What UUs and UBs to include in CivV?

Öjevind Lång;8921801 said:
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?
 
Öjevind Lång;8924372 said:
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.
 
Top Bottom