Sensei 35
Chieftain

or Japan if I want to finish things up earlier.

Anybody else agree?
TruePurple said:been a couple examples where britains small fast manueverable ships have saved their butts.
Theres another nation with a land UU that enslaves. Bet thats pretty good.
Yeah I think in Civ3 Conquests there's a land UU that enslaves. I think its the Mayans, and you can enslave other units or sacrifice them for culture. I'm not sure about that though. Anybody here have C3C?![]()
I suppose you think GI joe would also be a great UU. Its not about iconic. Its about being unique and especially good for that nation (the only thing unique about "red coats" is the color of their coats, just run of the mill soldiers with a nickname americans gave em, but lots of nations soldiers have nicknames) Britains speciality is boats, been that way for much of its history and thats what its UU should be.I think the redcoat is a much better idea for a UU. It's certainly much more iconic than any individual type of boat, and in gameplay, a boosted rifleman would be far more useful than a boosted frigate.
The Mayan Javelin Thrower replaces the archer and has a 1/3 chance t (I think) to turn defeated units into enslaved workers. Not sure about sacrificing for culture, though.
I suppose you think GI joe would also be a great UU. Its not about iconic. Its about being unique and especially good for that nation (the only thing unique about "red coats" is the color of their coats, just run of the mill soldiers with a nickname americans gave em, but lots of nations soldiers have nicknames) Britains speciality is boats, been that way for much of its history and thats what its UU should be.
Are the Attack/Def/Movement Specs the Same for the Javelin Thrower and the archer?
And to say that the redcoat is only distinguished by the colour of the coat is to say that the persian immortals are only special because there were always 10 000 of them. The accomplishments of the redcoat are what set it apart from its contemporaries.
The impact of the British land army on world history is enormous (consider the War of the Spanish Succession, the Seven Years War, the Hundred Years War, the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War in particular). The navy is best known for protecting the island and the commercial interests, rather than exerting power abroad.
F-15s did very little compared to other US fighters.As for that, the F-15 is pretty good as a historical representation, but it just doesn't work in game play. Fighters just don't do enough, and jet fighters come so late that they can't really influence the outcome. A better UU would be the Sherman. In C3C, instead of 16-8-2, the Sherman would be 14-6-2. But it would cost only 70 shields to build, so you'd be able to make hoards of them.
Losing a war is a great accomplishment?Seriously, as redcoats, British land forces didn't exactly acquire a great reputation.
I really disagree with this. The histoical impact of English/British land forces is trivial when compared with the impact of the British navy. As a primarily naval power, Britain conquered portions of North America, the Far East, Africa, Australia, the Middle East, and the entire Indian subcontinent. Sure, they needed land victories, but they were sustained by sea power. Protecting commercial interests is what a navy is for, by the way. For an army to fight overseas, it must be supplied.