Should Superheavy Frigate be American UU Choice?

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Expansions or Mod Potentials. If every civs are to have additional UU. Should Superheavy Frigate (The likes of USS Constitution) be American Unique Unit Choice?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frigate#Super-heavy_frigates

Royal Navy fighting instructions ordered British frigates (usually of 38 guns or less) to never engage the large American frigates at any less than a 2:1 advantage.

And apart of US Navy, who else has Superheavy Frigate that has the same 'frigate' speed but ability to bring down Ships of the Line (which actually are TRUE Age of Sail 'Battleships'). And did the Constitution designed to deal with HMS Victory? (Did Federal Government aware of its existence and what could it do against the US of A ?)

 

[bengalryan9]

I'd rather see Minutemen TBH.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Minutemen were poorly trained militia and Washington hated them due to their bad discipline.

I would have liked to see America get the Supercarrier as a UU with greater speed and capability for deploying large amounts of aircraft across the map. The US is the only country to have built such large carriers thus far in history.

Of course, that would be contingent upon the AI using naval and air units as intended or else it's just as useless as the P51.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

There's already De Zeven Provincia.

 

[DWilson]

In my experience the core of American naval power (and, at that, the core of all of our military power) is our phenomenal aircraft carriers.

But can we please not have a unique carrier?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If we had to get another UU I'd choose a Navy SEAL as a Spec Ops replacement. They've been used before in Civ 4.

 

[Troy Bruckner]

The Sherman Tank: 5 less attack than a normal tank, +1 speed and costs half as much.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

After Germany got the U-Boat (which I was happy about. The Panzer was getting trite), I was hoping Russia would get the requisite tank UU in the form of the T-34.

 

[shaglio]

I'd rather see Minutemen TBH.

Musketman: A unit unique to America that doesn't replace anything. It can be purchased only while at war for the cost of a population point in the city. While not at war, can be added back to a city as a population point. Doesn't gain experience points; instead, experience points are converted to positive Loyalty in home territory or negative Loyalty in enemy territory (no experience from killing barbs).

Just spit-balling; don't take it too seriously.

ETA: Would it be worth it to declare war solely for the purpose of redistributing your population 10 turns later? That frontier pop 2 city could become a pop 5 or 6 if you are willing to knock some other cities down a pop or two and ruin relations with an AI civ.

 

[Troy Bruckner]

After Germany got the U-Boat (which I was happy about. The Panzer was getting trite), I was hoping Russia would get the requisite tank UU in the form of the T-34.

Germany should have something to reflect the wolfpack. Maybe reduced cost to build while not at war or cheaper fleet production. Or maybe +5 attack on a fleet and +10 for an armada.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

As long as they're going to keep hands off the uniquest of unique units (the A Bomb) I'd like to see a Frontiersman ranger replacement.

 

[steveg700]

In my experience the core of American naval power (and, at that, the core of all of our military power) is our phenomenal aircraft carriers.

But can we please not have a unique carrier?

Well, I don't know that American aircraft carriers are phenomenal per se, but rather that it's rare for anyone else to have any. They should be categorized as a superweapon of sorts, which is to say they are cumbersome, easily-located, difficult to maintain, and provide more value in terms of shock and awe than they do as tools of conventional warfare.

But how about an aircraft carrier that can actually gain experience somehow? That would be pretty unique.

 

[Troy Bruckner]

Maybe the experimental guided smart bomb?

 

[DWilson]

Well, I don't know that American aircraft carriers are phenomenal per se, but rather that it's rare for anyone else to have any. They should be categorized as a superweapon of sorts, which is to say they are cumbersome, easily-located, difficult to maintain, and provide more value in terms of shock and awe than they do as tools of conventional warfare.

But how about an aircraft carrier that can actually gain experience somehow? That would be pretty unique.

We have generally more advanced designs, and all of those I am referring to are nuclear powered fleet-class (and last I checked, we have more of all classes than the rest of the world combined- though that is probably no longer quite true). What they essentially serve as is mobile air bases, allowing us to essentially move our air power to any part of the world within range of navigable water (a fairly notable caveat). It's a key aspect of our military philosophy, and how we attempt to establish power projection in any given region. I believe Russia has fairly new nuclear missiles which pose a significant threat to them (due to speed, range, and detectability limiting response prevention), but outside of that our defensive systems render them as essentially invulnerable as any vessel can be. If a major war broke out (heaven forbid), how we handled the response to them (effectively or not) would essentially set the narrative for much of the war.

 

[Atlas627]

There are plenty of ideas for every civ. The problem is picking ones that are different from last time, but still give fun and impactful gameplay which feels flavorful for the civ.

America usually works at the flavorful parts, but often fails at fun and impactful. Fun because usually they are boring vanilla as they are always in the base game, and impactful because their units have to be late-game units. Civ6 did a better job with fun because of the continent mechanic, but their units still aren't impactful.

Yeah you could make them more powerful or find earlier-era units like the Minuteman, but the better thing to do is just *make late-game more impactful*. And the best way to do that is to change victory conditions to be about accomplishments over time rather than a race to the finish. (but this is a topic for another thread)

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

We have generally more advanced designs, and all of those I am referring to are nuclear powered fleet-class (and last I checked, we have more of all classes than the rest of the world combined- though that is probably no longer quite true). What they essentially serve as is mobile air bases, allowing us to essentially move our air power to any part of the world within range of navigable water (a fairly notable caveat). It's a key aspect of our military philosophy, and how we attempt to establish power projection in any given region. I believe Russia has fairly new nuclear missiles which pose a significant threat to them (due to speed, range, and detectability limiting response prevention), but outside of that our defensive systems render them as essentially invulnerable as any vessel can be. If a major war broke out (heaven forbid), how we handled the response to them (effectively or not) would essentially set the narrative for much of the war.

It turns out "supercarrier" isn't an official term, but I equate it to CATOBAR type aircraft carriers, which can launch and recover heavily-armed fixed wing aircraft.

Other types can launch lighter fixed wing aircraft off ski jumps or SVTOL aircraft and helicopters.

Currently, all CATOBAR carriers are nuclear powered and there are 12 of them in the world. The US operates 11 of them and France operates 1, which is about 40% smaller than the US CATOBAR carriers. All other aircraft carriers fall into other categories.

 

[steveg700]

We have generally more advanced designs, and all of those I am referring to are nuclear powered fleet-class (and last I checked, we have more of all classes than the rest of the world combined- though that is probably no longer quite true). What they essentially serve as is mobile air bases, allowing us to essentially move our air power to any part of the world within range of navigable water (a fairly notable caveat). It's a key aspect of our military philosophy, and how we attempt to establish power projection in any given region.

Not sure what your point is exactly. I said we had the most, and I said they existed for purposes of shock and awe. And suffice to say, there's no actual need to explain to anyone what an aircraft carrier is. Pretty sure everyone here knows, huh? Certainly most of ours are old, with few built in the 21st century. Ours may be fancier, but I'm not sure what that means in game terms.

Of course, we haven't had any great basis for using carriers in the information for anything but pageantry, but it's pretty safe that they are an asset against the technologically inferior--another way to bomb someone into the stone age when they're already there. But in a truly modern information-era war bringing them to bear offensively would be difficult at best against a sophisticated enemy capable of long-range pinpoint strikes. More value in defense of otherwise underpowered strategic locations.

 

[DWilson]

Not sure what your point is exactly. I said we had the most, and I said they existed for purposes of shock and awe. And suffice to say, there's no actual need to explain to anyone what an aircraft carrier is. Pretty sure everyone here knows, huh?

Of course, we haven't had any great basis for using carriers in the information for anything but pageantry, but it's pretty safe that they are an asset against the technologically inferior--another way to bomb someone into the stone age when they're already there. But in a truly modern information-era war bringing them to bear offensively would be difficult at best against a sophisticated enemy capable of long-range pinpoint strikes. More value in defense of otherwise underpowered strategic locations.

My intent was to emphasize why they are, in fact, phenomenal and that they are not simply shock and awe. The majority of our military strategy would be based around them. My response was to note that you are notably underestimating their significance. That's why I explained their purpose. Without them, our ability to successfully project military influence would largely vanish based on current soldiers and weaponry existence and positioning.

I would note that they were used in every war we have been involved in since their creation, despite the lack of major conflict.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Okay, let's make a list and start whittling it down, of American Unique Units, or at least American Units That Have Unique Properties Of Some Kind.
Roughly chronological:
Ground Combat Units
Rangers. - Roger's Rangers predates the USA, being a 'colonial' unit raised during the 7 Year's War (French & Indian War in the British colonies in NA). Would be, then, an early Industrial Era Recon unit, but of course might require a new title for the 'regular' Ranger in the game.
Riflemen - Morgan's Riflemen for a specific unit, although the 'over-mountain militia' of east Tennessee and western Carolinas who massacred Ferguson's British force at King's Mountain are another example: a Revolutionary War-era Recon Unit that reduces the combat factor of opposing units (by shooting down their commanders faster than they can give orders) - Berdan's Rifles would be the US Civil War version of this same unit.
Anthony's Legion - Anthony Wayne's reorganization of the entire US Army in the 1790s into a set of brigade-sized combined arms forces, each with regular infantry, riflemen, and light cavalry. An Industrial Era unit that could combine bonuses of Recon and Melee units.
Mounted Rifles - All the US cavalry of the 19th century (Industrial Era) were much more flexible than European Armies' - more willing to dismount and fight, able to charge, scout, pursue, or defend, and that was from their first start in the 1830s to the end of the century and beyond. "Mounted Rifles" was the most unique official designation (applied to 2 of the first 6 mounted units formed) but more generally, the 'Rough Rider' could be replaced by the Yellowleg, the nickname for all the US Cavalry. A Light cavalry unit that is slightly faster, no one gets any Anti-Cav bonus against them because they can fight you dismounted as well as mounted, and they have extra sight range like a Recon Unit.
Armored Cavalry - Modern Era Recon Unit. The WWII US Army Armored Cavalry Groups were regimental-sized units of light tanks, armored cars, jeep-mounted scouts, self-propelled artillery and antitank guns that could scout, pursue, defend: huge firepower of automatic weapons, faster than almost any other contemporary ground unit. Also were used a lot to secure routes of advance, enforce traffic control and so could provide extra movement to any unit that starts adjacent to one.
FDC Artillery - permit an ex-artilleryman this one: in the late 1930s (late Modern - beginning of the Atomic Era) the US Army developed the Fire Direction Center to control artillery fire: the result in WWII and later was that US artillery could mass and shift fire faster than any other guns in the world. Effectively, one artillery unit could support several infantry or armor units and change who they supported almost at will. One German Tactical Note in 1944 put it succinctly: any attack on an American Unit had to succeed in the first 60 minutes or it was Doomed: by that time every American artillery piece within range would be blasting the attack to bits. Any US Artillery Unit can fire twice in a turn if they don't move (this is probably 'way OP, but it would be accurate)
Sherman Tank - IF we must, the M4 Sherman's advantages were its incredible flexibility: it was built with welded or cast armor, motorized with gasoline, diesel, or converted aircraft rotary engines, used volute spring, modified spring, or torsion bar suspension, mounted everything from a medium 75mm to a long barreled 76mm to a British 17-lber (76mm) to a light 90mm cannon or 105mm howitzer, and, compared to any other medium tank of its era, was much more reliable and therefore likely to actually get into battle without breaking down (average serviceability rate for ALL German tanks in WWII was 60 - 66%: they had to build 3 tanks to get 2 of them into action!). Unique abilities then, would be recover damage 10 - 20% faster and recover every turn regardless of other actions, take fewer resources and gold to build and maintain.
Air Cavalry - Atomic Era Helicopter Unit - the US Army was the first to form brigade and division-sized units built around the helicopter for transport, fire support, resupply, and mobility over all types of terrain. Whatever other quality they have, they also have very high Maintenance costs, reflecting a huge maintenance 'tail' required to keep them operating.
Special Forces - the 'Green Berets' of the 1960s and later are iconic, but they were based on Britain's WWII-era Special Air Service (SAS) or Special Boat Service (SBS) units, so strictly speaking are not peculiar to the US military.

Not-Exactly Ground Combat Units: Semi-Civilian Units.
Homesteader - a Settler that can defend itself and is cheap to produce

Naval Combat Units
44-Gun Frigate - the USS Constitution and her sisters, able to take on 6th-rate Ships of the Line (Constitution shot the 50-gun HMS Java to bits)
Steam/Armored Frigate - the USS Kearsarge and her sister ships of the US Civil War were really unique: sailing frigate designs that had been 'upgraded' by mounting heavier rifled explosive-shell-firing cannon, steam engines, and some hull armor: an Industrial Era Upgrade to your 'regular' Frigates.
Fleet Carrier - the US CVA-type "fleet carriers" of WWII could carry and launch faster more aircraft per tonnage than either their British or Japanese counterparts, had better damage control and, after the middle of the war (1943), far more capable carrier aircraft than anybody. Perhaps an Aircraft Carrier replacement with better air and melee defense and a plus factor to any aircraft unit carried.
Nuclear Carrier - the modern CVN "Supercarriers" are unique to the US Navy, but also are late Atomic Era or Information Era units, and so of marginal usefulness in most games.

Air Combat Units
Civ games have already had the B-17 Bomber and P-51 Fighter and, indirectly, the B-29 bomber as the graphic for an 'atomic bomb' delivery. That doesn't leave a lot of iconic and unique aircraft types: later ones like the A-10, B-1, B-2, F-15, F-14 or F-111 are all going to run into the same problem as the CVN: available too late in the to be very useful in most games.

Lots more could be added, but that's a start, I think.

 

[bengalryan9]

Why not have a special unit based on Rock Bands? Maybe a Film Crew or something. Give them something that really helps ramp up their chances at a culture victory later in the game, and it synergizes with their Film Studios as well. A lower cost and/or higher chance of success compared to standard Rock Bands would probably be all it needs to be a devastating unit.

This would make them someone you'd want to target for elimination early in the game, but Teddy's leader bonus synergizes well with that as well as he has CS bonuses on his own continent and Rough Riders that give culture when defending his own lands from your attacks.