Some ideas for new units

I just had to put up this thread, because there are three units that I want to see in Civ sometime, maybe in a mod or scenario (they haven't been yet!). Here's what I'm talking about:

Throwing Axeman
Unique Unit for French Empire
Replaces Axeman
Additional Benefit: +10% city attack
Comments: It would be cool to have the French UU to be something actually unique to them (sorry, musketeers were everywhere in Europe). On the other hand, it would probably be out of whack for France to have an ancient UU. Still, I'd like to see this unit here sometime. The additional bonus refers to the throwing axe's bonus against buildings in Age of Empires II (because they were counted as "swordsman" units).

Teutonic Knight
Unique Unit for German Empire
Replaces Knight
Additional Benefit: Starts with Combat I and Shock
Comments: I really think that Firaxis is constantly trying to picture Germany as under the Nazis in Civ4, and Hitler would certainly be a leader if there were no censorship issues. I really want to see this unit in Civ sometime.

Bombard
Strength 9, Movement 1
Enabled by Gunpowder, Requires Iron
Has all the traditional siege weapon features.
Comments: THIS UNIT IS AN ABSOLUTE MUST!!! I don't like the fact that cannon are first available during the Industrial age, for they were around during The Hundred Years' War even! But I think we can keep the current cannon unit in its place (representing Napoleonic and American Civil War cannon?) whilst introducing another siege weapon for the Renaissance, because it's also a bit stupid to me that you have to take trebuchets and catapults with your forces if doing siege warfare in the Renaissance! I just want to see the bombard get in sometime.

Swein Forkbeard said:

Teutonic Knight
Unique Unit for German Empire
Replaces Knight
Additional Benefit: Starts with Combat I and Shock
Comments: I really think that Firaxis is constantly trying to picture Germany as under the Nazis in Civ4, and Hitler would certainly be a leader if there were no censorship issues. I really want to see this unit in Civ sometime.

Click to expand...

No I think their reasoning is because Germany as a "state" really didn't exist until the 1800's, that's why the more modern UU and UB. Assembly Plants were there before Hitler. If anything, the teutonic knights should be the UU for the HRE

But the Teutonic Knights were a completely separate entity from the HRE.

Okay, whatever. I just remembered Empire Earth II where the each civs have 3 UUs: one for the Stone Age to Dark Ages, one for Middle Ages to Industrial Era, and one for Modern and Future periods. The German UUs are the Barbarian, Teutonic Knight, and Jagdpanther (Panzer).

Yeah, more modern units for Germany probably make sense.

I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of medic/surgeon unit that heals at quicker rates. I know this'll basically nerf the medic promotions, though perhaps as a way to still give incentive for medic promotions the promotions can stack on top of the medics' healing rates.

Obviously you'd start out with shamans and holistic medicines then progress through the eras, reaching field medics and surgeons in the modern era.

Swein Forkbeard said:

(sorry, musketeers were everywhere in Europe)

Click to expand...

Well, yes and no. The musketeer is in fact something deeply in French imaginary, moreso than axethrower, that were also in a lot of part of Europa, and not just in the tribe that had taken over what was about to be France. In the same trend, you could take emplar as french UU, or use templar monastery as UB instead of regular monastery, of something among thoses lines

the teutonic knight could be good, more because Panzer are too late. I agree with Firaxis with the idea that Panzer and blitzkrieg were too important to pass, though.

They are, and the other poster had a point. While the Teutonic Knight is the German order, it was WAY before the German confederation, that established the NATION Germany. Before, it was a bunch of "German tribes and states." Not a country.


Oh, and I thought it'd be really cool for the Spanish to have a spanish inquisitor unit that could remove a religon from any city with your state religion. It could have huge effects on diplomacy and religious growth.

Just a minor point: the Teutonic order state pre-dated a lot the Civ IV Germany ( that is clearly seen as Prussia and Prussian "conquests" since the times of the two Fredericks ( the newer of them being the leader that is in Civ IV ) ) and never belonged to the Holy Roman Empire, neither de jure or de facto ( well, after the Brandenburg and the Teutonicic state got under the same administration, that was a minor point ). Oh and putting the Templars as french ... please, read some History books before saying such a nonsense ... the only contribution that the French state did for the Templar order was to kill the Templar knights of France

Now on the topic ... I would really, really like that the game had :

- separate lines for heavy and light mounted units lines and also between shock mounted units and missile/gunpowder mounted units. Never understood why the coders did the mess they did with mounted units in the game.... even with cuirassers introducted, things are still really sad.

-More naval units. I think the game is pretty restricted in terms of naval units ...especially in between the european discoveries and WW II ( there are some excelent mods that introduce a lot of units in this period, like , for a example, the coal-powered late XIX century battleships ), besides the misnaming of the vessels ( galleons were not transport ships, carracks were not better caravels and better not talk of all the navies having caravels except the Portuguese ..... ). The lack of atleast a pre-galley ship also unbalances early game naval warfare ... I would also not be oposed to a drakkar-like medieval ship

r_rolo1 said:

Oh and putting the Templars as french ... please, read some History books before saying such a nonsense ... the only contribution that the French state did for the Templar order was to kill the Templar knights of France

Click to expand...

You know, german contributed about as much to Teutonic Order

It's based on the fact that they had a lot of investment in France. Your aforementionned history book could certainly explain that the prime reason of french templar destruction were because they were too powerful in France for the King' taste. A little like Janissarie for Ottoman Empire

Edit : to be more clear, for me the main accomplishment of Templar were the economic power, banking activity, and such. Not the military, where AFAIK they hab never be exceptionnal. And thoses activities have growth to the point to make a King fear them in France. Also, they were a reason for which all important figure of the order were in France when they were destroyed.

TheLazyHase said:

You know, german contributed about as much to Teutonic Order

Click to expand...

Well, my history books tell me that the Teutonic order state vanished when it's last Grand Master to act as a state governor decided to become lutheran and be the first Duke of Prussia ... slightly diferent of being executed, I guess

TheLazyHase said:

It's based on the fact that they had a lot of investment in France. Your aforementionned history book could certainly explain that the prime reason of french templar destruction were because they were too powerful in France for the King' taste. A little like Janissarie for Ottoman Empire

Edit : to be more clear, for me the main accomplishment of Templar were the economic power, banking activity, and such. Not the military, where AFAIK they hab never be exceptionnal. And thoses activities have growth to the point to make a King fear them in France. Also, they were a reason for which all important figure of the order were in France when they were destroyed.

Click to expand...

My point was not to discuss why Jaques de Molay was executed, but the association between France and the Templars. If you want to associate any civ that exists in Civ IV with the Templars , it would have to be Portugal or Spain, because the Templar order there was simply "nationalized", in Portugal under a new name ( Knights of Christ instead of Knight of the Temple ) , and in Portugal that order didn't lost it's caracther of a military/religious order until very late ( atleast until the end of the XVI century ) and technically it was the order of Christ, and not the portuguese state, that made the Portuguese discoveries and what became the Portuguese empire ( the Order of Christ specialized in maritime warfare during the Middle Ages, normally against North African pirates and all the discovered lands were technically under the control of the order of Christ by papal order ). That beats by a mile in terms of contribution for the order executing their grand master, you must reckon ...

r_rolo1 said:

That beats by a mile in terms of contribution for the order executing their grand master, you must reckon ...

Click to expand...

I will not reckon this, but because I does not associate country and organization the same way.

First, truth be told, it should more be a wonder-type thingie than an U* (or even an early corporation).

Second, for me the association come more of "was the thing important for the country ?". That the last master became duke after the end of an order is irrelevant, for example. That they have so much economic power that they made a king fear them IS relevant. The reason for which the first country I have think of was France is because it's in France, and in the territory occupied during the Crusade, that they have done the more, in term of historical record.

For me, trying to tie them with spain or Portugal is a nonsense for UU/UB, because they were about invisible out there. It's the same problem as trying to change the viking name for "historical accuracy" reason : even if we suppose it's historically accurate, it's still the wrong way to go, because UU and UB should primaly be flavorful, and after that historical accurate. About 9 out of 10 UU or UB are not really historical, but most of them give a country flavor, and that the main point.

IIRC, the Bombard is already available in a couple of mods, most notably Legends of Revolution. I don't know the total history of the unit itself and whether that version is what you are thinking of, so I'll limit my comments on that topic.

My unit wish list would be:

- A carrier that carried perhaps one more plane, or the ability to carry one gunship, or could carry smaller bombing aircraft at a reduced capacity. There is a carrier like this in LoR, but doesn't have the capacity.

- Special Forces Infantry. High cost, special ops, and you can only have a certain number of them at a time, like executives. Can escape detection, can paratroop or attack amphibiously, and has a special mission where the unit can destroy a building in an enemy city that you are at war with.

- A gunship unit that could fly over water (1 or 2 tiles), could be carrier based (with limited capacity), but cannot attack naval craft, or if it can, then at -60%. Could be used for close air support for an amphibious invasion.

- A naval cruiser specifically designed for fleet defense. Limited attack capabilities, but has +1 visible range, can intercept aircraft, and is equipped with surface to surface missiles to defend against enemy ships at +50%. In a naval stack, this unit would be the first to defend. Cannot bombard cities.

Lemon Merchant said:

- A gunship unit that could fly over water (1 or 2 tiles), could be carrier based (with limited capacity), but cannot attack naval craft, or if it can, then at -60%. Could be used for close air support for an amphibious invasion.

Click to expand...

Would'nt be easier to give it paradrop ability, so it can cross small body of water, and bu the same trend ennemy troop ? I'm not real keen on modern gunship, but I *think* they can fly over most troop, in any case.

Well for your naval improvements I reccomend Wolfshanze mod, at it also helps to balance out a few unit progressions so that cannons become available about the same time musketeers and cuirassiers become available.

I'm not so fond of the french UU either - the musketeers of the royal household was just that and not really the iconic french soldier, which time of greatness would rather be the napoleonic times. Sure Louis XIV was an important head of state, but it was not the militairy at the time that france was famous for.

The frankish axemen could work, but you could do it the other way - let them be swordsmen or maybe even macemen with some sort of bonus or maybe first strikes.

But I think I'd rather let them have some heavy cuirassiers, which were famous in Napoleons armies to be the best in the whole world (until Waterloo at least).

That would be stepping on Spain's toes, but why not let them have the famous Tercio instead? Maybe a musketman with bonus against cavalry. kinda like a reversed Landsknecht.

Hmm Tercio square: replaces musketman, str 9, +50% vs mounted units, +25% vs melee units.

Consisting of part musketeers, part pikemen and part swordsmen, the Spanish Tercio square dominated the early rennaissance and could easily deal with the threats of enemy cavalry, pikes and swords by countering each in a flexible well-trained formation.

Just an idea

Revolutionary France's most powerful unit was their lightweight and highly mobile artillery. Just imagine a cannon UU with either March or two movement. King Louis XIV was also known in his time as one of those warmongering leaders and fought 5 different wars, although you wouldn't know it from looking at his Civ traits. His reign was one of the last great French European expansions, where territories were added permanently through conquest to the French crown. I also mention the word permanently for a reason, because Napoleon's conquests were lost after the Wars of the Fifth and Sixth Coalition.

I'm also itching for more siege equipment. I want a middle-weight siege unit between the trebutchet and the cannon that makes sense for the era. Bombards, bronze culverins, anything.

EDIT: After looking at your post again, I do think the Tercio would be more emblematic of the Spanish in Europe. The "Conquistador" might have had official sanction from the Spanish crown, but it wasn't a major part of their military forces.

Antilogic said:

The "Conquistador" might have had official sanction from the Spanish crown, but it wasn't a major part of their military forces.

Click to expand...

You're doing it wrong. Between an unknown unit and a widely iconic unit that were not the center of the army, alway alway take the iconic as UU. If people must begin to google the unit name to understand what was that when they are widely know possibility, then you're on wrong track ; anyway Civ is not an historical game and cannot be it.

TheLazyHase said:

You're doing it wrong. Between an unknown unit and a widely iconic unit that were not the center of the army, alway alway take the iconic as UU. If people must begin to google the unit name to understand what was that when they are widely know possibility, then you're on wrong track ; anyway Civ is not an historical game and cannot be it.

Click to expand...

So you'd favor Legions over Praetorians for Rome?

Civ4 has (blessedly) been moving away from the "iconic" choices: no more Cleopatra for Egypt, no Joan of Arc for France, no Xerxes for Persia, the list goes on. I hope they continue the trend.


EDIT: I think what is more important for players is the gameplay advantage. If players are excited about using a siege UU, they aren't going to care so much that Alexander Dumas' novel is not immortalized in their French experience. Likewise, if the tercio was the new Spanish UU in Civ5, I think the average player would care more about the new unit's abilities than whether or not it was the perfect iconic representation of Spain.

TheLazyHase said:

You're doing it wrong. Between an unknown unit and a widely iconic unit that were not the center of the army, alway alway take the iconic as UU. If people must begin to google the unit name to understand what was that when they are widely know possibility, then you're on wrong track ; anyway Civ is not an historical game and cannot be it.

Click to expand...

You haven't heard about the Tercio? Shame. I had never heard about the Keshik before playing this game either but that doesen't prevent me from enjoying it. Same goes for Landsknechts, Kingdom of Mali, Cho Ku nu fu mancu huhuh?

Then again who says you cannot learn something from Civilization? I was never interested in history until I played Civ 1 and learned alot from them. And that in the days long before wikipedia

Civ might not attempt to be 100% historically accurate but it's certainly not ahistorical game (like age of mythology or red alert). A game described to take you from the stone age to the space age cannot be described as anything but historical.

In any case, you could keep conquistadors around as explorers, maybe explorers with the ability to attack (I hate not having that and some barb is guarding a goody hut).

Possible french UU: Horse artillery (cannon): str 12, move 2 +25% vs siege. Light french cannon towed by horses and mounted gunners, allows for rapid redeployment in battle for better counter-battery fire.

Too boring? Would be slightly better vs machineguns (stupid siege unit category) but Artillery would still be better and who cares.

Antilogic said:

So you'd favor Legions over Praetorians for Rome?

Click to expand...

Ay time of the day. In any case, I still don't understand why they have chosen Praetorian, they mean nothing in any case. Iconic choice are the way to go, in any case, bnot the other way around. When playing a civ, you'd better have something flavorful than some obscure choice sanctionnedby some obscure discussion between historian, and a lot of people tend to favor the latter even when it just make the game a lot more plain)

(and, yes, I were knowing about both keshik, landsknechts, kingdom of Mali and Cho Ko Nu. The thing civ4 made my discovered are the Baray, though)

Edit : about cleopatra and Jeanne d'Arc : for Jeanne d'Arc, they take people that a lot more iconic of French. For Cleopatra, I tend to believe that Hatchesput is more iconic than Cleopatra ; in any case both are icon. To put the better example, berserker are iconic and longboat aren't for scandinavian civ ; that's why the second one should not supersede the first one. In the same trend, I would feel bland to see some regular cannon with an unknown name as an UU for France. French cannon were never special, and you must know a lot about war at this epoch to understand what make them better than other country cannon. A musketeer, or a Napoleonian soldier, is by contrast the kind of thing that is good as UU, because you immediatly understand what it's about. Same for the Baray : I were ignorant of the very existence of that, but it quickly give me an idea of what was that and the strength of Khmer empire.

TheLazyHase said:

Ay time of the day. In any case, I still don't understand why they have chosen Praetorian, they mean nothing in any case. Iconic choice are the way to go, in any case, bnot the other way around. When playing a civ, you'd better have something flavorful than some obscure choice sanctionnedby some obscure discussion between historian, and a lot of people tend to favor the latter even when it just make the game a lot more plain)

(and, yes, I were knowing about both keshik, landsknechts, kingdom of Mali and Cho Ko Nu. The thing civ4 made my discovered are the Baray, though)

Edit : about cleopatra and Jeanne d'Arc : for Jeanne d'Arc, they take people that a lot more iconic of French. For Cleopatra, I tend to believe that Hatchesput is more iconic than Cleopatra ; in any case both are icon. To put the better example, berserker are iconic and longboat aren't for scandinavian civ ; that's why the second one should not supersede the first one. In the same trend, I would feel bland to see some regular cannon with an unknown name as an UU for France. French cannon were never special, and you must know a lot about war at this epoch to understand what make them better than other country cannon. A musketeer, or a Napoleonian soldier, is by contrast the kind of thing that is good as UU, because you immediatly understand what it's about. Same for the Baray : I were ignorant of the very existence of that, but it quickly give me an idea of what was that and the strength of Khmer empire.

Click to expand...

Incidentally I also favor the Legionaire over Praetorians. It was the fighting strength of the legion that created the roman empire, not just the imperial bodyguards. Also everyone has heard of Legions.

As for the other matters, well it differs alot what people have or have not heard about. I'm fairly confident that an average american have no idea what a Cho Ko Nu is, or has even heard the name Hatshepsut, while everyone have heard about Cleopatra although they probably don't know she's greek. Fact is, alot of the population of the world has little grasp of history in general, except for the basics of "hitler is evil" and "romans kicked ass with swords like in Gladiator."

Luckily, Civ4 does not (only) cater to the average american, but to those of a more historical bent and interest in strategic wargames. Thus you can include alot more than most people know about.

The arty unit was just a though, I agree it seems fairly bland but then again the Musketeer is hardly very interesting either as it is.

The napoleonic soldier is iconic and proper both, and the horse arty was supposed to be a representative, as Napoleon was a famed artillerist. Otherwise you could go for the Cuirassier like they did in AoE 3, or just the tricolor musketeer, although the latter would be a far cry from the king's musketeers and I'm certain what abilities, if any they should have. +1 move just doesen't cut it, and isn't appropriate either.

Why don't you make a suggestion yourself instead of just countering. I'm not saying these units needs to be in vanilla civs, just airing ideas of what could be implemented.

FriendoftheDork said:

Why don't you make a suggestion yourself instead of just countering. I'm not saying these units needs to be in vanilla civs, just airing ideas of what could be implemented.

Click to expand...

Well, as someone would say, I know what I want, but not how to do it

More seriously, finding UU and UB is difficult in my opinion, because they are a lot of thing to consider. A lot of country have more than one epoch where they were distinctive (like Germany, England, rance, America), some had strength difficult to cater into unit or batiment (the Stock exchange is a prime example : I see what they want to emphatize, but apart from London I don't think they are any kind of real financial place in British kingdom), and in some case it's easy to go into overkill.

The example of France is for me typical : one of the more flavorful period of France history is revolution. But it's very hard to translate into Civ term : they had a frightful army (even before Napoleon), but that was because France were a big country and strated to conscript, not because the units themselves had something outstanding ; the administration changed completely, but a corthouse UB would appear much too soon ; and the leader are really obscure for non-french (and even a lot of french ; St Just and Robespierre are not widely known, in addition to be in some aspect about as evil as possible). The best thing I could see would be a prefecture UB with either added culture (because the France nationalism began to form at this moment), or added conscript capability, but what building would it replace ? Courthouse are much too soon, jail would feel about as akward as India UB.

The choice in BTS is in general rather decent, and in some case very good. Some are weak, the french musketeer is a prime example , but thing like bowman (and the whole babylonian / sumerian distinction that is pretty hard to do), camel archer (the history freak side of me would have taken the Mamelouk, but they are not exactly well-known, and on top of that not proeminent for a lot of time. They would fit with Saladin, however), but all in all they are in my opinion at least decent.