Need some ideas for a 2nd UU

Flying Pig said:
I mean that sapper is a title, in english, for a job which is pretty much identical - like you might call a man with a cannon a gunner.
Click to expand...

Youre right, but I wasnt calling the sapper part into question. If you read the post, I was saying that it might be too generic of a name. Like giving someone an amphibious infantry type UU and just calling it a marine.
 
mechaerik said:
The Kiškuttŭ were elite siege warfare experts. Covered in heavy scale armour and a sturdy iron helmet, these "Sappers" were ordered to charge the enemy battlements, pull down their defences and engage them on the walls and in the streets. As the first into the breach these men were picked for their bravery and skill. Carrying a broad axe they are fearsome to behold and even more inspiring to witness charging out of the siege towers and trampling the enemy. However they were not used in pitched battles due to the unique nature of their work. These troops are the elite of the Babylonian infantry and should not be thrown away lightly by indifferent commanders.
Click to expand...

It sounds to me like these guys should maybe be Swordsmen instead of Axemen. They could be Str.5 with +50% when attacking cities. This would give them a strength of 7.5 when attacking cities vs. a regular Swordsman's 6.6 but weaker than the beastly Str 8 Praet, but they would also be substantially weaker in the field and will definitely require support from Axemen and other units.

EDIT: With regards to the name, the Babylonians are plagued by generic titles for their units. Bowman? Come on now... I don't think calling them "Babylonian Sappers" would be ideal though.
 
Why don't you make them Swordsman that are more expensive and give them collateral damage or something. That's pretty unique.

And I don't see why a Kiskuttu is such a bad name anyway. I mean, its no worse than Praetorian or Keshik, which were basically just royal guardsmen.
 
I don't know, this:
sappers8ao.jpg


seems a lot like an axeman to me.


Besides, in the MechaMod i nerfed Praets (oh, no he di'int!) by reducing them to 7:strength:, but I gave them back the 10% city attack.
 
mechaerik said:
I don't know, this:
sappers8ao.jpg


seems a lot like an axeman to me.
Click to expand...

I acknowledge that the Sappers, according to the description, carried Axes. But sometimes it's not just about the weapon it's holding. It's also about the role it fills. According to the info provided, they were used to attack cities and were not used in the open fields. Axemen, on the other hand, while they can be used for early city conquest, also act as important anti-melee units. This seems to be in direct contradiction to the function of the Babylonian Sappers to me.

Look at the Phalanx. It was originally a Spearman replacement, but it was changed to an Axe replacement in spite of the fact that it carries a spear because it was more fitting for its historical purpose. The same could actually be done with the Impi too since the Iklwa spear they used was best used against melee units and worked more like a stabbing sword than a long spear.

Of course, I would not want to find myself on the receiving end of 2 MP & Mobility Swordsmen or Axemen.

Besides, in the MechaMod i nerfed Praets (oh, no he di'int!) by reducing them to 7:strength:, but I gave them back the 10% city attack.
Click to expand...
Well, then it would give them 7.5 Str attacking cities compared to Praets 7.7... it would still not be head and shoulders above all other contemporary UUs meaning it would not be over-powered.
 
I have to say I agree with DP on this one. I think it suits the Swordsman's role better than the Axeman's. Not to mention you did say they wore Iron armor, so it would make more sense to have them replace the unit that becomes available with Iron working, would it not?
 
The Capo said:
I have to say I agree with DP on this one. I think it suits the Swordsman's role better than the Axeman's. Not to mention you did say they wore Iron armor, so it would make more sense to have them replace the unit that becomes available with Iron working, would it not?
Click to expand...

All right, you guys win. I'm going to make it a Swordsman with collateral then.

Willem said:
I think a better one would be a Dromon that has an attack animation that looks like Greek Fire being used. The Byzantins navy was very well known for their use of Greek Fire. There's a Dromon unit here, but no fire animation.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=209775
Click to expand...

Foederati it is, and Foederati it shall stay. Dromons weren't very impressive, and Greek Fire wasn't a very practical weapon.
 
Yes you did.

What do you guys think of my idea for the Zulu 2nd uu? Isifuba, a maceman replacement. Gets a bonus against gunpowder units, and has Formation.
 
mechaerik said:
Gets a bonus against gunpowder units, and has Formation.
Click to expand...

A melee unit having advantage over a ranged unit? Heck yes! :goodjob:
So this maceman would be on par with a knight then. That leaves crossbows and macemen to counter it.
 
Well, the Zulu did win several early victories against the British.


As for Portugal, I've been thinking of giving them Bandeirantes (an Explorer replacement that can attack and has a bonus against melee) instead of Cassadores, as pesgores said.
 
mechaerik said:
Well, the Zulu did win several early victories against the British.
Click to expand...

Yeah, swarming is a tactic too. ;)

mechaerik said:
As for Portugal, I've been thinking of giving them Bandeirantes (an Explorer replacement that can attack and has a bonus against melee) instead of Cassadores, as pesgores said.
Click to expand...

Nice synthesis with the Carrack then. So essentially it could take out archers and spearmen (and their associated UU's except probably the Babylonian one). Will you make it on par with an axeman? 75-80% against melee?
 
Yeah, an explorer replacement is good, not least because there are already quite a few riflemen replacements, but no explorer replacements. It wouldn't wipe archers, because it has no bonus against them, just melee. It'll be probably 50%, because it is a recon unit, so they don't really have a counter.
 
An Explorer replacement would be great. Much more interesting than the usual UUs.

Personally I love how India has a non-combat UU, it shows a different side to Civ. Rather than just the same old build up an army, invade, build a new army, invade a new civ, etc.
 
All right, been going through the little file i've made to remember the uus, and i've identified several uus needing a buff:

Spoiler mah list :
AZTEC EMPIRE
Eagle Warrior (Axeman)
10% Forest/Jungle Attack Bonus (needs buff)

BYZANTINE EMPIRE
Foederati (Macemen)
Resourceless (needs buff)

CHINESE EMPIRE
Dao Swordsman (Swordsman)
2-3 First Strikes (probably overpowered)
HITTITE EMPIRE
Huluganni (Chariot)
50% vs. Melee Units
Reduced to +50% Attack vs. Axeman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bronze Swordsman (Swordsman)
Available at Bronze Working (probably needs buff)

IROQUOIS EMPIRE
Tomahawk (Axeman)
1-3 First Strikes (maybe OP)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mohawk Shooter (Musketman)
Woodsman I Promotion (needs buff)

MAYAN EMPIRE
Atl-atl (Archer)
25% vs. Mounted Units (buff?)

ROMAN EMPIRE
Gladiator (AXeman)
Recieves 2 XP if built in a city with a%
 
nutnut said:
Personally I love how India has a non-combat UU, it shows a different side to Civ. Rather than just the same old build up an army, invade, build a new army, invade a new civ, etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's almost a miracle nobody considered buffing great persons for some new civ or as second UU.

mechaerik said:
All right, been going through the little file i've made to remember the uus, and i've identified several uus needing a buff:
Click to expand...

Too bad you put up your list in quotes. Now I need to scroll to see your list. ;)

Eagle Warrior: +1 happiness/5-10 turns for every enemy slayed (in reality Aztec military were trained at capturing enemies alive in order to sacrifice them later which supposedly appeased the Gods, so kept the population at large happy).

Foederati: Less or no war weariness if/when these guys are defeated in combat (they were not part of the core citizens of the Byzantine Empire).

Dao Swordsman: if overpowered, take away a :strength: point? If underpowered, make them immune to axeman in combination with the :strength: point reduction. Essentially you'll have a weaker city raider, but with a good amount of first strikes.

Huluganni: to compensate against the benefit loss against axeman, give them a boost against archers (more crew on a chariot which gives them extra chance to overwhelm ranged soldiers like archers).

Mohawk Shooter: give it the "heals while moving" promotion too. My first thought was to give it a melee/ranged benefit, but IIRC some other UU of yours uses that one already.

Gladiator: the 2XP extra in lieu of the Colosseum doesn't really work well. Two completely diverging techlines, and very likely you're capable of training maceman already before the Colosseums are finished/necessary. I'd say put the Gladiator in the Crossbow slot. A non-ranged unit with a benefit against melee. :D (the Romans didn't had crossbows, and this unit can come rather soon in the medieval era so...)
 
Gladiator is BAD. The Romans never used them in battle; try a 'recognisable' unit like *racks brains* the Cohors Equitate, a unit of Batavian cavalry that defended the early emperors. Replaces Horse Archer, gets +1 Strength against Infantry and maybe a bonus with a Great General?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom