Are F-15s all that bad?

[Englishman]

The other uu's in the game might not have been the best, but their contribution / history makes their place in the game. US spec/f do not have the kind of reputation and stand out history that the other UU’ have. As for the uniqueness, for every battle taken place by US S/F, a dozen more have been accomplished by other nations troops. There for as a UU they have no place in the game. It's just a case of 'ahh wouldn't it be cool to have the USMC or 101st as an American UU!'

And I'm not knocking US S/F, there great troops no doubt, but not unique nor the best.

The B-52! That probably the best suggestion on this thread! That truley is a symbol of the American military past and present.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Okay, I -guess- I can see your point .

Given all the suggestions that seem receptive to everyone, I would go with either the SSN or the B-52. Personally I'd prefer the SSN but I think that is just because of my playing style more than anything.

 

[TheDS]

I just did a quick check of a few nations and India, Brazil (which the French are apparently selling the Foch to), Canada, Italy, UK, and Russia all have Carriers, and it looks like several nations are building or planning to build one. (NOTE: not talking super-carriers here, but still...mobile air-power is a hell of a force multiplier).

Nice link; thanks. The Charles de Gaulle is the largest, most modern French carrier. It's nuclear too. But it's about the same size as the ship I was stationed on, the Bataan (LHD-5). That is, it's about 40,000 tons and about 850 feet long. Different missions, of course....

Bataan Home Page

The USS Ronald Reagan (CVN76) is our most modern carrier. It weighs in at a hefty 100,000 tons and is about 1200 feet long.

Everyone else's carriers are about the same size as Charles de Gaulle and Bataan. Most have a ski-jump, and are useable only by Harrier-style aircraft. While Harriers are pretty cool, they can't even break the sound barrier, have short range, and can't carry very heavy weapons loads.

On the other hand, the Nimitz class (and other US CVNs) carry double the a/c complement, those aircraft can travel twice as far, twice as fast, and carry a lot more armanent. (The Super Entendard can carry an entire Exocet missile, the F-18 Hornet can carry 4 Harpoons. The electronic/accuracy qualities may be debateable, but the Harpoon has more range, a bigger payload, and there's 4 of them to dodge.)

Yes, airpower presence is good, and the Brits showed what even a piddly Harrier Carrier can do about 20 years ago (and the Japanese showed what even less could do about 60 years ago), but the world's navies would be hard pressed to counter a single CVBG on open ocean, and we have 12 of them. This is not American bragging, this is real.

Someone said that Americans only have Stealth technology because we're rich.

We researched it first. Anyone can build it. Anyone can build a supercarrier too, but why would they want to? That's what makes it distinctly American.

- If the peep at Firaxis did to throw out the ‘realism’ and authenticity of the UU’s by making a special marine unit for America I’d take it straight back out again

Sooooo...... I take it you always play the British for national reasons?

I have personaly (at first hand and all that) seen 2 F-22 fighters flying in Southern England. They were DEFINETLY F-22s as I have seen many pictures of them.

The JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) looks almost identical to the F-22. While it is possible you did indeed see an F-22, it is more likely you saw the JSF, which is being designed by numerous NATO countries and is intended to help reduce the logistical strains of a NATO air force. JSF will be fielded by numerous nations, and will also be carrier based, but I don't think it is VTOL.

We had a JSF team come aboard the boat a few years ago to check it out and see if the boat could handle the aircraft. I got a promotional package of some sort from them, and it included a badge (that can be sewed on your flight jacket) and a pin shaped like the aircraft. The JSF has a single engine; the F-22 has 2 engines. Bataan has no catapults, so it carries only helos and Harriers. I would expect the JSF was VSTOL (so many damned acronyms for all that stuff, I may have the wrong one there) and would take off like the harriers do: fly straight off. (No ski-jumps for us, fellas.)

If by meaning you visually saw them that they are not stealth you miss the whole point of stealth aircraft. If a B-2 or F-117 is flying close enough to the ground you will see them too.

Seen em both at air shows. They do a couple fly-overs and they're gone. 'Course, I'm on the flight deck watchin the girls in the boats below, wavin my hat, tryin to get em to flash..... Then I toss it to them.

The B-52 idea fails in my mind because the Russians have bombers with that kind of carrying capacity and range. Heck, the Tu-22M Backfire is just about the coolest bomber. Sucker does mach 2, huge range, and carries 3 of those humongous anti-ship missiles, the kind which travel at mach 3+ and have 250 mile range and a full metric ton of explosive! That's anti-carrier firepower right there! The Tomahawk, on the other hand, may have more range, but it's slower than piss and has only a half-ton (non-metric) warhead. Hell, make the AS-6 Kingfish (KSR-5) the Russians' UU....

So in conclusion, SUPERCARRIER.

On a side-note, should we do a poll?

 

[ufftyuwe]

TheDS,


hmm well you are soldier, right?

Don't forget if you want a Supercarrier, then the Russians get:

A hightech and unreached Anti-Ballistic-Missile which has a hit chance of 90%, so Russians can easily win a nuke war (reality).

A hightech and unreached Plasmafield Stealth Technology Jet Fighter, which overflew 4 american radars without being seen. (happend 1998)

A hightech tank T-90 which is partly more technical advance than any other tank except german Leopard 2. (reality)

A hightech and unreached 300 mph fast Torpedo which cannot be fought. (invented 2000)

An excellent Paratrooper troup and with them...airdrop-able light tanks like BMP, which they invented in the late 90s, WITH crews and brakes.
(reality)

The heaviest Battle Cruiser in the World, who cannot be fought, say western analysts. (reality, but they only got 1 of them yet)

A hightech Nuclear Submarine, who can disturb radio waves of other subs and keeps itself in Stealth mode. (REALITY, a few have been shipped since 2001).

The Russians also should then get, mobile ICBM's to undetect for radars...(reality, they got 500 new ones, even though everybody thinks they disarm, in 1997)

and so on and so on...

believe me, the f-15 ist just fair to the Cossack

 

[JohnnyReb]

Heck, the Tu-22M Backfire is just about the coolest bomber. Sucker does mach 2, huge range, and carries 3 of those humongous anti-ship missiles, the kind which travel at mach 3+ and have 250 mile range and a full metric ton of explosive! That's anti-carrier firepower right there!

I think you're referring to the Ketchen. Freaking thing looks like a plane in its own right .

The heaviest Battle Cruiser in the World, who cannot be fought, say western analysts. (reality, but they only got 1 of them yet)

The Kiev class? Thing is a freaking floating nightmare. Still, I don't believe in the 'unsinkable' ship concept. If it can float, it can be sunk.

As far as the gent that saw the F-22, I have to respectfully agree he saw something else since the F-22 isn't in production yet for delivery to the military, still in testing. I can't see them testing in in the UK when it is being built in the US.

 

[Tassadar]

I think the best UU for american is the cowboy. Like cowboy Bush.

 

[Englishman]

We researched it first. Anyone can build it. Anyone can build a supercarrier too, but why would they want to? That's what makes it distinctly American.

- Agreed. The original formulae used the states in the design of the F117a came from Russia. Luckily for the west Russia thought they were a waste of time! Although the T160 if its still in development which I doubt was a long range stealth bomber.

Sooooo...... I take it you always play the British for national reasons?

Alas no, I'm usually the (shudders!) French. I'd be arguing the same point if an Italian came on here and asked for Rome's UU to be a Nuke. It wouldn't belong in the game as a UU for them.

 

[Lab Monkey]

I really have had enough of this thread. It's turned into a discussion about the technical aspects of military hardware which may turn you guys on, but which means absolutely squat to either the Civ3 engine or me.

Like I said, the UU's are culturaly specific as much as a military success story. Besides, I'm a pacifist.

The problem with the Americans is that they claim to be the best at everything. Carry on like this and every one of their units will be a UU.

God someone close this poxy thread.

 

[Lab Monkey]

If you can't make up your minds, just make your own mods.

 

[Moss]

Well Lab Monkey, your supposed to think highly of your home country. If we all thought that the Russians and British had better weapons, we probably wouldn't be the Superpower we are today.

My choices for UU are:

Marines
Mineutemen
B-52
SuperCarrier

 

[SCPete]

I have to admit that even though we don't have the best of most Military weapons we do have, as a whole, the best training of any other military force. That alone is the difference in any battle. For that the Military Academy should be the Americans Unique Wonder (Establishment). Effects: enemy fortification/terrain bonus decreased by half & unit promotions more likely.

 

[Phoenix]

Does anybody know if the game would crash if you included more than one UU for a civ?

 

[Englishman]

The B-52 idea fails in my mind because the Russians have bombers with that kind of carrying capacity and range

- No but it's by far the most famous. 40+ years old and still going strong. Give it a longer range and higher bomabrd rating.

, the best training of any other military force

- Like the case when some american troops' gps messed up and they didn't know how to use a map and compass!

 

[ufftyuwe]

Originally posted by Phoenix
Does anybody know if the game would crash if you included more than one UU for a civ?

well the given Units...it wont crash

Wanna have modern armor on your own?

 

[ufftyuwe]

Originally posted by Moss321
Well Lab Monkey, your supposed to think highly of your home country. If we all thought that the Russians and British had better weapons, we probably wouldn't be the Superpower we are today.

Thats true, but the USA is only a military superpower...
education is as the rate of Senegal ;-) i could not explain in other words cuz the worst europeans are the best american students *ggggg*

anyway, the F15 is a good UU for the americans, even though the americans in my game always get killed......uhm by me

I like the F-15...

 

[MuddyOne]

I look at it more from a gameplay perspective. It would be nice if all of the civilization's UU had a likely chance of causing a GA with the default ruleset. Since lethal Bombardment is off by default, the only way to trigger a GA would require that you have the F-15 set to air superiority in a city that an enemy decides to attack. Not very likely. None of the other UU's can only trigger a GA at the whim of the AI. Why should the American UU require it? At least the English UU can decide to attack another ship, though I would prefer all land based UU's.

Additionally, the bonuses you get with the F-15 are a joke. Better bombard than other Jet fighters and precision strikes. It has worse range and bombard than the bombers which are required to be researched before advancing to the modern age, and precision strike requires SEVEN more techs to be researched before it comes into play.(and was bugged last time I tried to use it) So it is an average jet fighter or a poor bomber that requires resources that a bomber doesn't require.

Furthermore, it comes so late it is useless. You are either building the UN, building SS parts, or milking the game by the time you get it. German's UU is similarly very late, but you can get some use of it.

 

[Zouave]

Christ, is this thread still going and going. . .? I can't believe anyone thinks the F-15 is anything but useless.

Now IF we had scenario-building and we could start a game well into the Modern Era the F-15 might have some use. But we don't have scenarios. Not until Firaxis tries to sell them to us.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Originally posted by Lab Monkey
I really have had enough of this thread. It's turned into a discussion about the technical aspects of military hardware which may turn you guys on, but which means absolutely squat to either the Civ3 engine or me.

So unsubscribe or quit checking up on it if you don't want to read anymore.

The problem with the Americans is that they claim to be the best at everything. Carry on like this and every one of their units will be a UU.

We are.

 

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by JohnnyReb
We are.

 

[Moss]

Originally posted by ufftyuwe

Thats true, but the USA is only a military superpower...
education is as the rate of Senegal ;-)

Actually the U.S. is an econmic power which allows it also to be a military power. We can spend a lot of money on our military and it won't hurt most of our people.