Russian UU

[Yuri2356]

The USSR power in the sixties wasnt just down to one or two special units, 1 for 1 the allies would win every time. The USSRs power come from strength of numbers (and lack of care for civilians). I reckon there UU should be a WEAKENED infantry type unit, but be extra cheap. Say 4/9/1 (instead of 6/10/1) but be half the amount of shields.

Not entirely true about Soviet power. Before the invention of the M1-A1 Tank the Soviet Union fielded far superior armored devisions, if a land war had begun they could have rolled across Europe in a few months. Allies did have a great advantage in air and naval power, but not on the land.

 

[Richard Cribb]

That Russia is not the Soviet Union is not nitpicking. This is a game concerning civilizations, not federations, states or empires(You are supposed to build your own).
The Soviet Union was a multi-ethnical and -cultural construction. Just consider that in CIV3 there is also England and not the British Empire, there is no Holy Roman Empire or Hansa in it, and cities like Warszawa, Bucuresti and Oslo are not on the Germans city list.
However, I find life to short for discussions of this modest importance, and hereby rest my case.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I had no interest in discussing this either. It was you who had to point out the ignorance of people confusing Russia from the Soviet Union in a thread where I suggested a Soviet UU for the Russian civ.

As I've said before, I don't think anyone here confuses Russia from the Soviet Union, and I think that the Cossacks are a good choice for the Russian UU. However I see no wrong in giving the Russian civ a Soviet UU instead. Civilization is about civs over time and civs don't exactly stay the same. In a large part of the 20th century Russia had control over the Soviet Union, and it wasn't a union like EU exactly, which was a worldpower.

And if I'm not totally wrong England gets it UU at the height of the British Empire, what's the difference then? In the end Russia was very powerful under the 50's and 60's and could have a nuclear sub as a UU, or should this period be disregarded because they were in a somesort of union?

 

[Colonel]

The Soviet Union is Russia even though it was a group of states, it was lead and controlled by russia, you didnt see any of the little states makeing the choices, if you think about russia conquered those lands in WW2 and never gave them back

 

[Dreadnought]

The USSR used to be Russia but in the Russian Revolution of 1917 they changed the gov to communism. Before and during WW2 (like Colonel said) Russia (USSR) annexed many of them "For the Soviet Union's own protection," in Stalin's words. But they never gave them their independance after the war. So (depending on how you look at it) Russia was the Soviet Union.

 

[Philips beard]

The USSR used to be Russia but in the Russian Revolution of 1917 they changed the gov to communism. Before and during WW2 (like Colonel said) Russia (USSR) annexed many of them "For the Soviet Union's own protection," in Stalin's words. But they never gave them their independance after the war. So (depending on how you look at it) Russia was the Soviet Union.

Yep! The only difference is that before the revolution it was called the russian empire, after the revolution almost the same area was called a union. Communists can't see them selves as imperialists, you see!

This is why people even after the revolution kept calling the USSR for Russia! The only change was the change in government!

 

[Gelion]

Yeah yeah. Debts of Allies to Russian Impire were cancelled as well as vice versa. Millions of Russians murdered, political cleansing in size not to be seen ever in the world. Definitelly the same state
How about this for an idea:
USA is renamed to the North
Germany to Nazi Germany
Since Russia = USSR all of old Soviet bases to Russia
and unite all former Soviet allies to Russia as there's no goddamn difference

 

[K.F. Huszár]

Hi
First: NO DIFFERENCE between Russia and the USSR. In the beginning (1917-1922) most of the former Russian Empire was called Soviet-Russia. Later, it became USSR, by connecting some minor soviet republics. But its origin, its official language and capital city, and its basic culture was Russian. For instance, some could say that it is not USA but NAUS (North-American United States). So, it is a waste of time to debate on names. We, who lived under Soviet dominance thru the Cold War, know it was RUSSIA and nothing else.
Second: the T-34 and the Katyusha seems to be nice UU for Russia. T-34 would be very cheap but somewhat weaker than Tank. But what happens if a civ holds two or more unique units? The Cossack might remain, but the T-34 could appear!

 

[Gelion]

Hello!
Two units is a good idea. I believe its discussed in another thread.
Well T-34 is widely known as the best tank of WW2 I don't see any reason to make it weaker than any other tank. And that includes tanks being made in Britain, Somalia or Hugary.
If Germany had won the WW2 German would be the language of Europe as Germans were the largest nation in Europe. So no surpire that the working language of USSR was Russian. I'm very sorry that your nation was under Soviet dominance. Believe me the Soviet citizens in many cases lived a worse life than you did. I'm not going to touch the subject of what would have happeded to your nation if Germans won WW2. Just keep in mind that for some people there's a diference between names.

 

[Philips beard]

Hello!
Two units is a good idea. I believe its discussed in another thread.
Well T-34 is widely known as the best tank of WW2 I don't see any reason to make it weaker than any other tank. And that includes tanks being made in Britain, Somalia or Hugary.
If Germany had won the WW2 German would be the language of Europe as Germans were the largest nation in Europe. So no surpire that the working language of USSR was Russian. I'm very sorry that your nation was under Soviet dominance. Believe me the Soviet citizens in many cases lived a worse life than you did. I'm not going to touch the subject of what would have happeded to your nation if Germans won WW2. Just keep in mind that for some people there's a diference between names.

hi Gelion!

I thought you where a communist, doesent sound like it!

 

[Gelion]

hey!
Lets just say that if people were perfect I'd be communist .
EDIT: And I'm not an Elf either .

 

[MMAfan]

I would really love to see the Russian UU come about the time or just behind the german UU. the T-34 or katousha rockets launcher looks right. The russian GA would follow the german GA and give them a head start into the space race.

 

[K.F. Huszár]

Gelion,
Names sometimes cover the reality.
Off topic: the T-34 was NOT the best tank of the WWII. It was the most efficient tank, meaning, that it was extremly cheap, extremly simple to produce, to fix, to manage and so on. But its combat features was not like the Panther-series (esp. F and G) and Tiger I.
So, in a total war on the long run, as a medium tank, the T-34 was really good for a huge country to win the war. But this country was powerfull enough to allow 100-200 tank loss per day in certain battles. Germany could not allow this, however, her Panthers blazed T-34s to hell - but she could not reinforce her armoured divisions.
So, the "best tank" is bit complex statement.

 

[Gelion]

T-34 could split ANY German tank before 1942 and had higher radius of fire. After the Germans introduced new tanks that could shoot further the Soviets/Russians came up with the new T-34/85 model. I agree USSR could sustain heavy T-34 losses, but before 1943 there were not more than 3000 of those tanks. If you really want to debate this I came come back with "real" stats .

 

[Yuri2356]

Gelion,
Names sometimes cover the reality.
Off topic: the T-34 was NOT the best tank of the WWII. It was the most efficient tank, meaning, that it was extremly cheap, extremly simple to produce, to fix, to manage and so on. But its combat features was not like the Panther-series (esp. F and G) and Tiger I.
So, in a total war on the long run, as a medium tank, the T-34 was really good for a huge country to win the war. But this country was powerfull enough to allow 100-200 tank loss per day in certain battles. Germany could not allow this, however, her Panthers blazed T-34s to hell - but she could not reinforce her armoured divisions.
So, the "best tank" is bit complex statement.

I agree. In terms of a straight-out main battle tank, Germany fielded the best armored uits of WW2. If they had the ability to mass produce on the scale of Russia or the US, the would have dominated Europe with ease. They were swamped by numbers on land and lost controll of their skies, a decisive factor in any war since the invention of aircraft.
Perhaps as a UU germany should get some kind of early missle? A V2 would make a fine WWII era unit. Slightly Weaker than a cruise missle with lethal bombard, availible at advanced flight perhaps?

Edit: I know this is the Russia UU thread, but the Idea just hit me while I was typing.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I think Germany should have a ww2tank as their UU, it suits them perfect.

And as far as I know they had better tanks than Soviet, and since Soviets peak came at a later point I'd rather see a cheaper Nuclear sub as their UU.

 

[Dreadnought]

I think the German UU could be the KIng Tiger Tank. More attack and defense than a regular tank (alot more attack) and plus 1 heath (for all the armor that monster had).

 

[Philips beard]

The King Tiger tank should be awesome, but cost more then regular tanks of the age!

 

[K.F. Huszár]

Gelion,
Okay, that"s right. The Pzkpfwagen IV's first editions were not as good as T-34. But, some real stats (or facts): in 1942, the first batallion of Tiger I appeared. In the beginning of 1943 they were used in the counter offensive to break up the ring around the entrapped 6th army in Stalingrad.

Gelion wrote:

before 1943 there were not more than 3000 of those tanks.

3000 tanks???? that is enormous amount. Hitler defeated France in 1940 with some 2000 armours (not only tanks). So, I appreciate the T-34, but in its own place. It was planned for open terrain, but it was not good for city warfare. An other fact: T-34 had an open engine-cooling gap. In the 1956 revolution in Hungary, many soviet T-34s were exploded easily by molotov-coctails. Thus, in the second wave of invasion, they sent T-54s. Of course, it is a question, if there were any good armours against metropolitan guerilla warfare.
Summary: T-34 very efficient on the long run, not the best on WWII battlefield, and a good UU for Russia.
any arguments, Gelion?

 

[Gelion]

I have some .
1. No tanks are good for city warfare. We've seen it in Hungary, Chechnya and many other places. Its a proven fact. True some tanks are better in this than others, but in general to have tanks in a city is a bad idea.
2. Hitler started Barbarossa having more than 6000 tanks. Most of Soviet tanks were destroyed in the first months of the campaign so for a long time Germans had the advantage in numers (not only tanks).
3. Stalingrad. Tigers were good tanks, but they were the reason the Soviets updated T-34/75 to 85's. T-34/85 was a good opponent to Tiger I. The ring around Stalingrad was never broken. + T-34 was designed to work mainly in plains, because thats what the terrain between Moscow and Berlin is like.
4. Which is the best tank of WW2?