Need feedback on improving 3 UU's

[UnityScoutChopper]

Hi all,

I agree with the criticisms some have raised of three of the UU's: the musketeer, the man-o-war, and the war elephant. I've thought of some replacements for them, and am already using one of the replacements.

I replaced the Indians with the Polynesians, not because the Polynesians are more worthy of inclusion in Civ, but because they better fit my idea for an interesting UU: the Catamaran. This is a 1-1-4, sink in Ocean only replacement for the Galley. I've been using it in practice on high-land, archipelago maps and found it basically useful, basically as useful as the Lighthouse, which is to say: a bit less than having a Wonder .

For the French, I'm considering either a 2-5-1 Musketeer replacement, or a 1-4-1 Pikeman replacement.

For the Brits, I'm considering a 5-1-1 Longbowman replacement (wasn't it the Brits who had the famous bows in, um, that famous historical battle?)

Erik

[PresidentMike]

Re: Need feedback on improving 3 UU's

Originally posted by UnityScoutChopper
For the Brits, I'm considering a 5-1-1 Longbowman replacement (wasn't it the Brits who had the famous bows in, um, that famous historical battle?)

At the battle of Crecy, fought on 26 August, 1346, the French army, commanded by Phillip IV, met the invading English army of Edward III. The overconfidant French, seeing that they outnumbered their enemies, charged the massed English longbowmen and were slaughtered. Although no one knows exactly how many casulties the Enlgish inflicted, some reports claim that as many as 10,000 French dead littered the field.

Sixty-nine years later, at the battle of Agincourt (25 October 1415), the French repeated their mistake. This time the English were lead by Henry V, ("we few, we happy few, we band of brothers, for he who sheds his blood with me today shall be my brother"), who was Edward III's great-grandson. The French king, Charles VI, was insane and his army was led on the field by Jean Boucicaut, "one of the great soldiers of the age of chivalry." Once again the French far outnumbered the English, and once again they charged the massed English longbowmen, with predictable results (once takes a certain kind of stupidity, but TWICE!!!). Thousands of French knights fell and the number of French prisoners actually exceeded the size of the English army! Deciding that he could not risk handling so many POW's, Henry ordered them killed. This was at first unpopular, since prisoners could be exchanged for ransom, but when a rumour spread that the French intended the cut the right hand off every archer they captuered, the English went at it with gusto.

[Nosferum]

---Yes, essentially, the Longbow began the obsolescence of the Knight. The power of the Longbow could pierce plate armor, which was new. The advent of gunpowder helped finish off the plate armor completely.

---The English used wood from the Yew tree for their Longbows-- thus, to use a Longbow was to "pluck Yew". The French armies had a policy of demoralizing the Longbowmen they captured by cutting off their forefinger and middle finger (the ones used to pluck the bow). After many battles, the defiant English bowmen would hold up their hands, with the forefinger and middle finger extended as if to show they can still "pluck Yew". This, of course, lead to the middle-finger version of similar phonetics. =)

[UnityScoutChopper]

Hey, thanks, Mike!

So it sounds like the improved longbowmen would have the right historical flavor (though perhaps those at Crecy and Agincourt were not actually better than average, just facing a dumber opponent than average). As far as their usefulness, my thought is that it would be a fairly effective unit, able to take cities with less rest time and fewer casualties than a normal longbowman, but cheaper than a knight, and able to stay effective when the enemy has pikemen or musketeers.

The improved pikeman, similarly, would be a fairly guaranteed knight-killer when fortified in a city, and would still be able to limp along against cavalry, allowing later upgrading.

I.e. I'm thinking both would have average to good usefulness, unlike the current bottom-of-the-line musketeer and man-o-war.

Oh, any thoughts on names for them would be good too.

Erik

[Arc]

Good ideas there.

Myself i made the longbowman English only, available with feudalism. Cheaper to produce than knights, so they are finally built for a purpose...

The man o war well, i made it for available for "no civ". Truely the least useful UU of the game, just after the F-15

Beside that i hate changing the UU. There is no way to remove them as a few (legionnary, panzer and immortals mostly) play a HUGE part in each concerned civ strategy. And hey add some fun

[Nosferum]

---I admit to never fidgeting with the editor. However, let me rave. Rather than worrying about balancing the basic math of x.x.x, which is too easy to imbalance, I'd like to be able to give units more health. For example, maybe the Gauls would have a Swordsman that was always a Veteran and didn't require Iron. The idea is that the Gauls didn't have a singular army-- the military were just civilians. Heck, Norse law once required all citizens to own a weapon and armor.

---Maybe some units could go invisible for one turn. The AI would not respond to the unit for that turn. Maybe some units could do both regular attack AND ranged attack.

[zulu9812]

I don't have a problem with the Man O'War as the English UU - they prospered as world power because of their navy. I know the Man O'War isn't as good as other UUs, but just change it's stats.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by zulu9812
I don't have a problem with the Man O'War as the English UU - they prospered as world power because of their navy. I know the Man O'War isn't as good as other UUs, but just change it's stats.

I did a lot with lethal bombardment values. One thing I did was give Man O War lethal sea bombardment... but a regular frigate no lethal values.

[vmxa1]

I think the problem most have with the ManOWar is that its life span is so short. Not that in real life it was not a fine unit, just that in the game it is soon obsolete.

[Keeper of Hell]

The Man'O'War

Originally posted by zulu9812
I don't have a problem with the Man O'War as the English UU - they prospered as world power because of their navy. I know the Man O'War isn't as good as other UUs, but just change it's stats.

The problem isn't really the stats, the problem is that naval dominance is almost a complete nonissue in the Middle Ages. With Galleons as the premeir transport vessels, it's no wonder- you can't transport troops with any reasonable degree of efficiency with such small capacity. And really, naval combat in Civ3 centers around troop transportation. Although the bombardment can be O.K. as a really annoying harrassment technique, aircraft and artillery-type units are far more useful for bombardment. The only non-transport-guarding use for ships is Nuclear Subs w/ Tactical Nukes, and that's nearly nullfied by the fact that ICBMs are about 2x as good.

[Ninot]

I truly wish Naval trade were easier to just STOP by having a majority of the naval units in a body of water. Like a blockade without actually being on the cities face

if it were, alot of subs in the water would be dangerous

and if the waters were more important, ships would be too