frijolesmalos
Chieftain
Mostly ask cause I think I read somewhere, that the English UU is now a redcoat, which is cool. Any other changes to the UUs? Will the American Civ finally get Minuteman or are we still stuck with the super late F-15?
Have they mentioned what the Civ UUs are for four?
- Thread starter frijolesmalos
- Start date
SuperBeaverInc.
Groucho
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/info/#Empires is a list of the civilizations and what we know so far. There are some new UUs so far, like the Cho-Ku-Nu for China
frijolesmalos
Chieftain
Thanks, I overlooked that.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
As I stipulated in another post, I have a feeling that Redcoat is actually Queen Victoria's Unique Unit, not the English UU. I reckon that Elizabeth has the Man-O-War as before.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
HourlyDaily
Man-o-Mercy
Is it just me or is anyone else disappointed they chose a Redcoat (for Victoria's leadership only? - is this a Hanoverian dynasty thing?)
The choice for England could be a Welsh Longbowman, a Lancaster Bomber, Spitfire, Man-O-War (for Queen Bess maybe?) or a Highland Guard or some form of powerful Ironclad.
Seems like American war for Independence bias to me - and really it wasn't much of a war in comparison to the majority of wars the English have been invovled in. I hope that doesn't offend anyone because it is just my opinion.
The choice for England could be a Welsh Longbowman, a Lancaster Bomber, Spitfire, Man-O-War (for Queen Bess maybe?) or a Highland Guard or some form of powerful Ironclad.
Seems like American war for Independence bias to me - and really it wasn't much of a war in comparison to the majority of wars the English have been invovled in. I hope that doesn't offend anyone because it is just my opinion.
ogmoir
Arctic Troops
If England has the Redcoats for Victoria and Man-of-War for Elizabeth, I think they are good choices. In my opinion, UUs should be from the real "golden age" of that civ, which was the 18th and the 19th century for the British. That same reasoning would rule out the Minuteman for the Americans and support the F-15.
Lockesdonkey
Liberal Jihadist
If tied to leader, then it should be this for America:
Lincoln: Union Rifleman (or some such): I have no clue of what it should be like, but replace standard Rifle.
FDR: Hmm...I don't know. Possibilities include GI, U.S. Marine, whatever tank was in use in WWII, and some planes; the Flying Fortress might be a good one.
Lincoln: Union Rifleman (or some such): I have no clue of what it should be like, but replace standard Rifle.
FDR: Hmm...I don't know. Possibilities include GI, U.S. Marine, whatever tank was in use in WWII, and some planes; the Flying Fortress might be a good one.
Furius
Prince
I think redcoats are a whole lot better than Man-of-wars. The Redcoat was victorious in wars across the entire world- Africa, India, China, New Zealand, the Napoleonic wars... As the legionary allowed Rome to dominate Europe the Redcoat allowed England to dominate the world.
I am the Future
Oi Oi Oi !!!
Lockesdonkey said:
The american leaders are Washington and FDR in which case if the UU are tied to leaders then the minuteman would work for Wahington
Plus The British should get the longbowman as their UU instead of the crossbow. afterall it was the longbow that allowed the british to be a force in europe durring the middle ages
toh6wy
Emperor
But then the civs with only one leader would be at a disadvantage... maybe they have something else to compensate? Or are the one-leader civs *supposed* to be harder to play?
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
toh6wy said:
Why? You only get one leader.
WHY only one leader? What's wrong with the concept of switching (voluntarily or NOT) at some point in the game. Just because we haven't heard that you can, have we heard you canNOT??warpstorm said:
Another scenario is if you choose civ A and one of two leaders, another civ on the map might also be civ A but with the other leader. Gives incentive to unite the two kindreds (assumes the two civs are placed near each other).
I am the Future
Oi Oi Oi !!!
Jaybe said:WHY only one leader? What's wrong with the concept of switching (voluntarily or NOT) at some point in the game. Just because we haven't heard that you can, have we heard you canNOT??
Another scenario is if you choose civ A and one of two leaders, another civ on the map might also be civ A but with the other leader. Gives incentive to unite the two kindreds (assumes the two civs are placed near each other).
I dont think it is likely to happen but it would be a cool thing. if not in the regular game then in a scenario
Joseph Stalin
Chieftain
I hope there will be a UU bound to Civ leader 
or that you can choose wich UU you want to use like for Russia you can choose between a MIG or a cosack.
I would like to have more posibilities, just as the 2 leaders i would want to choose between 2 UU
or that you can choose wich UU you want to use like for Russia you can choose between a MIG or a cosack.I would like to have more posibilities, just as the 2 leaders i would want to choose between 2 UU
It appears that UU's will not trigger a GA, only Leaders can do that. That is from the list here at CFC. Of course that is subject to change. I personally like that. Doesnt tie the GA to warfare as much and doesnt force premature GA's from someone chucking stuff at my Jav or Enkidu (I know Maya and Sumer are gone from Civ 4...). This also has interesting aspect for MP. People will be trying to trigger a GA by getting leaders, while trying to fight at the same time.
Similar threads
