway, since a rifleman, if he wants, can take out a calvary unit. If I don't need the artillery, they could move faster, but it's still nice to set up on a nearby mountaintop, keep an infantry unit (rifleman, musketeer, whatever) and spend the next turn pounding from there.

The Cossak doesn't have so much of a weankess in this area. The added defense seems small, but is multiplied when one considers terrain bonuses. Thus the cossak is master both of the plains (since he can outrun anyone there) and the hills (the extra defense makes him impervious to most attacks when multiplied. Put him on a mountintop, and I'll bet he can't even be touched by the contemporary artillary unit. Or at least, it won't be an easy win.

Good, interesting point.

However, the Civ3 cavalry (6-3-3) isn't as tough as the Civ2 cavalry (8-3-2), but slightly better than a Civ2 dragoon (5-2-2, I believe). So I would suspect that with the advent of rifleman (assuming that they get a defense of 4), cavalries won't be tough enough to make storms against cities anyways. They might not even rule the open battlefield. Which would mean that during the mid-industrial age, we have to rely on big guns anyways for city attacks. That leaves the cavalry's role as companion and heavy scout for slower, more vulnerable attack trecks.

[redfox74]

deleted by the author