19 of 18 Civs now confirmed!

[Insanity_X]

WHat it coulld be is a CS's gifted unit has a special name like Siamese Elephant, which is a regular Nelly with a special promotion that it either wouldn't get normally (like a Nelly with City Raider I) (like having a shock or flanking promotion on arrival).

That would explain the unit titling as well as why it's a unique unit.

 

[Gre_Magus]

I'm leaning towards the idea of (at least some) City States having unique units. It seems like a logical extension of the emphasis they're giving them. Ally with Geneva, get Swiss pikemen, ally with Bangkok, get Siamese Elephants (you know, tan with brown around the eyes... ).

 

[Tavdy79]

There is no UU fitting Germany better than Panzers, everything else would be a disgrace

The Panzers were actually outclassed by the USSR's T-34s and the USA/UK's Shermans, the two main tanks used by the allies during WWII. The Germans eventually switched production to the much larger & more powerful Panthers and Konigstigers, however the USSR and USA could produce the T-34s (over 84,000 built) and Shermans (over 50,000) at a much faster rate than the Germans could Panthers (6000) and Konigstigers (under 2000). Even with their 16000+ Panzer II, III & IV's, the Germans were hopelessly outnumbered. Also, the larger German tanks were much better at long-distance fighting. Panthers had weak side-armour, while the Konigstiger was slow and had poor maneuverability. Both were designed to destroy the enemy before it came in close, so on a level battlefield (both literally and figuratively) a Konigstiger or Panther unit would always defeat a T-34 or Sherman unit. However the battlefields were rarely level: the Allies' tanks were cheaper to build & operate, so the Germans were almost always vastly outnumbered, while the Germans' much bigger firing range was only an advantage on flat terrain - hills, trees & buildings made it irrelevant.

 

[Solver]

For what it's worth, my money is also on the Incans being wrongly thought of as in. They have the least supporting evidence of any civ. They were the only ones not mentioned explicitly, an article just said that Firaxis is resurrecting Quechua for the game. Which is wrong anyway - Quechua is still spoken widely enough. For that matter, Nahuatl is also still spoken, though it's different from what it was 500 years ago.

 

[Grimlin]

The Panzers were actually outclassed by the USSR's T-34s and the USA/UK's Shermans, the two main tanks used by the allies during WWII. The Germans eventually switched production to the much larger & more powerful Panthers and Konigstigers, however the USSR and USA could produce the T-34s (over 84,000 built) and Shermans (over 50,000) at a much faster rate than the Germans could Panthers (6000) and Konigstigers (under 2000). Even with their 16000+ Panzer II, III & IV's, the Germans were hopelessly outnumbered. Also, the larger German tanks were much better at long-distance fighting. Panthers had weak side-armour, while the Konigstiger was slow and had poor maneuverability. Both were designed to destroy the enemy before it came in close, so on a level battlefield (both literally and figuratively) a Konigstiger or Panther unit would always defeat a T-34 or Sherman unit. However the battlefields were rarely level: the Allies' tanks were cheaper to build & operate, so the Germans were almost always vastly outnumbered, while the Germans' much bigger firing range was only an advantage on flat terrain - hills, trees & buildings made it irrelevant.

Quite interesting, although partly wrong and when considering the topic not very relevant at all
If having to choose a certain military unit that is a signature unit one usually thinks of the most famous, well known... Look at the other UUs, I can't recall that Redcoats or Immortals or any other unit was some sort of Giant Death Robot in history.
Other choices would be Krupp Artillery, V2s, U-Boote, the Leopard tanks... I still think Panzers fit best.

 

[kivanc]

The Panzers were actually outclassed by the USSR's T-34s and the USA/UK's Shermans, the two main tanks used by the allies during WWII. The Germans eventually switched production to the much larger & more powerful Panthers and Konigstigers, however the USSR and USA could produce the T-34s (over 84,000 built) and Shermans (over 50,000) at a much faster rate than the Germans could Panthers (6000) and Konigstigers (under 2000). Even with their 16000+ Panzer II, III & IV's, the Germans were hopelessly outnumbered. Also, the larger German tanks were much better at long-distance fighting. Panthers had weak side-armour, while the Konigstiger was slow and had poor maneuverability. Both were designed to destroy the enemy before it came in close, so on a level battlefield (both literally and figuratively) a Konigstiger or Panther unit would always defeat a T-34 or Sherman unit. However the battlefields were rarely level: the Allies' tanks were cheaper to build & operate, so the Germans were almost always vastly outnumbered, while the Germans' much bigger firing range was only an advantage on flat terrain - hills, trees & buildings made it irrelevant.

hey we are not discussing mechanics here we are just giving examples from civ4 UUs. as yet, we don't have info about most civ5 UUs.

For what it's worth, my money is also on the Incans being wrongly thought of as in. They have the least supporting evidence of any civ. They were the only ones not mentioned explicitly, an article just said that Firaxis is resurrecting Quechua for the game. Which is wrong anyway - Quechua is still spoken widely enough. For that matter, Nahuatl is also still spoken, though it's different from what it was 500 years ago.

at last we're back in topic.
yes, could be a misunderstanding but I hope not. I like HC in civ4. i am close to my 1st deity win with him.

 

[Solver]

As much as I liked the Inca, there has to be a misunderstanding somewhere. Firaxis says 18 civs. So there can't be 19. The Incan leader hasn't been mentioned, the word "Inca" hasn't been mentioned in any press, only Quechua has. If that was a mistake, then there's no other evidence for the Incans.

 

[kivanc]

As much as I liked the Inca, there has to be a misunderstanding somewhere. Firaxis says 18 civs. So there can't be 19. The Incan leader hasn't been mentioned, the word "Inca" hasn't been mentioned in any press, only Quechua has. If that was a mistake, then there's no other evidence for the Incans.

yes but similarly siam is not confirmed neither. i checked your link and saw Siam as a confirmed civ. well, if u consider this italian article as a resource for that, it might not be a proof for siam civ neither.


what is the Russian UU in civ4? it is cossack (replacement of cavalry) you know where the origin of cossack comes, right?
it just comes from the Khazak nation (which was a Turkish tribe inside Russia during imperial era). so Khazak cavalries served Russian army. Horse is very important in Turkish culture you know.

So similarly, Siamese Elephant could be the Indian UU... well, just a guess. noone can be sure, yet.

 

[bonafide11]

I think the Inca will be in because Firaxis won't completely neglect South America. I still believe some city-states will get UUs.

But here's another theory that hasn't been mentioned yet. Maybe it's just a scenario that some of those UUs were in?

 

[Solver]

Siam was, though, explicitly mentioned by name, unlike the Incans. I agree that it would bebetter to have a second source confirming that but the fact remains that Incans are the only ones not mentioned by civ name or leader name. We'll see soon, I guess

 

[kivanc]

But here's another theory that hasn't been mentioned yet. Maybe it's just a scenario that some of those UUs were in?

you click on a medieval europe mod and see HRE (with landsknecht) is there instead of germany, and napoleon as a french leader.
but then you return the default mode of the game and see Bismarch for Germany and Louis for France.

If we just think this way, we can always think every confirmed feature might be a part of a scenery or a mod. so it means magazines are just fooling us if these confirmations and 1st impressions are from a mod/scenery.
no, i don't think so.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

The Panzers were actually outclassed by the USSR's T-34s and the USA/UK's Shermans, the two main tanks used by the allies during WWII. The Germans eventually switched production to the much larger & more powerful Panthers and Konigstigers, however the USSR and USA could produce the T-34s (over 84,000 built) and Shermans (over 50,000) at a much faster rate than the Germans could Panthers (6000) and Konigstigers (under 2000). Even with their 16000+ Panzer II, III & IV's, the Germans were hopelessly outnumbered. Also, the larger German tanks were much better at long-distance fighting. Panthers had weak side-armour, while the Konigstiger was slow and had poor maneuverability. Both were designed to destroy the enemy before it came in close, so on a level battlefield (both literally and figuratively) a Konigstiger or Panther unit would always defeat a T-34 or Sherman unit. However the battlefields were rarely level: the Allies' tanks were cheaper to build & operate, so the Germans were almost always vastly outnumbered, while the Germans' much bigger firing range was only an advantage on flat terrain - hills, trees & buildings made it irrelevant.

There is no such things as a "Panzer" tank, in German it simply means armor and was used to mean "armor division" (Panzerdivision) as well as the actual German word for tank, Panzerkampfenwagen. Therefore, in reality, having the German UU as a Panzer is a misnomer as there never was a Panzer tank (a bit redundant ). It's my understanding that the game designers have always chosen the Panzer simply as means of covering all of their bases and representing the tank-building expertise of the WWII Germans...if took such vast numbers for the Allies to overcome the German tanks then surely that speaks volumes about the quality of their design and construction, no?

If I recall I once heard it said that all the enemy had to do was aim for the star painted on the front of the tank, and that Sherman was dead in the water...

 

[Tavdy79]

hey we are not discussing mechanics here we are just giving examples from civ4 UUs. as yet, we don't have info about most civ5 UUs.

My point was that the Panzers/Panthers/Konigstigers weren't necessarily any better than their competitors, while the Landsknecht had a definite advantage over other similar units of the period.

Same goes for the Redcoats and Longbowmen of England: the Redcoats might be iconic, but they weren't really any better than their continental equivalents. English Longbowmen, on the other hand, were much more highly trained than their continental counterparts - by law all Englishmen were required to train with the longbow every week.

IMO the UU should be a unit that's not only distinctive but had a genuine advantage. The Redcoats and Panzers might be iconic (especially from the perspective of Americans, who had to fight against both at various points) but they didn't have a significant advantage. Landsknechts and English Longbowmen did.

 

[Tavdy79]

if took such vast numbers for the Allies to overcome the German tanks then surely that speaks volumes about the quality of their design and construction, no?

The Germans had the Panzers II & III during the early part of the war, the Panzer IV right the way through, and the Panther and the Konigstiger towards the end. All three Panzers were outclassed by the Russian & American built tanks in a one-on-one confrontation, whereas the Panther and Konigstiger were very powerful but had major drawbacks due to their size. It's pretty clear that ciV will have units made up of multiple fighters/vehicles etc., so based on the total number produced one Panzer unit could probably include a Konigstiger, three Panthers and eight Panzers. However the allies tanks were much cheaper to build and maintain, so an equivalent unit might be 20 Shermans or 25 T-34s - a much larger number of smaller tanks. Unless the game also increases the maintenance costs of Panzers?

 

[Ahriman]

The German Panzer UU clearly represents the fact that the Germans were superior in terms of developing mobile armored warfare. They were the pioneers of effective armor tactics. The game recognizes this by giving them a superior Armor unit. Similarly, Egyptians were masters of chariot warfare (its not that their chariots were necessarily any better than anyone else's) the Spanish gained significant military advantage from taking horses to the new world (please don't anyone start telling me that Conquistadores were actually superior soldiers), the Hellenic civs were the initiators of phalanx formations, the Romans of generalist heavy infantry, etc.
Please don't lets get into the exact details of Tank model A vs Tank model B....
That's not what the game is trying to represent.

I also see no reason why civs should only be getting a single UU. It seems that Civ5 is addressing one of the weakest parts of Civ, which is the blandness and sameness of the various different factions. I'm really looking forward to civs actually being *different*, with unique bonuses and hopefully multiple UUs and UBs.

 

[Grimlin]

The German Panzer UU clearly represents the fact that the Germans were superior in terms of developing mobile armored warfare. They were the pioneers of effective armor tactics. The game recognizes this by giving them a superior Armor unit. Similarly, Egyptians were masters of chariot warfare (its not that their chariots were necessarily any better than anyone else's) the Spanish gained significant military advantage from taking horses to the new world (please don't anyone start telling me that Conquistadores were actually superior soldiers), the Hellenic civs were the initiators of phalanx formations, the Romans of generalist heavy infantry, etc.
Please don't lets get into the exact details of Tank model A vs Tank model B....
That's not what the game is trying to represent.

I also see no reason why civs should only be getting a single UU. It seems that Civ5 is addressing one of the weakest parts of Civ, which is the blandness and sameness of the various different factions. I'm really looking forward to civs actually being *different*, with unique bonuses and hopefully multiple UUs and UBs.

Thats pretty much what I wanted to say, your post even supports my case for the other german units xD
U-Boote are certainly second place on my list of iconic units here. And once more, they were not really any better than the subs of the other countries (except Elektroboote).

Edit: Almost forgot, when talking about actual tank models its important to mention that Germany didn't build any good tanks before annexing the Czech Republic, which were really building the good tanks. But any sort of tactic involving tanks as a unit of its own and not as support for Infantry was developed and implemented by Germany.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Thats pretty much what I wanted to say, your post even supports my case for the other german units xD
U-Boote are certainly second place on my list of iconic units here. And once more, they were not really any better than the subs of the other countries (except Elektroboote).

I'll agree that U-boats weren't that much different most of the war.

Wouldn't you agree that the German torpedos were much more reliable than the American ones most of the war?

 

[mrt144]

I've just read the scanned pictures of that article from the Italian magazine (but some parts were unreadable). Here are some quotes that may be worth mentioning (the translation is mine):

• “Only one combat value per unit” (e.g. no attack/defence values like Civ3)
  
• Promotions (The actual quotes goes like: “In Civ4 it was possible to promote units when they gained enough experience... that feature will be still present in Civ5, but everything will be much better!”).
  
• “Cities will have a defensive value and will be able to defend themselves from barbarians.”
  
• Heroes (“Gli eroi” !?)
  
• The possibility of winning without fighting (“La possibilità di vincere senza combattere”)
  
• “You can ‘buy’ an hex to put it immediately under your control”
  
• “Schafer loads a saved game and shows us a big battle from the Hellenistic period: the hoplites of both opposing sides are facing one another, but the yellow side has got archers, who shoot the enemy from behind. The arrows kill many victims: the enemy units, made up of eight/nine ‘little men’, are literally decimated. Then, it’s the opponents turn: they try to break the line of yellow hoplites, but the archers shoot again, the arrows obscure the sky and kill all the remaining enemies.”
  
  The last passage seems to suggest a couple of things: opportunity fire and lethal ranged bombardment.

The thing that annoys me about so much of the stuff in the magazines is the use of the word "better". Better than Civ IV for so many things? I doubt that could possibly be the case.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I highly, highly doubt that the Siamese would have made it in. There is a possibility that there the magazine made an accidental error on their part. For example, I remember in another magazine that the English leader was mentioned as "Queen Victoria", even though we all know by now that the English leader will be Elizabeth.

Since this is only one magazine, I have yet to wait to see if what they're saying is actually true.

 

[Dale]

I'm now highly doubtful of Inca being in, and seeing Siam as more confirmed. One article mentioned raising the dead Aztec language for Montezuma. They mention Civ and Leader by name. The other article just used the language name.