Modern Age unique military units

[chaosprophet]

From what we saw so far, seems like in civ 7 the model of unique units are something that can be upgraded with tech, so you first get them available early on the age and get them stronger as you get new techs, instead of doing similar to what other civs did and have the unique unit be only useful for a time (in 7 that would be less impactful as it would be for only a portion of the age instead of the whole game).

But then, if we think of previous games late tech unique units, like for example on 6 the U-Boat / Minas Gerais / P-51 Mustang, they wouldn't make much sense to work in that way, like, for example, a unique military unit P-51 Mustang being upgraded later to a jet airplane level unit.

This made me think that different from previous games, modern military units may be things like an aircraft flying squad, and other things like that where it would make more sense for them to still exist even when their equipment gets completely modernized as the age plays out.

So anyone else thoughts in how those could work? would modern have non upgradable uniques unlique other ages? A solution like I said or something else? r maybe they will ignore if it doesn't make sense and just let it upgrade anyway?

 

[gdr_willter]

I think the Modern Age can have eliminatable UU, I can't come up with the Mughal or Qing UU that stands all the time from the early days to the Moon Race.
But if it is upgradable and Age-wide thing just like in the other Ages, I agree with you that certain exact weapon systems will not so much fit in there.
(Btw U-boat can be a good case for the Age-wide Modern UU, because it is not a specific submarine but the term of whole German submarine series)
I want to see any sample of the Modern Civ as soon as possible

 

[AriochIV]

We don't have much information on Modern units, but I don't think there's any reason to expect that the Modern Age will be any different from the others in this respect. It might seem implausible to have something like a P-51 be relevant for the entire Age, but that's not really any more implausible than having these guys relevant for the entire Exploration Age, contemporary with knights and cannon and muskets.

We have seen a Zero, Panzer-III, Sherman and T-34, but these might just be regional variants rather than unique units. The only Modern unit I've seen that is most likely a unique unit is this swivelgun-mounted elephant, which is probably Siamese or Mughal. Will we see it defeating tanks? My guess is yes.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

We don't have much information on Modern units, but I don't think there's any reason to expect that the Modern Age will be any different from the others in this respect. It might seem implausible to have something like a P-51 be relevant for the entire Age, but that's not really any more implausible than having these guys relevant for the entire Exploration Age, contemporary with knights and cannon and muskets.

View attachment 710687 View attachment 710689 View attachment 710690 View attachment 710691

We have seen a Zero, Panzer-III, Sherman and T-34, but these might just be regional variants rather than unique units. The only Modern unit I've seen that is most likely a unique unit is this swivelgun-mounted elephant, which is probably Siamese or Mughal. Will we see it defeating tanks? My guess is yes.

View attachment 710692 View attachment 710693

Minor correction: we've seen a Panzer IV, not III.​

​

We have also seen an Ironclad, a pre-dreadnaught (2 variants) and dreadnaught battleship, 2 different 'modern' artillery pieces plus an 18th century-type field gun, the three types of medium tanks you mentioned plus a WWI-era British-type heavy tank.​

​

From which I conclude that artillery shows either some very strange UUs (only the self-propelled artillery, which is a model of the US M-12, is really 'unique') or strong evidence for the same system of Upgrades seen in early Ages, with at least 3 distinctly different units. Likewise, since we've seen both 18th - 19th century heavy cavalry (cuirassiers, from the looks of them) and WWI and WWII type tanks, it looks like strong evidence for the same from the 'cavalry' line of unit as well. Likewise the ironclad-predeadnaught-battleship line show at least 3 upgrades - or more if they include so-far-unseen post-1945 missile-carrying ships.​

​

Finally, assuming gunpowder units are all Modern, which looks likely but not entirely proven yet, we've seen at least 3 versions of gunpowder infantry: pike and shot/tercio/musketman, musket/rifle-armed linear infantry, and first half of 20th century infantry in a variety of different (probably regional) uniforms.​

​

I, at least, have seen no evidence of any 'modern' unit designed to last unchanged/un-upgraded for the entire Age. That doesn't mean some type of Unique with that attribute doesn't exist, because we've seen only glimpses of Modern Age anything, and nothing about the precise Tech Tree or gameplay, so a lot remains to be seen. Hopefully, starting in early December . . .​

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

We have seen a casement-type ironclad in some pictures of modern age units. And while they most infamous of this type is the CSS Virginia (formerly USS Marrimack), they were used by both sides of the US Civil War, primarily in the Mississippi River theater (hint, Navigable Rivers).

Furthermore, this type was *only* used in North America. The British and French experimented with them a little, but theirs always had extensive freeboards for blue water use. They ended up developing the turreted type instead, culminating in the Pre-Dreadnoughts and ultimately the Dreadnought, which was the first true Battleship.

I suggest that this Ironclad is the American UU to go with the industrial lean of the UBs and UQ that we identified yesterday.

 

[gdr_willter]

We have seen a casement-type ironclad in some pictures of modern age units. And while they most infamous of this type is the CSS Virginia (formerly USS Marrimack), they were used by both sides of the US Civil War, primarily in the Mississippi River theater (hint, Navigable Rivers).

Furthermore, this type was *only* used in North America. The British and French experimented with them a little, but theirs always had extensive freeboards for blue water use. They ended up developing the turreted type instead, culminating in the Pre-Dreadnoughts and ultimately the Dreadnought, which was the first true Battleship.

I suggest that this Ironclad is the American UU to go with the industrial lean of the UBs and UQ that we identified yesterday.

I consider, if it is, it would be better to choose USS Monitor for it because US won the war. IDK how FXS regard about it, maybe they want to represent the Southerners?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I consider, if it is, it would be better to choose USS Monitor for it because US won the war. IDK how FXS regard about it, maybe they want to represent the Southerners?

The north had a whole squadron of casement ironclads called City-Class or Eads or Pooks Turtles. The south had far fewer, just the most famous one.

The North's were mostly involved in the Western Theater on the Mississippi River. You can find tons of pictures online of the USS Cairo and USS Mound City, among others.

I suggest that they have a combat bonus on navigable rivers. We haven't seen a bonus like that, and it would be useful for taking cities, which the North's Ironclads actually did.

 

[gdr_willter]

The north had a whole squadron of casement ironclads called City-Class or Eads or Pooks Turtles. The south had far fewer, just the most famous one.

The North's were mostly involved in the Western Theater on the Mississippi River. You can find tons of pictures online of the USS Cairo and USS Mound City, among others.

I suggest that they have a combat bonus on navigable rivers. We haven't seen a bonus like that, and it would be useful for taking cities, which the North's Ironclads actually did.

I meant, why FXS choose the symbolic and famous CSA ship instead of USA one? I can't find out any reason...

 

[Krikkit1]

I meant, why FXS choose the symbolic and famous CSA ship instead of USA one? I can't find out any reason...

answered

 

[gdr_willter]

answered

That's same for USS Monitor tho. And I mainly intended to say "everybody considers it belongs CSA"
I think FXS always focused on Union Army side for the American Civil War. (Think about Lincoln) The exeptions were the features not uniquely belonging to the America Civ, like the CSS Virginia ironclad in Civ 6

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The north had a whole squadron of casement ironclads called City-Class or Eads or Pooks Turtles. The south had far fewer, just the most famous one.

The North's were mostly involved in the Western Theater on the Mississippi River. You can find tons of pictures online of the USS Cairo and USS Mound City, among others.

I suggest that they have a combat bonus on navigable rivers. We haven't seen a bonus like that, and it would be useful for taking cities, which the North's Ironclads actually did.

On the other hand, the Federals also had twelve classes of Monitors, including 2-turret Monitors and 'ocean-going'* monitors as well as specific 'river monitors'. They represented the majority of US Navy ironclads until nearly the end of the 19th century and the last class were all launched after 1900 - and no one else used the design much at all, so they were unique to the USA. Of course, any argument for their inclusion is probably strictly academic, since there's been no sign of them in any video or screenshot so far.

* = 'ocean-going' by official definition but not so much in practice: they all had a really low freeboard and took on 'way too much water in rough seas to be practical high seas craft.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

On the other hand, the Federals also had twelve classes of Monitors, including 2-turret Monitors and 'ocean-going'* monitors as well as specific 'river monitors'. They represented the majority of US Navy ironclads until nearly the end of the 19th century and the last class were all launched after 1900 - and no one else used the design much at all, so they were unique to the USA. Of course, any argument for their inclusion is probably strictly academic, since there's been no sign of them in any video or screenshot so far.

* = 'ocean-going' by official definition but not so much in practice: they all had a really low freeboard and took on 'way too much water in rough seas to be practical high seas craft.

The counterpoint is that Monitors became an international design, used by nations in Europe and South America. Brazil still has one in active use today.

The Casemate Ironclad was only used in the US (by both the north and south). It's more of a US-only design.

 

[Evie]

Just an hypothesis, but possibly, they wanted to avoid the turreted look to better separate the ironclad from other turret warships in other unit lines of the game.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Just an hypothesis, but possibly, they wanted to avoid the turreted look to better separate the ironclad from other turret warships in other unit lines of the game.

On the other hand, there are very unique 'barbette' ships like this 1870s French Redoubtable that are pretty unmistakable in hull/gun configuration.

But, I've also seen this ship mistaken for a 'Steampunk' fantasy vessel, so probably the CSS/USS types are better overall. I'm just getting a little tired of seeing the CSS Virginia, a lash-up improvised on a burnt-out steam frigate hull, as a 'typical' Ironclad . . .

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

View attachment 710738
On the other hand, there are very unique 'barbette' ships like this 1870s French Redoubtable that are pretty unmistakable in hull/gun configuration.

But, I've also seen this ship mistaken for a 'Steampunk' fantasy vessel, so probably the CSS/USS types are better overall. I'm just getting a little tired of seeing the CSS Virginia, a lash-up improvised on a burnt-out steam frigate hull, as a 'typical' Ironclad . . .

Frankly, the ones we have seen look more like City-Class Ironclads than the CSS Virginia.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Frankly, the ones we have seen look more like City-Class Ironclads than the CSS Virginia.

View attachment 710739

Disagree completely. The single stack, extended hull at the bow and stern = CSS Virginia. The stack as shown is a bit more centered than the Virginia's which was forward of the center-line, but the configuration of the casemate, much narrower at the top than the 'City' class, is far more characteristic of the Virginia as built.