Leaders get certain bonuses (1 leader may have 2 UU and a UB, while another have 1 UB and a unique trait

Since UUs and UBs are apparently back, what UUs and UBs would you like to see in CivV?

Personally I think there could be more Siege UUs (such as Scorpio for Rome). I also think there could be mercenaries (such as Genoese crossbowmen) that only certain civs could hire.

One UU i would like to see Navy Seals man they kick ass..

So do the SAS and MI5. I don't want them as UUs though, as they're not representative of civilisation as a whole.

if egyptians are in id like to see them with a UU other than the War chariot. i love the egyptians but disliked the war chariot. they had a very small time frame where they were usefull and became obsolete too fast.

UU and UB are older concepts, I would prefer civ5 to come up with something entirely new.

if egyptians are in id like to see them with a UU other than the War chariot.

Seconded.

The Egyptians invented chariots and they were the tanks of the Ancient World. It's a perfect fit.

The Egyptians invented chariots and they were the tanks of the Ancient World. It's a perfect fit.

historically, yes. but gameplay wise, no. the chariots in Civ failed and were too short lived and (as i said before) became obsolete too soon.

I always thought of the WC as a pretty good UU. An earlier, 2-move axeman? Okay!

I hope the Cho-ko-nu stays for China. The Rider of Civ3 was kind of an odd choice for me.

I'd also like the Persian Immortals to be like what they were in history, isntead of the light cavalry weirdness in Civ4.

Indeed. Bit odd that they ride horses without knowledge of Horseback Riding.

Replace what? Spears? Axes? Swords? (assuming those still exist).

I hope A. Native America (but not in that form- Sioux+Iroquois preferably, or just one) still exists (probably in an expansion), and they keep the good Dog Soldier UU- nicely historical- but not that awful and cheesy Totem Pole- which was only used by the smaller and less organized tribes of the Northwest, and has little bearing on real history.

Totem Pole even became obsolete in game. It seems just unfair to me.
Do not make UU obsolete or make up other later UU for them.

if egyptians are in id like to see them with a UU other than the War chariot. i love the egyptians but disliked the war chariot. they had a very small time frame where they were usefull and became obsolete too fast.

Depends on what you're playing. In multiplayer you could pretty much win the game with only war chariots if you're playing a teamer. If you're doing a FFA you still can still use the WC to take enough land to secure a later victory.

The War Chariot is so iconic to the Western perception of Egypt I'd find it hard that it won't be the Egyptian UU.

The Egyptians invented chariots and they were the tanks of the Ancient World. It's a perfect fit.

No, they didn't.

Speaking of chariots, with the new resource system they could divide chariotry into bigas, trigas and quadrigas, couldn't they?

Personally, I'm a huge fan of UBs (moreso than UUs, I think). Only reason I play the dutch is 'cause of the levee - maoi statues for every city? Yes, thank you! Anyway, for the civs that are likely to be in Vanilla, I'd like something other than the stock exchange for England. But the Forum is awesome for Rome, I love it to bits.

The Egyptians invented chariots and they were the tanks of the Ancient World. It's a perfect fit.
historically, yes. but gameplay wise, no. the chariots in Civ failed and were too short lived and (as i said before) became obsolete too soon.
That seems like more of a complaint about the tech tree than the War Chariot itself. Slightly different tech tree and they can be longer-lived.

I would like to see a multitude of Unique Units for each civilization...

As far as specifics go, I've always thought the British should have a stronger/better Longbowmen, mainly from my experiences with the Age of Empires series. :king:

I would like to see France use something else than the Musketeer. A Knight or Cuirassier replacement would be great and it would suit the French fighting style better. Persia should get a Cataphract UU instead of the immortals, since the Persian practically invented heavy cavalry. It could be something in between your standard Horseman and Knight.

I would like to see a multitude of Unique Units for each civilization...

As far as specifics go, I've always thought the British should have a stronger/better Longbowmen, mainly from my experiences with the Age of Empires series. :king:

Yes, English longbowmen could make a great UU. Unfortunately, their naming is kind of dull. Is there any alternative name for them?

Yeoman?

I don't think it's particularly accurate, but it's a little more colourful.

You could name them Yeoman Archers, Retinue Longbowmen or Kings Yeoman.

Well personaly i associate british army with redcoats not some Yeoman that i have never heard of well those are just my thoughts....

I usually think of ships when I think of English military.
I think that the UU for the civs I like to see in the game should be:
England: Dreadnaught Battleship
USA: US Marine
Russia: Cossack
Persia: Immortal (but a heavy cavalry type unit this time)
China: Cho-Ku-Nu
France: Cuirassier
Spain: Galleon or Tercio
Japan: Samurai
Arabia: CamelArcher
Rome: Legion
Greece: Phalanx or Greek Flamethrower:cool:
Ottoman Empire: Sipahi
Germany: Panzer or Jet-Fighter
Egypt: War Chariot or maybe a Mamluk instead of a knight

That seems like more of a complaint about the tech tree than the War Chariot itself. Slightly different tech tree and they can be longer-lived.

essentially that is correct :)

Apparently since UUs and UBs are tied to leaders now, and that some leaders won't have UUs and UBs, I think that would change a lot of things.

For example, if we have, say, Stalin as leader of the Russians, then Russia technically shouldn't have a Cossack UU, but instead, say, a T-34 Tank UU. Or, as another example, if Washington is leader of the Americans, the Americans probably wouldn't have a Mall as a UB. Because of this, I really want to have multiple leaders per civ.

Do you have a source that says that UU and UB are tied to a Leader?

It's according to a Danish magazine interview, so I admit it may not be reliable, because even if everything the interview said was true, it may change by the time of the final release. But we really only have two sources of information right now, including this interview; anyhow, here's the thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=354156

Please, don't include Camel Archers as Arabic UU's. A more accurate UU would be the Ghulams. Basicaly slave soldiers that were used throught the Near and Middle East.

Well if this is true than that's just AWESOME. This way the Leader would become stronger during his/her specific Era. I can see the possibilities, lets say Britain has four Leaders. Richard Lionheart, Elizabeth, Victoria and Churchill. As Richard you get an Yeoman Archer, as Elizabeth you get a Privateer, as Victoria you get the Dreadnaught and Churchill gets a RAF Spitfire.:cool:

Persia: Immortal (but a heavy cavalry type unit this time)

Why heavy cavalry? According to Wikipedia, Herodotus described the Immortals as being heavy infantry.

I'm talking about the Sassanid era Immortals, those were heavy cavalry units. The Persian had very powerful cavalry armies especially during the Sassanids, so I would like to see this show in civ5.

Achaemenid period "Immortals" were infantry; latter Sassanid period "Immortals" cavalry.

edit: xpost

Well personaly i associate british army with redcoats not some Yeoman that i have never heard of well those are just my thoughts....

During the time of the British Empire ca. the 17th-19th century, yes, however keep in mind that the British in the game represent the entire history of said civilization. Therefore, that single UU does little to represent everything that came before it and during the Medieval period the English Longbowmen was a powerful and successful unit.

With the possibility of UU's being tied to particular leaders, they could finally give the English a medieval leader who could produce the unique longbowmen.

I think Palestine's UU is going to be the Fedayeen, replacing the modern infantry, perhaps being invisible, but at the cost of health, or perhaps the suicide bomber - a cheaper cruise missile, perhaps?

As for their UB, although Firaxis may surprise us on this one, I think it's going to be the Infant School, which perhaps produces a suicide bomber every 8 turns. It's downside would be that it is the first building to be destroyed if its city is bombarded.

Personally, I think of the navy when it comes to England/GB, and if they have the UU's ties to leaders, you could put different ships, like the man o' war from civ III, and Art Grin's idea of a dreadnought, or perhaps we could have some good air force UU's (Harrier/Spitfire)

Keep Cossacks, though don't make them useless in single player like they are now. And keep Redcoats: they are nice flavour.

Definitely get rid of Keshiks and Praetorians, as palace guards shouldn't be UUs.

I am just for the UU to match the leader. Having a Navy Seal for Washington is silly. Like wise, having a Redcoat for Queen Elizabeth is just as foolish.

If UT/UBs fall under the same rule. Than having multi leaders means multi game plans per civ. Which just makes the game better.

There are some UUs I simply think have to be in: the Roman Legionary (why call them Praetorians?), the Egyptian chariot, the English Redcoat, the Greek Phalanx. And why not the French Crusader (Knight)?

There are some UUs I simply think have to be in: the Roman Legionary (why call them Praetorians?)

I agree with this. Legoinary is better name than Praetorian. I also hope Marines for the U.S. aren't replaced by a UU like the Navy Seals, mainly because the USMC is an awesome force in its own right. Going Civ III style with F-15's is a winner, but so would replacing Modern Armor with M-1 Abrams.

I agree with the M1s and legions idea, but not with the redcoats, again GB and the Royal Navy

the Redcoats were kind of funny - a unique frigate (or ship-of-the-line) would make so much more sense for the British but it was like they were shying away from putting in naval unique units . . . and then BtS comes out with naval UU's for Portugal and Netherlands.

If they took out the Redcoat, there could be a Guard or something similar for the French (though that would just mean pushing their UU back from musketeer to rifleman or grenadier).

the Redcoats were kind of funny - a unique frigate (or ship-of-the-line) would make so much more sense for the British but it was like they were shying away from putting in naval unique units . . . and then BtS comes out with naval UU's for Portugal and Netherlands.

If they took out the Redcoat, there could be a Guard or something similar for the French (though that would just mean pushing their UU back from musketeer to rifleman or grenadier).

The original C4 designers were attempting to avoid Naval UUs. BTS was developed by a separate team.

The problem with Naval UUs is that they could have limited use if, say, you're playing on a map-script that doesn't allow for large oceans.

As for UUs, I just remembered that I'd like the War Elephant, or something of that sort, as the UU for India. The Fast Worker of Civ3, though was a lot more useful than I originally thought, a somewhat racist idea in my opinion.

I think the idea of leader specific UUs is cool, but a couple problems I see are:

1) Will Julius and Augustus have the same Legions? What separates the Mongol cavalry of Genghis from that of Kublai Khan?

2) The greatest leaders of the civilizations in question often didn't have the "cool" units to work with (how do we get Chu-ko-nus without including relatively obscure medieval era Chinese leaders?)

3) How will I overrun my foes with Panzers for fun and profit? (Von Papen is not a good answer)

I'd prefer multiple unique units, either scattered across eras (England or Russia) or concentrated in one (Panzers plus Stukas plus U-boats= happy fun times).

War Chariots not a good UU? They are an excellent UU! They can carve out a massive empire for you in the ancient/classical era.

I think the Americans should get the minuteman as a UU, and the French should get a more medieval UU, or a Napoleonic one.

Some UUs and explainations; in my opinion, each civ should have more then one UU.

For the British:
- Yeomanry (someone suggested this earlier)
- Redcoats (Napoleon himself said that they were the best infantry of the time)
- HMS Dreadnaught (Although Dreadnaughts as a whole shouldn't be civ specific)
- Avro Lancaster (What can I say? Personal preference)

For the Americans:
- Rangers (the eighteenth century variety meaning skirimishers)
- Seventh Cavalry (they were actually quite good from what I heard, even if thier general was not)
- Marines (modern elite troops - oo-rah!)
- F-22 Raptor (most advanced fighter in the world)

For the Germans:
- Visigoths (could replace swordsmen, perhaps)
- Knights Templar (one could argue that these could be French as well)
- Fokker D. VIII (I think that was von Richofen's plane - was it?)
- Panzer V. Panther (best tank of World War 2, just barely beating the T34 IMO)

For the French:
- Gaullic Tribesmen (don't know what they'd replace)
- Foot Knights (like the ones at Poitiers, except not incompetent)
- Gloire (first ironclad warship)
- Renault FT-17 (first turreted tank)

Forgive my Eurocentric view - I know most about them.

M1 Abrams would make a great UU IMO, but its problem is that, with leader-specific UUs and UBs (assuming they are implemented), it would a require a leader from the 80's, 90's, 00's or 10's. Thus I think that Minutemen have much greater chance to be included as they fit the time of Washington's leadership.

I don't think that the M1 is a good idea. If the US should get a modern UU than it should be an Aircraft or a Marine. I'm not saying that the M1 is a bad tank but there are superior tanks. Also adding Reagan, Carter, Bush Father or Bush Junior wouldn't be a good idea.
I would like to see the Japanese have two Leader. Maybe Tokugawa as a medieval leader with a Samurai UU and Hirohito or some post WWII Prime Minister with a Battleship or Aircraft UU.

I'm talking about the Sassanid era Immortals, those were heavy cavalry units. The Persian had very powerful cavalry armies especially during the Sassanids, so I would like to see this show in civ5.

Achaemenid period "Immortals" were infantry; latter Sassanid period "Immortals" cavalry.

edit: xpost

My bad.

Also adding Reagan, Carter, Bush Father or Bush Junior wouldn't be a good idea.

So true (especially the last one).

I would like to see the Japanese have two Leader. Maybe Tokugawa as a medieval leader with a Samurai UU and Hirohito or some post WWII Prime Minister with a Battleship or Aircraft UU.

I think that Hirohito won't most definitely be a Japanese leader, because Firaxis even banned him from the BTS WWII scenario IIRC. Post WWII Japanese prime ministers are too unknown to be included in Civ IMO. Anyhow, Japan should have two leaders IMO: Tokugawa and Meiji.

I think that Hirohito won't most definitely be a Japanese leader, because Firaxis even banned him from the BTS WWII scenario IIRC. Post WWII Japanese prime ministers are too unknown to be included in Civ IMO. Anyhow, Japan should have two leaders IMO: Tokugawa and Meiji.

Prince Shotoku, who was the actual ruler of Japan in the 7th century, would be a good alternative Japanese ruler. Unlike Tokugawa, he welcomed foreign contacts; in his day, may Chinese and Koreans with special skills moved to Japan, and Buddhism and Confucianism were introduced. Japanese learning and the Japanese economy flourished. Shotoku could be Creative and Organized, or Creative and Financial.

They did ban him from the WWII scenario, I didn't know that.But my guess id it's going to be Tokugawa again.
I wonder if the Russians under Stalin will still be using the Cossak or will they get an Tank replacement?

Prince Shotoku, who was the actual ruler of Japan in the 7th century, would be a good alternative Japanese ruler. Unlike Tokugawa, he welcomed foreign contacts; in his day, may Chinese and Koreans with special skills moved to Japan, and Buddhism and Confucianism were introduced. Japanese learning and the Japanese economy flourished. Shotoku could be Creative and Organized, or Creative and Financial.

Even though Prince Shotoku was a great leader, I prefer Meiji to him, and for variety's sake, I think we should have both non-militaristic and militaristic leaders for Japan.

Personally I find it funny thswt they banned Hirohito, but not Stalin or Mao Zedong who each killed millions.

I have nothing against banning Hitler but Hirohito, the guy didn't do a thing. He was also the only Axis Leader to continue leading his nation after the war. But back on topic or else this ends as discussion who is worse Hitler or Stalin(I can't see those discussions anymore).
I think the Russian UU should be the Cossak or a T-34, but they could also use something really new like Strelzi which would replace the Musketman.:)

I have nothing against banning Hitler but Hirohito, the guy didn't do a thing. He was also the only Axis Leader to continue leading his nation after the war. But back on topic or else this ends as discussion who is worse Hitler or Stalin(I can't see those anymore).
I think the Russian UU should be the Cossak or a T-34, but they could also use something really new like Strelzi which would replace the Musketman.:)

Haha the Strelzi (Strelets) made it into Age of Empires 3 and they were incredibly awesome, especially when they pulled out their axes for hand to hand combat. :D

Considering those guys get ignored by games pretty much. I could live with them as the Russian UU. It would be something refreshing for once in a while and not the same Cossaks again.

I believe Assyrians invented chariots, not Egypt.

And someone mentioned it being unfair for a UB to become obsolete (totem pole). But a lot of UB's are available late game, like the Russian of American UB in Civ4.

As for the Egyptian chariots, the traditional theory is that it was brought to Egypt by the mysterious Semitic "Hyksos" peoples, although from what I know recent research indicates it may have existed in Egypt in earlier times, too.

If I remember correctly, it was the Sumerians who invented chariots. They invented the wheel, and it didn't take too long for them to get chariots. There have been scenes at Sumerian archaeological sites that show these primitive, four-wheeled chariots.

Considering those guys get ignored by games pretty much. I could live with them as the Russian UU. It would be something refreshing for once in a while and not the same Cossaks again.

I agree, would be quite refreshing.

Strelets are really fun. They'd be musketmen with 7 strength but cheap as axemen.

Cheap as axeman maybe, but not 7 strength; that's a downgrade

And someone mentioned it being unfair for a UB to become obsolete (totem pole). But a lot of UB's are available late game, like the Russian of American UB in Civ4.

I said that because I usually don't build monument-like buildings so I'm biased! :mischief:

The Egyptians invented chariots and they were the tanks of the Ancient World. It's a perfect fit.

More like Apache helicopter. I watched an editorial on the history channel that stated that a division of chariots charged firing arrows all the while and wheeled about going the opposite direction in retreat. "So many arrows were fired in succession it was like being fired on by an Apache helicopter," in his words.

The Egyptians invented chariots and they were the tanks of the Ancient World. It's a perfect fit.

We're not certain who invented the chariot, but we are certain it wasn't the Egyptians. Mesopotamia has the earliest evidence in the settled regions of the Levant (where evidence is most likely to be preserved), but it may have been developed in somewhere in what is now the south of Russia by an unknown people. It's actually quite an inappropriate UU for the Egyptians, because of the problems Egypt traditionally has had keeping horses and because chariots are more associated with Egypt's enemies (though Egypt itself eventually adopted it).