2nd UU and Praetorians

[Lokolus]

How about adding a second unique unit for each civ? it could really improve gameplay and the difference between civs- some of the unique units could come from the main game itself- Landskencht for Germany, Cataphracht for Rome and Volture for Babylon. Some coul'd be invented easily with existing graphics- a Minuteman for America, a North-African Elephant for Carthage, A68 Zero for the Japanese and many more...


After reading the "Praetorians!?" thread (and because of Rhye's suggestion), I opened this poll for the public to decide...

 

[say1988]

I don't think it is that important, but IMO legionary is a better name. the legion being the icon of the Roman military.

 

[Edungeon]

Praetorian

And just one UU for me

 

[kairob]

I really like the idea of a nsecond UU, it will help the gameplay for a lot of civs which are focused on just one era and also would help some civs do well in eras they should do well in.

For example, the Landsnekt would give Germany more flavour in the middle ages and make it less about Hitlers Germany and a Man O War for Britain would help out its collonization.

 

["<-_Danny_->"]

Yes! Allow the Civ3 UU it's a great idea!

 

[Úmarth]

I think the 2nd UU is a good idea for certain civs, but shouldn't be added for their own sake. In particular I think that civs that were powerful across multiple ages should have multiple UUs to fit (since they now represent the civ's "hayday").

 

[Hegix]

Cataphracht for Rome

So many civs used Cataphracts before the Romans did that it hardly qualifies as unique to the Romans. If anything it should be a second Persian UU.

 

[say1988]

Well, I believe that is to represent the Eastern Empire (i.e. Byzantines), unfortunately the game focuses on the Western Empire, so I would more likely add a unit more fitting to the West, not that I know which unit to add.

 

[Lokolus]

A Swiss Pikeman?

 

[Úmarth]

Well, I believe that is to represent the Eastern Empire (i.e. Byzantines), unfortunately the game focuses on the Western Empire, so I would more likely add a unit more fitting to the West, not that I know which unit to add.

A ballista maybe, strong catapult. But I don't think it would really serve a gameplay purpose other than being cool.

 

[kairob]

I would vote for either a better catapult to help sieges, an axeman (Auxilary?) to help counter the barb axemen or an archer to help protect cities they capture...

 

[Lokolus]

Congratulations! 2000 posts!
Now back to topic, maybe the legionar shoul'd replace the swordman and the praetorian will replace the maceman? It woul'd represent the difference between the regular legionaries and the "Elite" praetorians

 

[Úmarth]

It's the, lets say... controversial, assertion that the Praetorians were an elite that prompted this poll in the first place.

Re a possible second UU for Rome though. Returning to my idea of multiple ages, how about a unit to represent medieval or modern Italy? Genoese Crossbowmen or Papal Swiss Guards for medieval/renaissance and Redshirts for modern instantly spring to mind.

 

[Lokolus]

There's the "Papal Pikeman" from the Charlemagne scenario.

 

[onedreamer]

-_-"

Let's open a poll about going back to play Civ3 ? People really can't accept changes...

 

[onedreamer]

It's the, lets say... controversial, assertion that the Praetorians were an elite that prompted this poll in the first place.

Heh... actually the assertion is that Legion(ary) is not an elite nor a word indicating any particular (unique ?) unit of the roman army, it just indicates THE roman armies (soldiers) in any age of Roman history.

 

[fishhead]

Heh... actually the assertion is that Legion(ary) is not an elite nor a word indicating any particular (unique ?) unit of the roman army, it just indicates THE roman armies (soldiers) in any age of Roman history.

err no sorry the assertion prompting the opening of this thread is that praetorians arent much of an elite and legionary is a more fitting name!
what you said is just your assertion and i already contested it in the other post so ill keep that to myself. if what you said would be true why would anyone have opened the this poll?

 

[Lokolus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_soldiers
This is a list of all types of Roman soldiers, I think that the ones that suit the most are the:
Ballista- replaces Catapult\Trebuchet, Clibanarii or Cataphract to replace Knights (heavy cavalry), frumentarii- will replace spies or Classiarii- will replace the maceman.

 

[Úmarth]

The thing is Rome's (not Byzantine) military peak was in the Republican period rather than the Empire, and it's not really appropriate to select UUs from a period when the civ was in decline. Furthermore, the Romans were well known for their poor quality cavalry; it was a huge factor in the first and the early second Punic wars and by the time of the Marian reforms the cavalry was entirely made up of allied units (successively Italic, Gallic and then Germanic. Which I find interesting, it's like Roman citizenship and horsemanship are mutually exclusive ). Also I have never heard that there was anything special about Roman espionage, and the frumentarii were concerned with internal rather than external intelligence (they were grain collectors originally).

To be honest I think the second UU thing is a bit of a dead end.

 

[Lokolus]

I think that a Cataphract that will represent the Eastern Roman Empire will be OK, the Romans in the game always build or capture Constantinopole. I don't see any problems with a unit of the Eastern Empire as a Roman UU.

Edit: Also, Justinian is a roman leaderhead. this means the game is not about the Western Empire alone.