Some UUs come WAY too early...

[Florian]

How can a civilization have had a golden age before it even existed?

How can a city be named for George Washington, when Washington won't be born for another 5700 years?

Look, the game starts in 4000 BC. How many of the civilizations available to you actually existed in 4000 BC? It's ridiculous for you to complain about UUs when it's been true since Civ I that you can found Rome, Paris, London, or Washington D.C. thousands of years ahead of schedule. Your real complaint is game balance. You think early UUs unbalance the game. So talk about that. Don't pretend there's some big historical issue at stake. We all know that the Civ games don't create accurate timelines. If they did, they would be drastically different.

 

[Arlborn]

That's all you said. Deep, I can't believe I didnt understand it the first time. Yes, it looks a lot like the UUs. Great. What did they look like 5000 years ago when you can build them in civ? I'm not saying everything should be 100% accurate, but 5000 years early?

I mean, Shaka Zulu fought the British in South Africa, I don't think he was fighting them with spearmen.

If you want to try to classify Imp in the European model, it would be more of a Spearman. So yes, it looks like they actually fought with the Imps against England, at least in part.
Got it?

 

[Bad Brett]

It wouldn't be impossible to fix this:

Impi: 8 strength, 1 movement, +50% vs mounted units, replaces pikeman, no resources

Quechua Warrior: 5 strength, 2 movement, starts with medic I, sentry, mobility, can attack, replaces explorer, requires copper

Keshik: 6 strength, 2 movement, ignores terrain movement cost, immune to first strikes, 1-2 first strikes, +25% city attack, +50% against melee units, mobility, replaces crossbowman, requires machinery, horseback riding, horse

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

It wouldn't be impossible to fix this:

Impi: 8 strength, 1 movement, +50% vs mounted units, replaces pikeman, no resources

Quechua Warrior: 5 strength, 2 movement, starts with medic I, sentry, mobility, can attack, replaces explorer, requires copper

Keshik: 6 strength, 2 movement, ignores terrain movement cost, immune to first strikes, 1-2 first strikes, +25% city attack, +50% against melee units, mobility, replaces crossbowman, requires machinery, horseback riding, horse

Well, I think the argument was that Impi were around in 19th century fighting rifle-armed British soldiers. The bonus vs. riflemen would make more sense. Your proposed keshik seems a bit excessive (and it replaces a foot soldier?)... maybe it's just my skewed perspective

 

[hoopsnerd]

If you want to try to classify Imp in the European model, it would be more of a Spearman. So yes, it looks like they actually fought with the Imps against England, at least in part.
Got it?

Yeah, thats what I said. They fought against England in the 19th century AD. The Zulu UU shouldnt be unbalancing the game in 3000 BC.

 

[hoopsnerd]

How can a city be named for George Washington, when Washington won't be born for another 5700 years?

Look, the game starts in 4000 BC. How many of the civilizations available to you actually existed in 4000 BC? It's ridiculous for you to complain about UUs when it's been true since Civ I that you can found Rome, Paris, London, or Washington D.C. thousands of years ahead of schedule. Your real complaint is game balance. You think early UUs unbalance the game. So talk about that. Don't pretend there's some big historical issue at stake. We all know that the Civ games don't create accurate timelines. If they did, they would be drastically different.

Yeah, I understand that the cities are not going to be founded at the right times, no duh, its a game. But the game does attempt to put the UUs in the right time frame for just about every UU except the few i mentioned above, some of which happen to tip the scales of balance in the game. Do you disagree with that? You don't see the American civ with a UU that replaces the spearman now do you?

 

[scu98rkr]

At the Battle of Isandlwana. The British had 1400 men some of whom were not british soliders but African allies. The zulu had 22,000 men.

Thats a ratio of (approx) 15:1 .

If we were to take all the british troops to be redcoats and all the zulus to be Impi then in Civ terms can 15 Impi's destory 1 redcoat.

The answer is yes. Therefore the Impi's are strong enough to represent there the historical unit.

If the Impi's were to come in 1880 what would be the point ? Unless the unit had a strength equal to a rifleman ! Now that would be historically unaccurate !

The only unit I think you have a point on is the mongolian keshlik. These were far more advanced units than the basic horse archer and were as powerful as any cavalry in their day (middle ages). It could be argued the keshlik should be the mongolian version of the knight.

 

[Florian]

The Zulu UU shouldnt be unbalancing the game in 3000 BC.

There shouldn't be ZULUS in 3000 BC. And please try to separate your game-balance complaints from the historical-concern issues you're hiding them behind.

But the game does attempt to put the UUs in the right time frame for just about every UU except the few i mentioned above

Mongolia and Persia should probably have their UUs linked to a more advanced tech. But the problem you run into with the Zulus, the Malinese, the Incas, and the Native Americans, is that their units aren't GOOD enough to link to a more advanced tech. Their UUs, as a matter of historical fact, were no match for standard European troops of the same age. So the game designers had a choice: they could give these civs worthless UUs (Hey, Gunpowder! Now I can make spearmen again!), or they could give them slightly improved versions of the standard primitive units.

Making a beefy Impi with special bonuses vs. Riflemen is another conceivable solution, but it's no more historically accurate than allowing Impi to be built in the stone age. The only reason the Zulus had any success against the Brits is that they outnumbered them HUGELY, and knew the land a lot better. It's not because their spearmen had special rifle-defying powers.

If you've already decided to bend history enough to allow Zulus in 4000 BC, making the Impis early troops doesn't make it any worse. Magical spearmen that for some reason require modern technology to be built are not the answer.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Well, if we're going to continue to try to rationalize the suggested improvements, the +50% bonus could just be attached to "if attacking/defending within your own borders" or maybe a cumulative strength bonus if Impi are stacked (although this would require a significant amount of programming)

 

[Dominico]

Impis were not good against riflemen, i dont know where everyone is getting this from. There were about 1000 british (plus local militia helping them who ran early in the battle) vs 25,000 Zulus. Zulus lost a lot of men in the attack. Even more later in the battle at rourkes drift where the British were prepared. ( i think they were mainly welsh at rourkes drift)

The best way to make them historical is not to give them a bonus against rifles, but to make them really cheap to make so you can make 10 for the cost of one rifleman or something. That way you could attack one rifleman with 10 and win, but still suffer massive losses as the zulus did.

What you could do to keep the uu of these civs "current" is increase this discount to make them as time goes on and allow them to keep making them. That way zulus will still be churning out impis way into the gunpowder age.

Anyway watch the film with micheal cain. Great film and some real heroics there!

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

An excellent point, Dominico. Maybe, going on the 1000 vs. 25000, we should make the impi worth 1/25th of a rifleman! Of course this would mean a lot of crappy attacking with Impi

 

[bonafide11]

The one I agree with is the Mongols. I'd like to see the Keshik replace the knight instead of the horse archer, but I suppose we already have a couple knight replacements and only one horse archer replacement.

 

[Common Sensei]

If you think thats something, just tell any Marine that they're replaced entirely by Navy Seals and see what they have to say about that .

I support the idea someone had in another forum that Navy SEALs should replace Paratroopers.

 

[JZ_UK]

Knights would definitely be a better unit to have the Mongol UU replace... the great Khan's empire being much more contemporary with the European Knight, than the say... Sycthian horse archers...

 

[Zhahz]

I know that civ isn't intended to be totall historicly accurate

...then why worry about the timing of UUs when most of the early empires you listed wouldn't exist for the majority of the game, making the point pretty much moot.

The UUs and their timings are as much about giving players options and maybe balancing civs/leaders as anything (although the balance thing is probably less balanced now that there have been 2 expansions).

 

[Bad Brett]

The mongolian horse archers were among the most powerful troops that have ever existed, yet they kind of suck in both Civ III and Civ IV. That's why I would like to see them with some city raider ability or make them available earlier than knights, so that they have a gap when they can dominate, just like that Roman UU.

 

[hoopsnerd]

I'm willing to admit that the Impi unit is a stretch because it COULD have been built in 3000BC, and it's not really as unbalancing as some of the other UUs. The Inca Quecha is what really inspired me to author this post... The Inca empire should not have the "uber-unit" at the beginning of the game, it really does upset game balance. Anyone who plays Diety knows this is true (the only way I've ever won is by Quecha rushing to get a second starting city).

I don't have a problem with Rome having Praetorians (though they should be called Legions - Praetorian Guard was the elite protectors of the emporer...)which are argueably just as "uber" as the Quecha because the Roman Legions were clearly dominant in their time.

So, as it stands, the only civs with a "late" UU are America and Germany (unless you consider a Cossack and Redcoat to be late), compared to the 16 "early" UUs (things that replace Axeman, Spearman, Warrior, Chariot, and Swordsman, Horse Archer) and the rest "middle" UUs.

2 Late UUs is balanced with 16 early ones?

 

[hoopsnerd]

The UUs and their timings are as much about giving players options and maybe balancing civs/leaders as anything (although the balance thing is probably less balanced now that there have been 2 expansions).

In civ 3 the UUs would trigger a "golden age" when they won in combat, because each unique unit was supposed to correspond to the period in history when that civ was in it's historical "golden age." Maybe I didn't get the memo when they changed that in civ 4.

 

[mrt144]

its a what if game.

 

[SkippyT]

I've always thought that the Berserker comes too late.
An axeman would be too soon, since their golden age was 700-1000. Axemen can come 2000 BC but Macemen won't show up 'till 1200 or later.

But after all, it's a game