K.F. Huszár
Warlord
Debate continued in prviate messages
Russian UU
- Thread starter Loppan Torkel
- Start date
Blackbird_SR-71
Spying from 85,000 ft
Russia is the soviet union because when the Russian Civil War broke out the commies one and installed their communist government and getting rid of the Monarch. When the commies came in power they renamed russia to the Soviet Union. Then during the cold war did the Soviets include other countries into the USSR.
Jawz II
Oh Dear
i say t-55 or t-72 tank
or maybe BMP (IFV), to replace MI
i also agree
ussr = russia from lenin to gorbatiov
just as United Kingdom = england
United States of America = America (1 country)
there are many more examples
or maybe BMP (IFV), to replace MI
i also agree
ussr = russia from lenin to gorbatiov
just as United Kingdom = england
United States of America = America (1 country)
there are many more examples
BuDDaH
Chieftain
Well, I was born in USSR, live in Russia and I can say there's no difference. SU exiated from 1922 till 1991. That's less than 70 years. I would rather say that he Soviet period was the Golden Age of Russia. Hense the Russian UU should be a soviet one, a WWII unit. There were a bunch of fine units in WWII. Il-2 an attack plane, called by the Germans "The Black Death", the heavy bombers Tu-2 which bombed Berlin in August of 1941(!), the legendary T-34, but in my opinion the really unique unit is Katyusha. No other nation of the WWII era possessed anything alike. (By the way they were designed by Korolyov, the founder of the soviet space program) So, I'm totally for Katusha as the Russian UU. I can't agree that the 18th centurt is the GA of Russia. Yes, it was the time when Russian troops captured Berlin at the first time, when Turks and Sweden were defetead in very long wars. But apart from military achievements Russia remained the youngest most backward european empire. Russia lived through the greatest peasant war in 1700s, lost 1/3 of its population during the rein of the first Russian emperor Peter the Great, who suits much better for the leaderhead than Cathrine, in my opinion. That's sort of Russian tradition to sacrifice economy and non-military branches in seek of world dominiance. Nowadays the world's best oil pump has the world's best tanks and jet fighters. Sounds like paradox. Modern Russian units still miraculously remain the best and T-90, MiG-29 or Su-27 but no way they can be associated with the GA. Two UU is a nice idea. Let it be Cossak and Katyusha 12(lethal bombardment, otherwise no triggering)/0/2. But in this case other nations must also have two UU. So it seems just.
P.S. USSR is Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics, though actually it was one Socialistic Republic. That's the government not Communism! No country ever lived under communism. True, there was the communist party in SU. Its primary goal was building communism in the country but they never did. I quite agree with Gelion - communism is the perfect government for perfect people, but unfortunately nobody is perfect.
P.P.S. USSR was a very multi-ethnical country, but present Russia is no less multi-ethnical. Still Russians as ethnic group considerably prevail. I regard myself culturally Russian, though ethnically me and my father are Ukranians. My two best friends are Kazakh and Jewish. My teacher of English and my father's doctor are Tatars, the descendants of the Tatar-Mongols, the nation of Chengiz-Khan. Any more proof? USSR collapsed due to stupid nationalism, when suddenly some polititians started blaming Russians in the economical crisis of 1980-s. Though it's beyond any doubt that the population of Russia had much poorer and worse life as campared to the rest 14 republics and the former socialistic countries of the Eastern Europe like Poland, Hungary and others. Nowadays at least half of the Ukranian pupulation and 20% of Latvian (I don't know stats about other republics) are Russians. So, USSR was not a mere Russian Empire which subdued its neghbours. Very deep and tense ethnical, cultural and economical integration took place. Much more tense than in EU. Moreover Russia, Ukraine and Belrus are so close in all respects that can be regarded as one civilisation. Kiev, the modern Ukranian capital used to be the capital of the early Russian medieval state.
Please, excuse me for waffling so much.
P.S. USSR is Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics, though actually it was one Socialistic Republic. That's the government not Communism! No country ever lived under communism. True, there was the communist party in SU. Its primary goal was building communism in the country but they never did. I quite agree with Gelion - communism is the perfect government for perfect people, but unfortunately nobody is perfect.
P.P.S. USSR was a very multi-ethnical country, but present Russia is no less multi-ethnical. Still Russians as ethnic group considerably prevail. I regard myself culturally Russian, though ethnically me and my father are Ukranians. My two best friends are Kazakh and Jewish. My teacher of English and my father's doctor are Tatars, the descendants of the Tatar-Mongols, the nation of Chengiz-Khan. Any more proof? USSR collapsed due to stupid nationalism, when suddenly some polititians started blaming Russians in the economical crisis of 1980-s. Though it's beyond any doubt that the population of Russia had much poorer and worse life as campared to the rest 14 republics and the former socialistic countries of the Eastern Europe like Poland, Hungary and others. Nowadays at least half of the Ukranian pupulation and 20% of Latvian (I don't know stats about other republics) are Russians. So, USSR was not a mere Russian Empire which subdued its neghbours. Very deep and tense ethnical, cultural and economical integration took place. Much more tense than in EU. Moreover Russia, Ukraine and Belrus are so close in all respects that can be regarded as one civilisation. Kiev, the modern Ukranian capital used to be the capital of the early Russian medieval state.
Please, excuse me for waffling so much.
Gelion
Retired Captain
Buddah all my respect to you!
Philips beard
Prince
Yeah Buddah! exactly my point! 
LewsTherin
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2004
- Messages
- 9
Great words, BuDDaH, I couldn't have said it better! I completely agree with you on the fact that the USSR collapsed due to stupid nationalism. And while a few nations have a somewhat different culture than the one of Russia (most of the stans for example), it really bugs me to see countries such as Ukraine, Russia and Belarus drifting further away from one another. I find the differences between the people in those countries quite minor; ultimately, I do consider all of us the same people. Also, due to the fact that there are large chunks of Russian population present in countries such as Latvia some problems are arising (just look at what's happening in Georgia now). Anyhow, sorry for going off topic here.
A bit brainstorming on the UUs, they are military units so shouldn't they be more from the golden age of a civ's military than the civ's golden age overall? That way, it would be definately a unit from the Soviet era that should be chosen.
A bit brainstorming on the UUs, they are military units so shouldn't they be more from the golden age of a civ's military than the civ's golden age overall? That way, it would be definately a unit from the Soviet era that should be chosen.
Jawz II
Oh Dear
well i say if youre gonna have a russian UU from ww2, then it should not be the t-34
neither the katyuscha, it is a great piece of artillery for its time and later gave birth to the infamous BM-21 122mm
but youre wrong about 1 thing, the germans had their own version of rocket arty, i think its called nebelwerfer or something, which was in german tradition more expencive and had better stabilization and therefor accuracy, but they were never fielded in adecuate numbers!
i say it should be some kind of militia/guerilla/partisan unit, maybe to replace the guerilla, or even infantry(draftable!), exact same stats but cheaper or something
cause to me even though russia has produced some of the best and mose cost effective military hardware of the past 70 years or so, hardware was in short supply on the russian side untill stalingrad,and where it was availabe it wasnt used to its full potential due to lack of doctorine/leadership(stalin killed all the generals) and training
and after stalingrad the wehrmachts back was pretty much broken and thats when the tanks and the planes and katyuschas started showing up in big numbers
neither the katyuscha, it is a great piece of artillery for its time and later gave birth to the infamous BM-21 122mm
but youre wrong about 1 thing, the germans had their own version of rocket arty, i think its called nebelwerfer or something, which was in german tradition more expencive and had better stabilization and therefor accuracy, but they were never fielded in adecuate numbers!
i say it should be some kind of militia/guerilla/partisan unit, maybe to replace the guerilla, or even infantry(draftable!), exact same stats but cheaper or something
cause to me even though russia has produced some of the best and mose cost effective military hardware of the past 70 years or so, hardware was in short supply on the russian side untill stalingrad,and where it was availabe it wasnt used to its full potential due to lack of doctorine/leadership(stalin killed all the generals) and training
and after stalingrad the wehrmachts back was pretty much broken and thats when the tanks and the planes and katyuschas started showing up in big numbers
Amazing that no one mentioned one of the most revolutionary and dominant fighters of all time, the Mikoyan-Gurevich (MiG) -21 ? In fact, nearly all of the early jet MiGs were deadly, and even more impressive, when it's realized the kind of budget they were built upon.
BuDDah- I think perhaps the quality of the textbooks you were educated on was poor. Lenin bastardized the traditional "socialism" concept, championed by Engels, Marx, etc. Socialism, in pure form, required the workers to unite for the common good, and govern themselves. Lenin and some of his contemporaries believed that a "vanguard party" was necessary to lead the revolution, and wrest power from the bourgeoisie. The Soviets, as this party was called, did indeed succeed in their revolution. However, not all of the Russian territories necessarily agreed with the revolution, and their leaderships were summarily crushed. Other countries, such as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were annexed. Then, for almost 70 years, the whole of the USSR was governed by the Communist Party, and ultimately- the Supreme Soviet (you can debate for yourself the relative amount of power that the 8 successive General Secretaries actually held). So you're right, in that there was really only one state; the "Union" and "RepublicS" part was more for show. But the USSR certainly was not a socialist country. If you want a real-life represenation, Sweden is a lot closer. Or maybe France in 5-6 years from now...
BuDDah- I think perhaps the quality of the textbooks you were educated on was poor. Lenin bastardized the traditional "socialism" concept, championed by Engels, Marx, etc. Socialism, in pure form, required the workers to unite for the common good, and govern themselves. Lenin and some of his contemporaries believed that a "vanguard party" was necessary to lead the revolution, and wrest power from the bourgeoisie. The Soviets, as this party was called, did indeed succeed in their revolution. However, not all of the Russian territories necessarily agreed with the revolution, and their leaderships were summarily crushed. Other countries, such as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were annexed. Then, for almost 70 years, the whole of the USSR was governed by the Communist Party, and ultimately- the Supreme Soviet (you can debate for yourself the relative amount of power that the 8 successive General Secretaries actually held). So you're right, in that there was really only one state; the "Union" and "RepublicS" part was more for show. But the USSR certainly was not a socialist country. If you want a real-life represenation, Sweden is a lot closer. Or maybe France in 5-6 years from now...
Gelion
Retired Captain
Apart from Mig part I do not understand your post.
And thx !/
And thx !/
LewsTherin
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2004
- Messages
- 9
Kronis - I think the part he was arguing for a lot more was that the USSR was Russia these 70 years. It was the direct heir of the Russian Empire (yes, an empire that annexed a lot of lands and crushed down the people's resistance). When the Soviet Union came into power, it first established itself in Russia, but then regained many lands lost during the revolution. I mean, at first it seemed like it was still possible to create a Marxist type of country, but in time it became a somewhat socialist totalitarian government, with Stalin eliminating all the old time Bolsheviks and establishing a dictatorship. Soon enough all former Russian lands except for Finland and Poland were conquered into the USSR, making it the Russian Empire after a radical change in the government...
I disagree with you about the USSR not being a socialist country - well, at least partially. It had many socialist aspects (ex. - free medical care, education) which would make it a socialist state (though maybe not as much as Sweden now).
Edit - Gelion, he did call USSR a Socialistic Republic, that's probably where he got that.
I disagree with you about the USSR not being a socialist country - well, at least partially. It had many socialist aspects (ex. - free medical care, education) which would make it a socialist state (though maybe not as much as Sweden now).
Edit - Gelion, he did call USSR a Socialistic Republic, that's probably where he got that.
Jawz II
Oh Dear
mig 21 is a good fighter and still in use with many countries,but it was in fact worse than the f4 its western counterpart
it had worse avainoics, higher radar profile(i think one of the highest for any fighter ever, if not the highest) and less payload (smaller plane)
so it wasnt that great
it had worse avainoics, higher radar profile(i think one of the highest for any fighter ever, if not the highest) and less payload (smaller plane)
so it wasnt that great
Loppan Torkel
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,756
Jawz II said:
F4-Phantom? I think that came a bit later, and since the planes were improved pretty fast at the time, it wouldn't be a huge surprice if it was better...pls correct me if I'm wrong...
Did the Russians develop a similar, small plane after mig-21 or was the mig-25 it's replacement?
ThinRedLine
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 15
This is all a bit complicated really, when you think about it the Golden Age idea is the simplest (but not necessarily most accurate) method of determining the UU.
The hard part is just determining when exactly the golden age occured although this in itself is a difficult task as many examples given so far are either WW2 or Korean/Vietnam era weapons, but, in the alternate history of Civ there is a remote chance that those conflicts will occur in the same way again.
IMHO seeing as the civ in question is named Russia, then the UU should be of sole Russian origin (ie, the country they were employed by was at the time acting on its own or had other allies but was not united under a particular banner such as the USSR). And, like it or not, the whole point of a Union is that it includes outside parties (ie other countries).
I cant see any other way of changing the Russian UU unless the golden era is changed for that civ.
The hard part is just determining when exactly the golden age occured although this in itself is a difficult task as many examples given so far are either WW2 or Korean/Vietnam era weapons, but, in the alternate history of Civ there is a remote chance that those conflicts will occur in the same way again.
IMHO seeing as the civ in question is named Russia, then the UU should be of sole Russian origin (ie, the country they were employed by was at the time acting on its own or had other allies but was not united under a particular banner such as the USSR). And, like it or not, the whole point of a Union is that it includes outside parties (ie other countries).
I cant see any other way of changing the Russian UU unless the golden era is changed for that civ.
Jawz II
Oh Dear
Loppan Torkel said:
The MiG-21F is a short-range day fighter-interceptor and the first major production version of the popular MiG-21 series. It is but one of many versions of this aircraft that have served in the air arms of many nations around the world. The E-5 prototype of the MiG-21 was first flown in 1955.
The F-4 Phantom II was a twin-engine, all-weather, fighter-bomber. The aircraft could perform three tactical air roles air superiority, interdiction and close air support as it did in southeast Asia. First flown in May 1958.
the above info is from www.fas.org
check that page for all kinds of info
i do know there was a mig 23, and prolly several Sukhois fighters around this time
the mig 25 foxbat is an awesome fighter that set several records when it was new,really good as a fighter, not so good in the strike role!
on the side note i read about this military exercise with us air force and the indian air force, where the indians with their indigeniously produced mig 21 copies kicked the americans asses!
amazing considering the americans have alot more advanced air crafts, although they were outnumbered.
one thing that can be said for the russian war industry is their stuff dont have to be taken apart and cleaned, maybe repaired and constantly pampered and maintained in order to work
very rugged and functional, dosent require the runway to be clinicly clean in order to take off etc
Dreadnought
Deity
Gelion said:
Well, the King Tiger Tank could eat any Soviet tank alive. However, they're weren't enought to make a real difference, they came too late in to war, and it was very costly to build them.
The King Tiger Tank was more heavily armored, had more range, and had more firepower than any tank that the Russians could field.
See, there are three things that designers think of when building tanks: speed and maneuverability, armor, and firepower. There is a fourth thing, cost effectiveness, but that isn't really put into perspective. Now, of course the King Tiger had firepower and armor, but the T-34 had speed (and cost effectiveness). So the Russians could field faster and more cost effective tanks than the Germans, which, in the long shot, gave them their victory.
Jawz II
Oh Dear
the down side of the tiger and king tiger were that, they took up valuable resources that could be spent on many Pz-IV and Pz IIIs or anti tank guns!
also both had horrible terrain handling capabilities, were underpowered, and in tigers case the tracks were too weak, and broke often!
also something like 1000-1500 tigers and 50 tiger IIs were made, which in comparecence with 50,000 t34s made, basicly makes them non existent!
(not 100% sure about these numbers but i cant be too far off!)
t34s also had sloped armour, which the tiger didnt, and they were later upgraded with 85mm guns which made them alot more effective, although not as lethal as the tigers 88mm, but pretty close!
again thinner armour but better everything else, t34 = best tank of ww2!
also both had horrible terrain handling capabilities, were underpowered, and in tigers case the tracks were too weak, and broke often!
also something like 1000-1500 tigers and 50 tiger IIs were made, which in comparecence with 50,000 t34s made, basicly makes them non existent!
(not 100% sure about these numbers but i cant be too far off!)
t34s also had sloped armour, which the tiger didnt, and they were later upgraded with 85mm guns which made them alot more effective, although not as lethal as the tigers 88mm, but pretty close!
again thinner armour but better everything else, t34 = best tank of ww2!
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Tiger's weren't even the best tank tactically for German armour divisions. The Panther series had about the same manueverability as the panzers, a lot more firepower and armour, and could be made a lot cheaper than the Tiger. It was the perfect medium tank, but was developed to late and in too small numbers to win against the flood of Russian tanks.
As for a UU, the Katyusha could have a higher Firepower and Rate of Fire or have 2 movement.
As for a UU, the Katyusha could have a higher Firepower and Rate of Fire or have 2 movement.
Jawz II
Oh Dear
i dont mean to be nitpicking, but im pretty sure the panthers had the same L55(i think) 88m main gun, and co axial mg-34, so in means of firepower it would be exactly the same as the tiger
they had thinner armour than the tiger, but it was sloped
all in all probably a better tank than the tiger, better mobility and so on
they had thinner armour than the tiger, but it was sloped
all in all probably a better tank than the tiger, better mobility and so on
its complicated about havin cossacks for russia as there were around in RUSSIA's golden age (late 19th/early20th century) bt were used very little or not at all during the USSR's golden age (mid/late 20th century) and just to be a pain russia isnt the USSR, it makes up most of it bt isnt the same thing.its like saying England and Great britain are the same when infact they're not.anyway im gettin at russia's special unit would have to be pre 1917 or pro 1990. T34s kicked ass were also soviet and therefore not just russian bt also ukraine, finland, yugoslavia etc 
Similar threads
