1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

America's UU: What should it be?

Discussion in 'Civ3 - General Discussions' started by TheOverseer714, Feb 6, 2009.

?

What UU fits America best?

Poll closed Mar 23, 2009.
  1. The F-15 works just fine.

    1.9%
  2. The Minuteman, a Musket replacement, stats are 3/(1)4/2 with defensive freeshot, cost of 70 shields.

    26.9%
  3. The Sherman Tank with same stats as a regular Tank, but 20 shields cheaper.

    13.5%
  4. Gatling Gun, upgrading Cannons, Stats 0/(10)/1, with lethal bombardment, cost of 60 shields

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. A Navy SEAL, ala Civ 4.

    13.5%
  6. A supercarrier carrying 8 units and having 1 extra movement.

    7.7%
  7. A more powerful bomber wither extra range (like a B-52)

    9.6%
  8. Other. (I have my own ideas,)

    26.9%
  1. joycem10

    joycem10 Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,352
    Location:
    pittsburgh
    You know my thoughts from the other thread since you included my idea. I think the Sherman puts the golden age at the appropriate time (the late industrial) and accurately represents American production during that age.

    I kinda like the Marine idea also, but I dont like the idea of researching an optional tech to access my UU. The Cav idea is nice but I think all terrain as roads is too strong unless the price is changed. The minuteman is interesting since there is only one other musketeer based UU. I dont like the supercarrier or any ship/plane UU because I want to pop a leader when using it.
     
  2. Calis

    Calis on time

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,967
    Location:
    Germany GMT+1
    There are several civs that have to research an optional tech for their UU...
     
  3. joycem10

    joycem10 Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,352
    Location:
    pittsburgh

    Those are all knight replacments. I doubt there are many players who skip chivalry. Im sure there are alot (unless lacking resources or in a special need) who skip amphi war.
     
  4. Snarkhunter

    Snarkhunter Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Messages:
    485
    Location:
    Annapolis
    If you want a weapon that expresses a civ's projection of power during its best days, that would be a carrier for the US. But carriers in the game are not nearly as powerful as carriers are in real life. I'm not even sure how they could be fixed to actually get the idea across. Perhaps if building a carrier automagically generated a fighter or bomber unit to go with it. . . .

    The Sherman didn't dominate anything. It was robust and there were a lot of them, but that is about all you can say for it--in fairness, it wasn't designed for an anti-tank role, but for offensive penetration; the anti-tank role was supposed to go to the M-10's, M-18's and the like tank destroyers.

    Some sort of updated rifle/musket man captures the early days well; frontiersmen didn't tend to stand and fight, but boy could they snipe!

    But the unsung weapon that actually defines American ground combat since the 1930's is artillery. Not any one piece, although the Americans took a good German field piece & made it better, but an entire system of allowing an observer to call in fire from every piece within range of the target, without delay--that, combined with a lot of artillery at all levels, made taking on even a mediocre American ground unit a tedious & bloody proposition. Germans groused about the Americans just flattening everything with 105's and 155's, but they also admitted they would have loved to have had enough equipment to do the same. The same system continued in all of our wars since, only better and more refined, and with better and better guns & other long range projectiles. Artillery is *the* main casualty producer of the 20th century and post- era, & *the* hallmark of American ground power. Nothing else has gotten used as often or comes as close.

    I'm not sure how to translate that into a unit, but possibly something as simple as allowing fire and movement at the same time in any order during a turn, bumping the movement by 1, or giving it lethal bombardment, or at least the chance of lethal bombardment, at least under some circumstances. You get the drift.

    kk
     
  5. Spoonwood

    Spoonwood Grand Philosopher

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    4,856
    Location:
    Ohio
    I almost always skip Chivalry and trade back for it. Artillery proper with lethal bombardment would work out as extremely overpowered. 1 extra movement to artillery proper would almost make it too easy to take cities in the industrial age... you don't even really need "combat" settlers then. Fire and movement at the same time would effectively make it so that you don't have to cover your artillery proper with infantry (or if need be guerilla/rifles). That again makes things too easy for the human player, in my opinion. Arties proper work great enough as they stand. Anything else, and things would get too easy.
     
  6. Snarkhunter

    Snarkhunter Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Messages:
    485
    Location:
    Annapolis
    *Shrug* The question was what's the unique unit. This is it. If it's overpowered in game terms, think what's it's like in real life--that's the point. You need some way to capture the extra firepower generated by the extremely fast communications inherent in a system of allowing, in effect, a platoon non-com to call in everything up to corps artillery batteries, instead of "going through channels"--and darn near get all those guns to fire perfect ToT (Time on Target--every shell landing at the same time, regardless of distance from the target, due to staggered firing times) salvoes when necessary.

    You *could* stagger it so that you don't get this ability until a tech later than RP. Perhaps with motorized transport. That would make more sense on the time line, in any case. Whatever--I'm simply saying that this is a characteristically, uniquely, even, American projection of combat power. Everyone with an artillery force & communications capability has tried to copy it since.

    kk
     
  7. Lord Katana

    Lord Katana Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Messages:
    178
    I completely agree with being a staple unit. I there for feel that the carrier should be the UU unit. It changed naval warfare in WWII and is what America is now best known (and feared for) in a military sense. Also America should have a "modern" UU unit since it's a fairly new "tribe". Only problem i can think of is how do you win a battle with a carrier? You don't want them attacked either so defensive isnt really and option :)
     
  8. capnvonbaron

    capnvonbaron Democratia gladii

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,783
    Location:
    cyberland, USA
    Two problems though;

    1. The Japanese proved to the Americans that the carrier was bee's knees. The Americans just didn't catch on until it was (almost) too late, and only turned the tables with superior production might (both boats AND airplanes to put on them)

    2. Also, the golden age thing. Unless it survives a submarine attack, its just a stupid way to spring a GA.

    I agree that the "super carrier" is a unit fairly unique to the US, but more and more countries are popping up with equivalent, and the American fleet only has so many due to the massive military budget we have vs. all the others out there. On a side note also, in war games where the US Navy and all its carrier might squared off against the US Air Force, the Navy generally got shredded. The main reason we are enamoured with our super carriers is because they've had so much success in dealing with little countries that have little or no navy or air force.
     
  9. The Judge

    The Judge Judge, Jury & Executioner

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Messages:
    108
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Couldn't agree more. I was thinking along the lines of cavalry but I wouldn't be able to resist making it look like Clint Eastwood complete with rifle, cowboy hat and a will to win the west! Yeeeeeee Hawww!!!

    :cowboy: :run: :lol:
     
  10. capnvonbaron

    capnvonbaron Democratia gladii

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,783
    Location:
    cyberland, USA
    heheh.. I was picturing more like a guy with a handlebar mustache and a pair of revolvers. Or at very least one revolver while waving a sabre over his head. Either way, Samuel Colt played a large part in the US Cavalry's success, after all ;)
     
  11. Theryman

    Theryman King

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    836
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio.
    Strange, I would prefer a Teddy Roosevelt type character riding a bear and PUNCHING the enemy to death with his bare (bear?) hands. If he got redlined, he would jump off the bear and wrestle the foes to the ground until they gave in.

    All joking aside, I think a Cav UU would be great.
     
  12. capnvonbaron

    capnvonbaron Democratia gladii

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,783
    Location:
    cyberland, USA
    ... or with a great big stick, all the while muttering something quietly :lol:

    I would pay money to see that UU...
     
  13. Snarkhunter

    Snarkhunter Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Messages:
    485
    Location:
    Annapolis
    A big US carrier force was planned & on the ways before Pearl. Nobody--including the Japanese--quite knew how big carrier battles would work out, but everyone knew surface ships were going to have trouble without air cover, and a lot of it, so that alone was reason enough to build carriers, if you could. And as nice as superior production was for the US, what really killed the IJN was that it only graduated 100 carrier pilots a year & it never really understood fleet logistics. After the battles in '42, the IJN was in serious trouble because of this, and the Japanese war plan for the Pacific suddenly began looking pretty dubious.

    While there are carriers being built elsewhere, almost all of them are small affairs, suitable in most cases only to STOL/VTOL type craft, & I don't think any of them carry nearly as many planes as a US carrier does. I certainly wouldn't want to have the Varyag in a straight heads-up match against the Nimitz, say. The real question is whether--or how long--the US will continue to build fleet carriers of the present type when the 6th generation fighters will probably be almost all robotic. Given the long service life of a fleet carrier, it's something to think about right now. (You could certainly base robots or, ok, remotes on current carriers, but if you knew that was what your air wing was going to be like, you could probably optimize the design & cut costs, to boot.)

    kk
     
  14. rysingsun

    rysingsun King

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    959
    I think I will go with a bomber UU. Maybe just make them cheaper. It can trigger a golden age when it makes its first lethal bombard.

    My reasoning:
    1) I personally think bombers are underpowered relative to artillery in C3C so I use them sparingly. While playing the Americans I can use them aggressively because they are cheaper.
    2) The Americans are renowned for flattening their enemies from the air. On the battlefield, on the cities, on the navies ... yes the Americans have always liked their planes.
     
  15. r16

    r16 not deity

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,286
    why not giving America a unique building that increases science , monetary gain and reduce corruption et cetera et cetera .Available late in the game it would force the player to bide his time until he/she can suddenly outproduce and outrun everybody , appearently without effort .The idea for this comes from the Sheriff's Office in the 4th scenario of Conquests .
     
  16. Spoonwood

    Spoonwood Grand Philosopher

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    4,856
    Location:
    Ohio
    Very little will force many players around here to "bid their time" with the exception of playing at a very high level... Sid... maybe Deity in some cases. If not going for an optimal finish date, why bother if you can kill the AIs quicker?
     
  17. Gosnork

    Gosnork Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    186
    Location:
    TEXAS
    There are 11 active Super Carriers in the world. All are in the USN. England's Queen Elizabeth class won't even be able to carry 2/3rds of the Nimitz's compliment.
     
  18. Civinator

    Civinator Blue Lion Supporter

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,128
    Gender:
    Male
    AI carriers do a very bad performance in C3C. So if you want to handicap the AI-USA severly, give it a carrier as a unique unit. But I think that an unique unit should be a bonus not a malus, therefore: No carrier.
     
  19. capnvonbaron

    capnvonbaron Democratia gladii

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,783
    Location:
    cyberland, USA
    Thats actually a very insightful point.

    Hitting along those lines, the cavalry UU in the hands of a strong AI would actually be quite scary, IMO. Especially considering how trigger-happy they get around the early IA. Frankly I'd be frightened to have hordes of road-mvmnt or extra attack point cavalry coming at me... much moreso than, say, cheaper tanks or slightly more effective bombers. :scared:
     
  20. TheOverseer714

    TheOverseer714 Overseer

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    5,077
    Location:
    Ohio
    The Ottomans are a tribe I hate having anywhere on my continent, a Sipahi is the best offensive unit until Tanks, so a Cavalry UU could be very potent. With America being handicapped with the weakest trait and arguably the worst UU, a better UU could make it worth playing more often.
     

Share This Page