4 Unique units I'd like to see

[Martinus]

Just had a thought about Dutch unit. Wasn't a special Dutch ship called "Fluyt"? IIRC it was a fast strong ship, good in defending convoys etc. Perhaps it could be a Frigate with increased movement and/or defense?

[Ribannah]

The Fluyt is a 17th century Merchantman, not really a warship, although the Dutch often put cannons on their merchant vessels rather than having warships protect their trade convoys.

[Shiva]

Re: 4 Unique units I'd like to see

Originally posted by chocoballs
The F15 for for the US unique is a bit light. I'd have rather seen a unique aircraft carrier. one that has an extremely high defence and greater range.

I agree except you have to win a combat with a uu to start a GA. If they could set it up somehow so it could cause a GA then I'd switch in a heartbeat. Our carriers have been something we have been noted for for almost 60 years now.

Originally posted by chocoballs
Where are the Spanish conquistadors?!!

With the Spanish, not in the game.

Originally posted by chocoballs
What was more dominant, the German Panzer or the German U-Boat? Was the U-Boat THE enemy for the longest time? That would be a killer industrial period unit.
[/QUOTE]

The panzer was far more dominant and for a longer time than the U-boats short reign.

[Shiva]

Re: Re: 4 Unique units I'd like to see

Originally posted by orange


Extremely unsensitive and not accurate. Why do people keep suggesting this?

Because all people (and notice) see on tv are fanatics burning the flag and equate it that all are like that. Thing is alot of people would be surprised how many Muslims they walk past or work with every day and never even know it.

[Infanteer]

My personal suggestion would have been Tiger I or Panther A as the German UU, and not "Panzer".

Just a note; the Panther and the Tiger tanks were "panzers"...Panzerkampfwagon Mark V and VI respectivly.
Panzer is not out of line.

[Rasbelin]

I know that both the Tiger I and Panther A are "Panzers", but I wanted to be more specific than just Panzer.

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Infanteer

Panzerkampfwagon

A small note: Panzerkampfwagen.

[Gaius Marius]

Originally posted by brandon749

on land until the final years of teh war when the American sherman and others were the finest on the field.

What are you talking about? The Sherman was a deathtrap, and its drivers admitted it. It took five Shermans to take down a Tiger - this was part of US Army doctrine at the time. It was too lightly armored, undergunned (short 75mm had no AP vs and German tank after the early Pzkpfw IVs), and wasn't super-fast, either. The Brits upgraded it by putting in a 17 pounder (Firefly), which could do some damage, but the Sherman survived until the end of the war in close to its original config in the US army. Not until the Pershing (M90 I believe) came out in 1945 did the US have a capable MBT. Only numbers made the campaigns of 1944 possible.

Every main power in 1944 had a better MBT than the US. Even the British...though they weren't as reliable in field conditions (a great advantage of the Sherman, especailly since the US had SCADS of spare parts and mechanics).


Anyway, back on topic,

The f15 is OK as CSU, although a naval unit would be equally appropriate. Carriers, of course, would fit best, but F15s (broadly representing US fighter tech, incl. F14s, F18s, etc.) launched from a Carrier triggering a Golden Age seems pretty appropriate.

4 attack is too strong for a Crossbowman. The idea is good, but there isn't much room at the archer level for a better yet not redundant unit. Making them cheaper is too much of an impact at that early stage. Maybe they could replace the Longbowman, and have a 5 attack, or be cheaper. That would fit the historical appearance of the unit better, as well.

Rock on.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Rasbelin
My personal suggestion would have been Tiger I or Panther A as the German UU, and not "Panzer".

Mmmm, wouldn't have chosen the A model. It is the one with the bad engine and no AA weapon. I think the D or G model would have been a better choice.

[Vladimir Taltos]

Accuracy vs Popular Knowledge

When Firaxis assigned the names to the UU's, they went for what the commmon person knows about history and world events. Take the Panther for example. I haven't played Squad Leader in over ten years, so I do not know if the Tiger or the Greyhound or the Panzer is the dominant example of German armor might during WWII. What I do know is that everyone in Europe and America recognizes the name of the Panzer and readily identifies it. Don't even worry about the A/B/C/D evolutions either, because the Panzer like all the other weapons were upgraded as they learned from the previous models.

Another example is the Spanish UU. Conquistidors are famous because they singlehandedly changed the course of an entire continent. I know there were ony a few but they had an impact beyond their numbers. The Spanish ship is known for two things: Being sunk by burning ships in the English Channel and being sunk by pirates (Hmm should Spanish Galleons have a penalty vs. privateers?). Thats why my vote would be for the Conquistidor. Again I speak from popular knowledge and not an in-depth analysis of the units.

Being a sailor in the U.S. Navy, I fully agree that either battleships or aircraft carriers should be the American UU. While the F-15 is a sweet aircraft, it is merely the latest and soon to be obsolete in the sterling line of U.S. fighters. As far as activating GA goes for the aircraft carrier, it would be when an aircraft on the carrier does a succesful bomb or intercept mission (code allowing).

Viking UU: Longship, Trireme that can go in shallow/medium water and deep water if the Lighthouse is built.

[Dry]

Re: Accuracy vs Popular Knowledge

Originally posted by Vladimir Taltos
Don't even worry about the A/B/C/D evolutions either, because the Panzer like all the other weapons were upgraded as they learned from the previous models.

Carefull here. Don't mix up Panzer and Panther.

Panzer is a general name; it means 'armor' or 'armored' in German. It designate any armored vehicle.
Panther is only the nickname of the PazerKampfWagen ('armored fighting vehicle') type 5 (or PzKw V). The same way 'Tiger' is the nickname of the PzKw VI - model B, 'King Tiger' for model E.

[Kekkonen]

UU for the Finnish civilization (if someone decides to put it in a mod):

The Finnjävel (Swedish for "Finnish Bastard", a derogatory term for Finnish immigrants in the 60s and 70s):

* replaces the Warrior;
* is a normal 1/1/1 Warrior, unless the civilization is supplied with wine, in which case it turns into a 4/2/1 terror rivaling the Persian Immortals; cutting the supply of wine reverts the unit back to normal Warrior status.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Gaius Marius


What are you talking about? The Sherman was a deathtrap, and its drivers admitted it. It took five Shermans to take down a Tiger - this was part of US Army doctrine at the time. It was too lightly armored, undergunned (short 75mm had no AP vs and German tank after the early Pzkpfw IVs), and wasn't super-fast, either. The Brits upgraded it by putting in a 17 pounder (Firefly), which could do some damage, but the Sherman survived until the end of the war in close to its original config in the US army. Not until the Pershing (M90 I believe) came out in 1945 did the US have a capable MBT. Only numbers made the campaigns of 1944 possible.

Every main power in 1944 had a better MBT than the US. Even the British...though they weren't as reliable in field conditions (a great advantage of the Sherman, especailly since the US had SCADS of spare parts and mechanics).

Dead on

And the reason for this foolishness in the US army was the tank/tank destroyer split by the officers that handled procurement. During the war you had a group of war department generals whos fear of losing face and power by the TD fading away caused them to cause more trouble than the Airforces "Fighter mafia" gang ever has. Not to mention that it got alot of soldiers killed.

[Bambul]

American CSU

I still think that the most appropriate CSU should be a land based one and that the Americans and British are at a disadvantage in trying to get a GA with sea or air units (eg. I just played my last game as the Brits, I had to wait till 1900 to get a GA from building a wonder).

Which leads me to what I was going to say, whats wrong with giving the Americans a beefed up marine? They are naval units (sort of) and historically accurate. But most importantly, they could be used on land, making a GA much easier to attain.

[spiky82]

hey ppl! it's so cool to see so many ideas in this thread!

nehow, regarding the american CSU, someone mentioned that the F-15 is gonna be obsolete pretty soon....and he/she is right.
what i wanna know is why firaxis decided to take out f-22 outa game (civ2 stealth fighter)...i 4 one think that F-22 should be the new CSU for the Americans as soon as the graphic/animations editing becomes possible...

One thought about an aircraft carrier being USA CSU is puzzling to me: all CSUs hafta attack successfully to start golden age...an aircraft carrier relies on the plane it carries, NOT itself, to carry out the attacks. So how is it suppose to start the golden age...
and more over, even without the golden age thought, aircraft carrier's strength is judged by the planes that it carries...planes do the attacks ultimately...this is my reason for stating F-22 should be the new CSU...

Sorry if i was a bit repetitive

p.s. i'm not trying to diss neone....i apologize in advance if neone was offended