Just wondering if Cossacks really is the right unit for Russia. Didn't they make a greater influence in the world during the Soviet-era, which in that case should be the time when they get a UU to trigger a golden age.
I just got some trouble to come up with a good unit, but it should be from somewhere around the 60's, if I'm not totally wrong.

Anyone got some suggestions?!

Cossacks did well raiding the retreating french army from Russia in 1812, and that was not the Soviet era! ;)

In my view Cossacs are a good Russian/Ukraninan Unit. They colonized most of Syberia, protected Eastern Russia from Nomades, South from Tatars and Turcs, fought against Poles. Cossacks were always loyal to the government unless it decided to restrict their freedom and demonstrated courage and loyalty in every major Russian War.
Although from 1922 Russia was a part of USSR and in that time many military and scientific discoveries were made. I would put T-34, or Katushya as my second choice of a special unit for Russia. Third choice would be a special partisan unit :).

In my view Cossacs are a good Russian/Ukraninan Unit. They colonized most of Syberia, protected Eastern Russia from Nomades, South from Tatars and Turcs, fought against Poles. Cossacks were always loyal to the government unless it decided to restrict their freedom and demonstrated courage and loyalty in every major Russian War.
Although from 1922 Russia was a part of USSR and in that time many military and scientific discoveries were made. I would put T-34, or Katushya as my second choice of a special unit for Russia. Third choice would be a special partisan unit :).

Yeah agree! Another choice could be the MIG! ;) :king: :goodjob:

It's nothing wrong in using an unit from the USSR era, afterall lots of people still called the USSR for Russia, and all the Soviet republics where also a part of the royal russian empire!

The USSR power in the sixties wasnt just down to one or two special units, 1 for 1 the allies would win every time. The USSRs power come from strength of numbers (and lack of care for civilians). I reckon there UU should be a WEAKENED infantry type unit, but be extra cheap. Say 4/9/1 (instead of 6/10/1) but be half the amount of shields.

What about a Typhoon class Nuclear sub, able to transport 2 nukes or 4 cruisers, and with greater movement-attack-defence abilities! Would be a Monster at the seas!

The Cossack is a fine choice for Russia.

Yea, a unique nuclear sub would suit them well, even if they weren't in combat as much as the Cossacks it would represent Soviet in that time as well as the peak of the cold war, but maybe they should be made cheaper instead of better!?

It's not that I'm complaining about the Cossacks, they are a good choice, but since the UU should come during the golden age of each nation, I thought that that even if the Cold war was a troublesome time it might be a better choice for Russia:s golden age. Afterall that's probably when they made the greatest impact on the world.

Russias Golden Age was in 1700's. So Cossacs suit Russia fine.
And Jay1b I don't want to reply to the crap you wrote. "West is best" don't get you far in the bigger world. I love the Western cultures and people, but attitude like this about my country makes me mad. I'm trying not to be one-sided and wish others try it too.

Were Russia as powerful in the 1700's as in the 1950's and 60's you say?!
They couldn't be at a global scale due to the technological advancement, so I guess it's arbitrary(?) when their Golden age was, it boils down to how to define the Golden age...

True. But historians officially define Russia's Golden age during the reign of Catherine the I. I do not define the Golden Age as mere best technological advances. For me it is the wealth and spirit of the nation that make a Golden Age. Never associate Golden Age with pure power...
What are your criterias?

Except for agreeing totally with Gelion, I also want to point of that the civilization is indeed Russia, NOT the USSR even if ignorant people confused those two. Just look at the names of the cities, no Kiev, no Minsk etc. In my opinion, the cossack is an excellent choice in my opinion.

Except for agreeing totally with Gelion, I also want to point of that the civilization is indeed Russia, NOT the USSR even if ignorant people confused those two. Just look at the names of the cities, no Kiev, no Minsk etc. In my opinion, the cossack is an excellent choice in my opinion.

Glad someone else is picking up the banner.

Russia does not equal the Soviet Union.

give them the mig or the revoultionary or maybe a medival calvary to represent Ivan the Terrible army that conquered alot

No I'm not ignorant, noone in this thread has confused Russia from Soviet union.
Soviet has played a major role during the 20th century yet it's not a civ in the game.
Why? maybe because Russia by far was the most influential nation in the union which made the developers of civ3 feel it redundant to include both, and between them Russia is the far more appropriate choice to include.
However I see a close connection between the Soviet Union and Russia, even though I understand that they're not the same, and find it hard to believe that you don't do the same.


I think the criterias for when the Golden age-triggering units should become available, would be when the civ's reallife counterpart was able to make the greatest impact on the rest of the world, so i guess it's pretty powerfocused. But this is for me the civ3 golden age criteria, if they manage to make civ4 less focused on war and more on cultural/religious/scientific achievments it might change. The objectives in civ3 often is to take over the world in one way or another....
And what I meant by the tech. advancement was that you would have to compare the power to the other nations at the time to see the relative power of the nation and when it was most powerful. Not math exactly.. :)

Russia is not the same as the Soviet Union, but the Soviet Union is practically the same as Russia.

And in Civ3, isn't Russia's favored gov communism?

No I'm not ignorant, noone in this thread has confused Russia from Soviet union.
Soviet has played a major role during the 20th century yet it's not a civ in the game.
Why? maybe because Russia by far was the most influential nation in the union which made the developers of civ3 feel it redundant to include both, and between them Russia is the far more appropriate choice to include.
However I see a close connection between the Soviet Union and Russia, even though I understand that they're not the same, and find it hard to believe that you don't do the same.



I can't speak for luceafarul but it does appear in some threads that there are some people who seem ignorant of the fact that the Soviet Union and Russia are two seperate countries/nations/civs.

While I would welcome a Soviet Union civ into the game, there must be a clear distinction between the two.

And in Civ3, isn't Russia's favored gov communism?
Just one of the inconsistancies in the game.

There was a time when royalty from all over Europe would summer in St. Petersburg. Of course that was also the time of much royal inbreeding resulting in some weak bloodlines. Genetics aside, is that not the era the designers consider representative of Russia?

Calm down, in Civ1, Stalin was the leaderhead, so they probably had a redundancy in mind when putting in Russia.

I call this "is Russia the Soviet Union or not" nitpicking. Then I want a distinction in the Germans of the Roman Age, the Germany of WW1 and the Nazi-Germany of WW2, too. This would be too much IMO.

The T-34 and the Katyusha Rocket Launcher would make great UU's, too.

But I find all industrial era UU's come by far too late to be really that useful to me.

...I call this "is Russia the Soviet Union or not" nitpicking...

It is, which is why I normally point it out when I start on this topic in a thread. I was late this time and luceafarul beat me to it this time.

The USSR power in the sixties wasnt just down to one or two special units, 1 for 1 the allies would win every time. The USSRs power come from strength of numbers (and lack of care for civilians). I reckon there UU should be a WEAKENED infantry type unit, but be extra cheap. Say 4/9/1 (instead of 6/10/1) but be half the amount of shields.

Not entirely true about Soviet power. Before the invention of the M1-A1 Tank the Soviet Union fielded far superior armored devisions, if a land war had begun they could have rolled across Europe in a few months. Allies did have a great advantage in air and naval power, but not on the land.

That Russia is not the Soviet Union is not nitpicking. This is a game concerning civilizations, not federations, states or empires(You are supposed to build your own).
The Soviet Union was a multi-ethnical and -cultural construction. Just consider that in CIV3 there is also England and not the British Empire, there is no Holy Roman Empire or Hansa in it, and cities like Warszawa, Bucuresti and Oslo are not on the Germans city list.
However, I find life to short for discussions of this modest importance, and hereby rest my case.

I had no interest in discussing this either. It was you who had to point out the ignorance of people confusing Russia from the Soviet Union in a thread where I suggested a Soviet UU for the Russian civ.

As I've said before, I don't think anyone here confuses Russia from the Soviet Union, and I think that the Cossacks are a good choice for the Russian UU. However I see no wrong in giving the Russian civ a Soviet UU instead. Civilization is about civs over time and civs don't exactly stay the same. In a large part of the 20th century Russia had control over the Soviet Union, and it wasn't a union like EU exactly, which was a worldpower.

And if I'm not totally wrong England gets it UU at the height of the British Empire, what's the difference then? In the end Russia was very powerful under the 50's and 60's and could have a nuclear sub as a UU, or should this period be disregarded because they were in a somesort of union?

The Soviet Union is Russia even though it was a group of states, it was lead and controlled by russia, you didnt see any of the little states makeing the choices, if you think about russia conquered those lands in WW2 and never gave them back

The USSR used to be Russia but in the Russian Revolution of 1917 they changed the gov to communism. Before and during WW2 (like Colonel said) Russia (USSR) annexed many of them "For the Soviet Union's own protection," in Stalin's words. But they never gave them their independance after the war. So (depending on how you look at it) Russia was the Soviet Union.

The USSR used to be Russia but in the Russian Revolution of 1917 they changed the gov to communism. Before and during WW2 (like Colonel said) Russia (USSR) annexed many of them "For the Soviet Union's own protection," in Stalin's words. But they never gave them their independance after the war. So (depending on how you look at it) Russia was the Soviet Union.


Yep! The only difference is that before the revolution it was called the russian empire, after the revolution almost the same area was called a union. Communists can't see them selves as imperialists, you see! :king:

This is why people even after the revolution kept calling the USSR for Russia! The only change was the change in government!

Yeah yeah. Debts of Allies to Russian Impire were cancelled as well as vice versa. Millions of Russians murdered, political cleansing in size not to be seen ever in the world. Definitelly the same state :rolleyes:
How about this for an idea:
USA is renamed to the North
Germany to Nazi Germany
Since Russia = USSR all of old Soviet bases to Russia
and unite all former Soviet allies to Russia as there's no goddamn difference ;)

Hi
First: NO DIFFERENCE between Russia and the USSR. In the beginning (1917-1922) most of the former Russian Empire was called Soviet-Russia. Later, it became USSR, by connecting some minor soviet republics. But its origin, its official language and capital city, and its basic culture was Russian. For instance, some could say that it is not USA but NAUS (North-American United States). So, it is a waste of time to debate on names. We, who lived under Soviet dominance thru the Cold War, know it was RUSSIA and nothing else.
Second: the T-34 and the Katyusha seems to be nice UU for Russia. T-34 would be very cheap but somewhat weaker than Tank. But what happens if a civ holds two or more unique units? The Cossack might remain, but the T-34 could appear!

Hello!
Two units is a good idea. I believe its discussed in another thread.
Well T-34 is widely known as the best tank of WW2 I don't see any reason to make it weaker than any other tank. And that includes tanks being made in Britain, Somalia or Hugary.
If Germany had won the WW2 German would be the language of Europe as Germans were the largest nation in Europe. So no surpire that the working language of USSR was Russian. I'm very sorry that your nation was under Soviet dominance. Believe me the Soviet citizens in many cases lived a worse life than you did. I'm not going to touch the subject of what would have happeded to your nation if Germans won WW2. Just keep in mind that for some people there's a diference between names.

Hello!
Two units is a good idea. I believe its discussed in another thread.
Well T-34 is widely known as the best tank of WW2 I don't see any reason to make it weaker than any other tank. And that includes tanks being made in Britain, Somalia or Hugary.
If Germany had won the WW2 German would be the language of Europe as Germans were the largest nation in Europe. So no surpire that the working language of USSR was Russian. I'm very sorry that your nation was under Soviet dominance. Believe me the Soviet citizens in many cases lived a worse life than you did. I'm not going to touch the subject of what would have happeded to your nation if Germans won WW2. Just keep in mind that for some people there's a diference between names.

hi Gelion!

I thought you where a communist, doesent sound like it! ;)

hey!
Lets just say that if people were perfect I'd be communist :D.
EDIT: And I'm not an Elf either ;).

I would really love to see the Russian UU come about the time or just behind the german UU. the T-34 or katousha rockets launcher looks right. The russian GA would follow the german GA and give them a head start into the space race.

Gelion,
Names sometimes cover the reality.
Off topic: the T-34 was NOT the best tank of the WWII. It was the most efficient tank, meaning, that it was extremly cheap, extremly simple to produce, to fix, to manage and so on. But its combat features was not like the Panther-series (esp. F and G) and Tiger I.
So, in a total war on the long run, as a medium tank, the T-34 was really good for a huge country to win the war. But this country was powerfull enough to allow 100-200 tank loss per day in certain battles. Germany could not allow this, however, her Panthers blazed T-34s to hell - but she could not reinforce her armoured divisions.
So, the "best tank" is bit complex statement.

T-34 could split ANY German tank before 1942 and had higher radius of fire. After the Germans introduced new tanks that could shoot further the Soviets/Russians came up with the new T-34/85 model. I agree USSR could sustain heavy T-34 losses, but before 1943 there were not more than 3000 of those tanks. If you really want to debate this I came come back with "real" stats :).

Gelion,
Names sometimes cover the reality.
Off topic: the T-34 was NOT the best tank of the WWII. It was the most efficient tank, meaning, that it was extremly cheap, extremly simple to produce, to fix, to manage and so on. But its combat features was not like the Panther-series (esp. F and G) and Tiger I.
So, in a total war on the long run, as a medium tank, the T-34 was really good for a huge country to win the war. But this country was powerfull enough to allow 100-200 tank loss per day in certain battles. Germany could not allow this, however, her Panthers blazed T-34s to hell - but she could not reinforce her armoured divisions.
So, the "best tank" is bit complex statement.

I agree. In terms of a straight-out main battle tank, Germany fielded the best armored uits of WW2. If they had the ability to mass produce on the scale of Russia or the US, the would have dominated Europe with ease. They were swamped by numbers on land and lost controll of their skies, a decisive factor in any war since the invention of aircraft.
Perhaps as a UU germany should get some kind of early missle? A V2 would make a fine WWII era unit. Slightly Weaker than a cruise missle with lethal bombard, availible at advanced flight perhaps?

Edit: I know this is the Russia UU thread, but the Idea just hit me while I was typing.

I think Germany should have a ww2tank as their UU, it suits them perfect.

And as far as I know they had better tanks than Soviet, and since Soviets peak came at a later point I'd rather see a cheaper Nuclear sub as their UU.

I think the German UU could be the KIng Tiger Tank. More attack and defense than a regular tank (alot more attack) and plus 1 heath (for all the armor that monster had).

The King Tiger tank should be awesome, but cost more then regular tanks of the age!

Gelion,
Okay, that"s right. The Pzkpfwagen IV's first editions were not as good as T-34. But, some real stats (or facts): in 1942, the first batallion of Tiger I appeared. In the beginning of 1943 they were used in the counter offensive to break up the ring around the entrapped 6th army in Stalingrad.

Gelion wrote:
before 1943 there were not more than 3000 of those tanks.
3000 tanks???? that is enormous amount. Hitler defeated France in 1940 with some 2000 armours (not only tanks). So, I appreciate the T-34, but in its own place. It was planned for open terrain, but it was not good for city warfare. An other fact: T-34 had an open engine-cooling gap. In the 1956 revolution in Hungary, many soviet T-34s were exploded easily by molotov-coctails. Thus, in the second wave of invasion, they sent T-54s. Of course, it is a question, if there were any good armours against metropolitan guerilla warfare. :)
Summary: T-34 very efficient on the long run, not the best on WWII battlefield, and a good UU for Russia.
any arguments, Gelion?
:)

I have some :).
1. No tanks are good for city warfare. We've seen it in Hungary, Chechnya and many other places. Its a proven fact. True some tanks are better in this than others, but in general to have tanks in a city is a bad idea.
2. Hitler started Barbarossa having more than 6000 tanks. Most of Soviet tanks were destroyed in the first months of the campaign so for a long time Germans had the advantage in numers (not only tanks).
3. Stalingrad. Tigers were good tanks, but they were the reason the Soviets updated T-34/75 to 85's. T-34/85 was a good opponent to Tiger I. The ring around Stalingrad was never broken. + T-34 was designed to work mainly in plains, because thats what the terrain between Moscow and Berlin is like.
4. Which is the best tank of WW2?

Debate continued in prviate messages
:)

Russia is the soviet union because when the Russian Civil War broke out the commies one and installed their communist government and getting rid of the Monarch. When the commies came in power they renamed russia to the Soviet Union. Then during the cold war did the Soviets include other countries into the USSR.

i say t-55 or t-72 tank

or maybe BMP (IFV), to replace MI

i also agree

ussr = russia from lenin to gorbatiov

just as United Kingdom = england

United States of America = America (1 country)

there are many more examples

Well, I was born in USSR, live in Russia and I can say there's no difference. SU exiated from 1922 till 1991. That's less than 70 years. I would rather say that he Soviet period was the Golden Age of Russia. Hense the Russian UU should be a soviet one, a WWII unit. There were a bunch of fine units in WWII. Il-2 an attack plane, called by the Germans "The Black Death", the heavy bombers Tu-2 which bombed Berlin in August of 1941(!), the legendary T-34, but in my opinion the really unique unit is Katyusha. No other nation of the WWII era possessed anything alike. (By the way they were designed by Korolyov, the founder of the soviet space program) So, I'm totally for Katusha as the Russian UU. I can't agree that the 18th centurt is the GA of Russia. Yes, it was the time when Russian troops captured Berlin at the first time, when Turks and Sweden were defetead in very long wars. But apart from military achievements Russia remained the youngest most backward european empire. Russia lived through the greatest peasant war in 1700s, lost 1/3 of its population during the rein of the first Russian emperor Peter the Great, who suits much better for the leaderhead than Cathrine, in my opinion. That's sort of Russian tradition to sacrifice economy and non-military branches in seek of world dominiance. Nowadays the world's best oil pump has the world's best tanks and jet fighters. Sounds like paradox. Modern Russian units still miraculously remain the best and T-90, MiG-29 or Su-27 but no way they can be associated with the GA. Two UU is a nice idea. Let it be Cossak and Katyusha 12(lethal bombardment, otherwise no triggering)/0/2. But in this case other nations must also have two UU. So it seems just.

P.S. USSR is Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics, though actually it was one Socialistic Republic. That's the government not Communism! No country ever lived under communism. True, there was the communist party in SU. Its primary goal was building communism in the country but they never did. I quite agree with Gelion - communism is the perfect government for perfect people, but unfortunately nobody is perfect.

P.P.S. USSR was a very multi-ethnical country, but present Russia is no less multi-ethnical. Still Russians as ethnic group considerably prevail. I regard myself culturally Russian, though ethnically me and my father are Ukranians. My two best friends are Kazakh and Jewish. My teacher of English and my father's doctor are Tatars, the descendants of the Tatar-Mongols, the nation of Chengiz-Khan. Any more proof? USSR collapsed due to stupid nationalism, when suddenly some polititians started blaming Russians in the economical crisis of 1980-s. Though it's beyond any doubt that the population of Russia had much poorer and worse life as campared to the rest 14 republics and the former socialistic countries of the Eastern Europe like Poland, Hungary and others. Nowadays at least half of the Ukranian pupulation and 20% of Latvian (I don't know stats about other republics) are Russians. So, USSR was not a mere Russian Empire which subdued its neghbours. Very deep and tense ethnical, cultural and economical integration took place. Much more tense than in EU. Moreover Russia, Ukraine and Belrus are so close in all respects that can be regarded as one civilisation. Kiev, the modern Ukranian capital used to be the capital of the early Russian medieval state.

Please, excuse me for waffling so much. :rolleyes:

Buddah all my respect to you!

Yeah Buddah! exactly my point! ;)

Great words, BuDDaH, I couldn't have said it better! I completely agree with you on the fact that the USSR collapsed due to stupid nationalism. And while a few nations have a somewhat different culture than the one of Russia (most of the stans for example), it really bugs me to see countries such as Ukraine, Russia and Belarus drifting further away from one another. I find the differences between the people in those countries quite minor; ultimately, I do consider all of us the same people. Also, due to the fact that there are large chunks of Russian population present in countries such as Latvia some problems are arising (just look at what's happening in Georgia now). Anyhow, sorry for going off topic here.

A bit brainstorming on the UUs, they are military units so shouldn't they be more from the golden age of a civ's military than the civ's golden age overall? That way, it would be definately a unit from the Soviet era that should be chosen.

well i say if youre gonna have a russian UU from ww2, then it should not be the t-34

neither the katyuscha, it is a great piece of artillery for its time and later gave birth to the infamous BM-21 122mm

but youre wrong about 1 thing, the germans had their own version of rocket arty, i think its called nebelwerfer or something, which was in german tradition more expencive and had better stabilization and therefor accuracy, but they were never fielded in adecuate numbers!

i say it should be some kind of militia/guerilla/partisan unit, maybe to replace the guerilla, or even infantry(draftable!), exact same stats but cheaper or something

cause to me even though russia has produced some of the best and mose cost effective military hardware of the past 70 years or so, hardware was in short supply on the russian side untill stalingrad,and where it was availabe it wasnt used to its full potential due to lack of doctorine/leadership(stalin killed all the generals) and training

and after stalingrad the wehrmachts back was pretty much broken and thats when the tanks and the planes and katyuschas started showing up in big numbers

Amazing that no one mentioned one of the most revolutionary and dominant fighters of all time, the Mikoyan-Gurevich (MiG) -21 ? In fact, nearly all of the early jet MiGs were deadly, and even more impressive, when it's realized the kind of budget they were built upon.

BuDDah- I think perhaps the quality of the textbooks you were educated on was poor. Lenin bastardized the traditional "socialism" concept, championed by Engels, Marx, etc. Socialism, in pure form, required the workers to unite for the common good, and govern themselves. Lenin and some of his contemporaries believed that a "vanguard party" was necessary to lead the revolution, and wrest power from the bourgeoisie. The Soviets, as this party was called, did indeed succeed in their revolution. However, not all of the Russian territories necessarily agreed with the revolution, and their leaderships were summarily crushed. Other countries, such as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were annexed. Then, for almost 70 years, the whole of the USSR was governed by the Communist Party, and ultimately- the Supreme Soviet (you can debate for yourself the relative amount of power that the 8 successive General Secretaries actually held). So you're right, in that there was really only one state; the "Union" and "RepublicS" part was more for show. But the USSR certainly was not a socialist country. If you want a real-life represenation, Sweden is a lot closer. Or maybe France in 5-6 years from now...

Apart from Mig part I do not understand your post.
And thx !/ :)

Kronis - I think the part he was arguing for a lot more was that the USSR was Russia these 70 years. It was the direct heir of the Russian Empire (yes, an empire that annexed a lot of lands and crushed down the people's resistance). When the Soviet Union came into power, it first established itself in Russia, but then regained many lands lost during the revolution. I mean, at first it seemed like it was still possible to create a Marxist type of country, but in time it became a somewhat socialist totalitarian government, with Stalin eliminating all the old time Bolsheviks and establishing a dictatorship. Soon enough all former Russian lands except for Finland and Poland were conquered into the USSR, making it the Russian Empire after a radical change in the government...
I disagree with you about the USSR not being a socialist country - well, at least partially. It had many socialist aspects (ex. - free medical care, education) which would make it a socialist state (though maybe not as much as Sweden now).

Edit - Gelion, he did call USSR a Socialistic Republic, that's probably where he got that.

mig 21 is a good fighter and still in use with many countries,but it was in fact worse than the f4 its western counterpart

it had worse avainoics, higher radar profile(i think one of the highest for any fighter ever, if not the highest) and less payload (smaller plane)

so it wasnt that great

mig 21 is a good fighter and still in use with many countries,but it was in fact worse than the f4 its western counterpart

it had worse avainoics, higher radar profile(i think one of the highest for any fighter ever, if not the highest) and less payload (smaller plane)

so it wasnt that great


F4-Phantom? I think that came a bit later, and since the planes were improved pretty fast at the time, it wouldn't be a huge surprice if it was better...pls correct me if I'm wrong...

Did the Russians develop a similar, small plane after mig-21 or was the mig-25 it's replacement?

This is all a bit complicated really, when you think about it the Golden Age idea is the simplest (but not necessarily most accurate) method of determining the UU.

The hard part is just determining when exactly the golden age occured although this in itself is a difficult task as many examples given so far are either WW2 or Korean/Vietnam era weapons, but, in the alternate history of Civ there is a remote chance that those conflicts will occur in the same way again.

IMHO seeing as the civ in question is named Russia, then the UU should be of sole Russian origin (ie, the country they were employed by was at the time acting on its own or had other allies but was not united under a particular banner such as the USSR). And, like it or not, the whole point of a Union is that it includes outside parties (ie other countries).

I cant see any other way of changing the Russian UU unless the golden era is changed for that civ.

F4-Phantom? I think that came a bit later, and since the planes were improved pretty fast at the time, it wouldn't be a huge surprice if it was better...pls correct me if I'm wrong...

Did the Russians develop a similar, small plane after mig-21 or was the mig-25 it's replacement?


The MiG-21F is a short-range day fighter-interceptor and the first major production version of the popular MiG-21 series. It is but one of many versions of this aircraft that have served in the air arms of many nations around the world. The E-5 prototype of the MiG-21 was first flown in 1955.

The F-4 Phantom II was a twin-engine, all-weather, fighter-bomber. The aircraft could perform three tactical air roles — air superiority, interdiction and close air support — as it did in southeast Asia. First flown in May 1958.

the above info is from www.fas.org

check that page for all kinds of info

i do know there was a mig 23, and prolly several Sukhois fighters around this time

the mig 25 foxbat is an awesome fighter that set several records when it was new,really good as a fighter, not so good in the strike role!

on the side note i read about this military exercise with us air force and the indian air force, where the indians with their indigeniously produced mig 21 copies kicked the americans asses!

amazing considering the americans have alot more advanced air crafts, although they were outnumbered.

one thing that can be said for the russian war industry is their stuff dont have to be taken apart and cleaned, maybe repaired and constantly pampered and maintained in order to work

very rugged and functional, dosent require the runway to be clinicly clean in order to take off etc

4. Which is the best tank of WW2?

Well, the King Tiger Tank could eat any Soviet tank alive. However, they're weren't enought to make a real difference, they came too late in to war, and it was very costly to build them.

The King Tiger Tank was more heavily armored, had more range, and had more firepower than any tank that the Russians could field.

See, there are three things that designers think of when building tanks: speed and maneuverability, armor, and firepower. There is a fourth thing, cost effectiveness, but that isn't really put into perspective. Now, of course the King Tiger had firepower and armor, but the T-34 had speed (and cost effectiveness). So the Russians could field faster and more cost effective tanks than the Germans, which, in the long shot, gave them their victory.

the down side of the tiger and king tiger were that, they took up valuable resources that could be spent on many Pz-IV and Pz IIIs or anti tank guns!

also both had horrible terrain handling capabilities, were underpowered, and in tigers case the tracks were too weak, and broke often!

also something like 1000-1500 tigers and 50 tiger IIs were made, which in comparecence with 50,000 t34s made, basicly makes them non existent!
(not 100% sure about these numbers but i cant be too far off!)



t34s also had sloped armour, which the tiger didnt, and they were later upgraded with 85mm guns which made them alot more effective, although not as lethal as the tigers 88mm, but pretty close!

again thinner armour but better everything else, t34 = best tank of ww2!

Tiger's weren't even the best tank tactically for German armour divisions. The Panther series had about the same manueverability as the panzers, a lot more firepower and armour, and could be made a lot cheaper than the Tiger. It was the perfect medium tank, but was developed to late and in too small numbers to win against the flood of Russian tanks.

As for a UU, the Katyusha could have a higher Firepower and Rate of Fire or have 2 movement.

i dont mean to be nitpicking, but im pretty sure the panthers had the same L55(i think) 88m main gun, and co axial mg-34, so in means of firepower it would be exactly the same as the tiger

they had thinner armour than the tiger, but it was sloped

all in all probably a better tank than the tiger, better mobility and so on

its complicated about havin cossacks for russia as there were around in RUSSIA's golden age (late 19th/early20th century) bt were used very little or not at all during the USSR's golden age (mid/late 20th century) and just to be a pain russia isnt the USSR, it makes up most of it bt isnt the same thing.its like saying England and Great britain are the same when infact they're not.anyway im gettin at russia's special unit would have to be pre 1917 or pro 1990. T34s kicked ass were also soviet and therefore not just russian bt also ukraine, finland, yugoslavia etc :D

Thanks all for your replies.
Kronis,
I don't know anything about socialism in Sweden and socoalism in Marx's or Lenin's theory, so I can't judge. The main thing is that SU had never been Communistic Utopia. It was a country with state regulated economy, society, culture, mass media and what not. You seem to know Russian history and WWII history very well. Thank you for that. I disagree with many issues but I'm not going to argue becuase I'm not completely sure that my viewpoint is right. Our knowledge of history is seldom objective since we didn't witness those events and our opinion is strongly influenced by stereotypes, propoganda and our subjective picture of the world. It seems we just say different truths in different languages, while the genuine truth remains unknown to all and is out there...Well, I do hope that yuo understand me. If don't just forget it.

LewsTherin, I apreciate youre understanding. What's your "Location" . I don't know why but I suspect you're from former SU. Do you spea...ehh...type Russian? ;)

Jawz II, if you think that Riassia in the game is too strong and should be weakened with the lousy UU you suggest, then I can see what you mean. Guerilla itself is a lousy unit in the game. I personally never build it. It's just shieildwaste. About Katyushas. They were first used in 1944 near Orsha, Belrus, although first prototypes appeared in 1930-s. They were regular units of artelliery detachments after the war. If we assume that the true GA of Russia or Soviet Union (I don't see any essensial difference) began after its triuphal victory over Nazism, then Katyushas launching rockets and the Golden Age right in the final stage of the war are on its right place.
Bieng an awesome machine it has a very soft form of a Russian female name. Katyusa is short for Yekaterina (Cathrine). It's not an official name. It's a nickname that appeared during the war. Nobody knows how and why. There many versions but they are no more than versions. The most exotic one is that artillerists were fond of a famous song about a girl named Katyusha who deeply loved a soldier and was waiting him back from the war. Nowadays the word "Katyusha" is so strongly associated with the rocket launcher that very few people think about a girl named this way when they hear or read "Katyusha".

Nevertheless I must admit that yuo are completely right if you believe that the Great Patriotic War (So we call WWII in Russia) was won by infantry showing wonderous bravery, heroism and determination. They were figting with religious fervor for the ideas of communism, freedom, motherland, Stalin - the father of all peoples and the blood red banner. It was a "sacred war" according to a famous military hymn with bloodcurdling woords. They were perished for the common cause, not sparing their lives. There many examples of true heroism of common soviet soldiers. They won the war, not Katyushas. However Katyusha is a better alternative for the game, I think.

And about Phantom. There's a very interesting russian song about Phantom pilot and Vietnam of unknown author. I susspect it's just translation of an american one. Perhaps, you know some. I can translate the lyrics and send an mp3 file with it. Maybe, you've heard the musuc. I just need to know whether it's unique or not. Besides, it may be simply interesting to you...

P.S. It seems too many "songs" for one post, isn't it? Belive me, it's unintentional. :crazyeye:

Just one correction. Katushas were first used in September 1941. There were 20 of them bcak then. Later bigger formations were formed. I know that because in November (October) 1941 a regiment of Katushas was equipped with men from my school in Moscow. They fought all the way to Berlin :).

On the Great Britain/england thing, Great Britain was not really Great Britain until the 1500s, I think, because of Scotland. Longbows were really Wellish, but wales soon fell into the English holds in the middle ages. So Longbows were avaliable at the height of English, not British power. I thought the zenith of the British empire was teh 1700s?

Panther's had the same 88mm gun. Wow! That was one kick-ass tank. Too bad they were so late, like the ME-234(Jet aircraft). Actaully, I think the ME-234(I think the production nubmer is wrong) could have been built in 1940, but the Luftwaffe said it needed dive-bomb capability, stalling production for years. It would have been light-years ahead of even the P-51 Mustang in terms of air superiority.

i checked into it , turns out i was wrong!

the panthers were in fact armed with the rheinmetall L\70 75mm main gun,so actually they had less firepower than the tiger, but still i think they were better tanks than the tiger.

also their 75mm high velocity gun was better than the t-34s 76mm gun.

@buddah:

i dont think the russian UU is so good, ive never played russia, but did fight a war against them once, and didnt find the UU all that good!

i think my idea would make a better UU(of course when i say cheaper than infantry, it depends on how much cheaper...)

something to replace the guerilla but cheaper to buy would be better than the cosacks, i actually use guerillas alot in my games, i upgrade huge stacks of mid. infantry and before tanks they have the best attack value (6) same as cavalry

i send them out in 2 or 3 stacks of 20-30 mixed infantry/guerilla (mostly guerilla, the infantry is there to protect them) into enemy territory, sure theyre slow, so it takes them 2 or 3 rounds to get next to an enemy city, but by the time theyre there, your arty stack should be free, and able to use its 2 range and blast the crap out of the city defenders and then the human wave assault, red army style!! :king:


heres an idea i had, what if russia instead of a new UU could draft regular troops (3 hp) instead of conscript (2 HP) but then get guerillas instead of infantry?
cause if they could get regular infantry it would be too good!

maybe they could draft something between infantry and guerilla? like revolutionary guard 6.8.1!
or buy it, but at the 3/4 or 2/3 of the price of infantry?



when it comes to ww2, i think what motivated the troops the most was the word of what the nazis were doing to civilians and war prisoners spread, and the people in the lines knew it was win or die, and have horrible things happen to your loved ones back home when they get there!

its like right now in iraq, say its 1%, or 2% tops, of the population that is fighting the americans,think of the all the trouble they are causing

lets say abu ghraib happened everywhere all the time, and 50% of the population were fighting the americans!!

imagine the mess!


call it love for motherland(which was likely a part of it specially for the russians), but i dont think many of the troops, specially those ethnic ones you mentioned would give a rats ass for comrad stalin, specially the way stalin sabotaged the war effort by sticking his nose in and stopping the generals (the few he left alive that paranoid git) from doing their work!!

i saw a documentary about a people called the calmucks(or something like that) and the tchechnians and many others were misstreated by stalin to say the least!

many experts say, had he not finally wised up and let zhjukov do his job all russian would speak german today!

ps. i havent heard any phantom songs,of course, that dosent mean there arent any,why dont you send me the lyrics?
actually up untill i was 6 yo i grew around phantom pilots and theyre kids

my father worked for the air force so we lived in an air base...

The T-34 was not a bad tank and had it where it counted: production cost. THe war in the East was definitely one of attrition and logistics, and being able to continue mass-production of the T-34 helped Russia stay in the game.

One of Nazi Germany's many many faults(mostly under Hitler's order or organization) was the distribution of manufacturing. The AMericans refurbished the auto industries, which were used to producing tens and hundreds of thousands of units a year. The Nazi's relied on industries that did not produce as many units, Railcar Manufacturers and Heavy Machinery Companies.

I think the Cossack does just fine, but if I had to pick another one, it'd probably be sokme sorta Soviet Infantry. The one in the big brown bear fur coa and hat.:cool:

i think you mean the big gray red-army winter coat and fur-hat (here we call those bear vagina :D)

my grandpa had one of those, may he rest in peace

i checked into it , turns out i was wrong!




:eek: One of the signs of the apocolypse... A Civ Fanatics user admiting he was wrong...

(no offense meant to anyone, especially Jawz II)

The Katyusha was also called "Stalinorgel" by the Germans (Stalin's organ). Because of the sounds of the starting rockets.

Some things I wish to contribute:

Tiger I: 88L56 main gun

Panther: 75mm high-velocity gun, better than the early "long" 75mm guns of the Panzer IV, was built in the later Panzer IV models (H-series), too.

King Tiger / Tiger II: 88L71 -> upgraded and longer version of the infamous 88.

The Jagdtiger had a 120mm gun, the Jagdpanther the 88L71 as the King Tiger.

The Jagdtiger suffered from the same problems as the IS-2 tank: The shells were so large that to load the projectile and the cartridge seperately, plus heavy weight and less ammo in total due to sheer size and weight. One must also remember that the main gun of the IS-2 was basically a horizontally aiming 122mm Artillery gun adapted for tank use.

The Tiger I became infamous, but the more modern designs were T-34 and Panther who was inspired by the T-34.

Tiger II and IS1,2,3 are examples of heavyweight and highly near immobile Juggernauts that had their uses, but the blend of firepower, mobility and protection neglected the mobility aspect too much.


BTW: I know the M1 Abrams has a gas turbine, but does it really SOUND like the Modern Armor sounds in Civ3?

:eek: One of the signs of the apocolypse... A Civ Fanatics user admiting he was wrong...

(no offense meant to anyone, especially Jawz II)


i agree :)

The Katyusha was also called "Stalinorgel" by the Germans (Stalin's organ). Because of the sounds of the starting rockets.

Some things I wish to contribute:

Tiger I: 88L56 main gun

did i say L55?
gues i was wrong again :D

i agree with long sac about the tank info

See, the UUs of the nations are all put where the nation's time of glory was. The Roman Legionaire, for example, unit from around 100 AD, Rome's highest point. You can tell because of the armor and weapons. The English Man-o-War was from the early 19th century, and the same century was 'The British Century'. The USA is at its highest point today, and thats why the UU is a f-15. And so on and so forth...the Cassock is from RUSSIA'S greatest time (not USSR's!!!) and so the Cassock should be Russia's UU!

LewsTherin, I apreciate youre understanding. What's your "Location" . I don't know why but I suspect you're from former SU. Do you spea...ehh...type Russian? ;)

Haha yeah I'm Russian, born and lived there for most of my life. А ты откуда?

Now, to all of you who keep insisting on the USSR not being Russia.. Then what, Russia as a country had only existed since 1992? If the Soviet Union was the utopian government it thrived to be (in theory) then yes, it would be a whole new state of workers - but it wasn't! The Soviet Union was Russia with land losses and a radical government change. Then what, the Russian Empire isn't Russia either, since it lost and never recovered some lands (Poland, Finland, some of Turkey etc.) after the revolution? So France isn't France after 1792? You guys have gotta stop with the USSR being a unique country having little to do with Russia thing.

As for Russian UU, it should be from around WW2 Soviet era. Russia still has one of the most advanced armies in the world, but at the end of World War 2 only the US could rival Russia's armies.

Hi LewsTherin!!!!
I really agree with you. Calling USSR it's own Civ is meaningless, and shows bad understanding of history. USSR was just the russian empire changing name and government. A socialist state couldnt be associated with imperialism. A union of socialist republics sounded more harmonic with the marxist-leninistic philosophy, a union of equal soviet republics. But in practical real life it made no differance what you called it!!!!!!!! It was still the same Civ as during the empire, and still almost the same territory, but of course they lost some of it after the WW1, and gained some in the years after, and until 1945!

Noone talked about making USSR a different Civ. Noone. We were talking about noting the difference between Russia and the Soviet union. If you read the histry of Russian civil war and Communist Agenda (World Revolution and such) you will understand that the system that came to power had very little in common with the Russian people and the people of the former Russian Empire. After 1945 when hopes for the world revolution faded USSR became more like a national state. Please read some books of the White generals (Russian civil war) or about the goals of communism. Then maybe you will undersand that the Leninist and Stalinist goverments were interested in the Russian people not more than a resource adn USSR (pre-1945) cannot be called a Russian country.

Thanks, Philips beard :)

Gelion - trust me, I know Russian history very well, and have very recently read a book on Russia from 1900 on to World War 2, so my memory about that period of time is quite fresh (I know Russian Civil War). And yes, when the revolution first started it seemed that an ideal state was underway, a state that would not care about nationalities at all - it would be a state of workers, a so called dictatorship of the proletariat. So when the Soviet Republic was established it was quite radical about changing the way things were done - such as the terrible mistake that was War Communism, and the new formation of an army (no standing armies, but conscripts with no ranks that united together.. can't quite put it in words correctly). Of course the War Communism that stripped the peasants bare opened a way for the rebellion - and the civil war has finally began. The new type of the Soviet army proved to be terrible in battles against the formations of Kolchak and Denikin - so Trotsky (a brilliant commander) was put in charge of rebuilding the Red Army (plus, many officers formerly loyal to the Emperor were also recruited into the Red Army). He used extremely harsh measures, but succeeded - and his strategy along with the people resenting the pillaging done by the White armies caused the Soviet republic to emerge victorious in the war. They survived - but it is now that Russia has become a sole state that was a dictatorship with some socialistic quirks! The sailors of Kronstadt, not someone still loyal to the monarchy, but rather always first and loyal to support the Bolsheviks have rebelled against the new ruling system, with the party above all. In fact, Lenin called such a rebellion more dangerous than Kolchak, Yudenich and Denikin all together. But it was crushed, and with it died the hope of establishing a true Soviet republic.
By that time Lenin was already sick and losing control. Many camps were made in the party, but here I will only talk about two individuals - Trotsky (whose dream was fast industrialization, and indeed the world revolution at the cost of the destruction of the Russian state) and Stalin (whose idea was Communism in a single country - aka Communist Russia). Then Stalin used his own strategy to gain power - first allying himself with the right wing of the party to crush Trotsky, then going against his former allies (such as Zinoviev). In the mid to late 20s he was already the most powerful individual in the party - and the now more or less matured Soviet Union became Russia under a new system of government.

LewsTherin, very nice historical facts, but I do not see how you jumped to your conclusion. It was done quickly and without any support from the facts you gave.

I'm not arguing :), I'm trying to understand your reasoning :)....

Yeah, I suppose I was half asleep when I wrote that message ;) There I was just trying to describe the times where the Soviet Union was still in stages where Russian nationalism was really crushed and the revolution could go further and make the Soviet Union not Russia (at all) but a new kind of communist state put together by a common identity of workers, not a state put together by a feeling of common ancestors/culture/race. In the end I stated that the USSR became communist Russia because Stalin and his idea of communism in one state (which I feel is simply an old nation under the USSR style communist regime) triumphed. No, Stalin did not care about how much people he had killed during his reign if his goals were accomplished, and the propaganda was not about national identity but about the triumphs of communism but the Soviet Union remained to its people a new Russia.

And yeah lol, sorry if it seemed as if I was trying to argue like crazy, there I was just stating my point of view :)

Maybe its better to make some UU for each nation? (maybe for different ages)
Like Cossack >> Rus. Infantry (very cheap) >> T-72


BuDDaH, there are more then 30% of "russian-speaking" in Latvia. (according to officcial returns), and about 50% in Riga (capital) and Daugavpils (second biggest city)
Sorry for off topic

While I would welcome a Soviet Union civ into the game, there must be a clear distinction between the two.


what is wrong with you? russia is a civ.. ussr is only a name of union of states.. but ussr is russia and russia is not ussr.. you cant make ussr as civ.. that is almost as stupid as making america a civ.. and seeing american knights :crazyeye:

I got a german UU...The Bismark! A beefed up battleship with extra attack/defense/bombadment...as for the Russian UU, the cassock is fine. shr00mz, I did not understand a single word of your post

He's just makign fun of people :D. And guys how many times did you mis-spell cossack? ;)

what is wrong with you? russia is a civ.. ussr is only a name of union of states.. but ussr is russia and russia is not ussr.. you cant make ussr as civ.. that is almost as stupid as making america a civ.. and seeing american knights :crazyeye:

The USSR is a valid choce as a civ for the series. It was a nation state under all forms of internation law, regardless of the fact that it was a union of Republics.

The question of 'is Russia the same as the USSR' is a different matter. I for one consider them different 'civs' but am starting to think that for game play reasons, they should be one and the same.

And what is wrong with making America a civ?

i think he means its a continent