Special Units

[stormbind]

Originally posted by CrackedCrystal
Ah, man. a truce? And it was just getting interesting

I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to start it again... Stormbind develops a twitch and equally disturbing bias...

England didn't just invent the jet engine, England builds all the best jet fighters.

The F-117 wouldn't even fly without England, and the F-15 would be a shadow of what it is. Same applies to the F-22. Come to think of it, same applies to everything...

It's not disputed, Frank Whittle invented the jet engine. Testing began in 1937 and the first took to the skies in 1939~1941 (sources differ).

I don't actually know much about German jets, but they would have seen the early Whittle engine and did begin building their own when the patent expired. The Whittle engine was very old by WW2, he just didn't have the funding to build one until 1937!

As for the F-15 and it's nice on-canopy HUD. That was developed and supplied by British Aerospace. All the electronics in the F-22 Raptor are supplied by British Aerospace. Nearly all the countermeasures used by all USAF fighters are supplied by British Aerospace. The air-to-air missiles with longest range were developed and manufactured in England, not sure by who... but it could be British Aerospace, they do a lot!

The Turbo-Jet was invented in England around 1941-1944. Supercruise was first achieved in England, I think it was 1951.

The Apollo Mission was designed in England, they just didn't think it was safe to strap people to rockets. A trip to Mars was also designed, would NASA like to buy that one too?

Maybe I should quit this and go into a pro-American mode before I get flamed?

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Stormbind: I will be back to this thread tomorrow, i have some major issues with your statemens. But i have a talk to give to 500 people tomorrow morning and I haven#t prepared it yet

 

[stormbind]

Ok, there's no rush

Anyone else for a good old argument? Aww... come on, I can argue about anything! It's true... try me

 

[BiatchGuy]

Unique Units are fine. Though it might be a little "unrealistic" to have camels and elephants walking around in the tundra, the Unique Units make for good variety, strategy, etc.

As for why Americans have the fighter jet UU, probably because modern American wars are fought with a ton of air power? I'm not a history expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I was thinking maybe the American UU could be something from the revolutionary era.. didn't the rebels in the Revolutionary War basically invent guerilla warfare?

 

[stormbind]

No offense or anything, but the USA was formed from a civil war and the bulk of the population are of Europeans so it's not really a unique civilisation at all.

When a civilisation in Civ2 splits into two halves, they don't have different UU.

The only unique american units and civilisation would be the Native Americans. Ideas for a UU: Cool blow pipes, throwing axes, archers on horseback...

Which I happen to think would be really cool!

Although, the USA does generally put more faith in huge bombers than any other country. I mean, WW2 Lancaster was British so clearly big bombers aren't unique to the USA but when most nations swapped their big bombers for smaller fighter bombers or the Avro Vulcan (just an example)... the USA went and developed the B52! So... big bombers are kind of an American trait.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by BiatchGuy
Unique Units are fine. Though it might be a little "unrealistic" to have camels and elephants walking around in the tundra, the Unique Units make for good variety, strategy, etc.

But don't you think it would be better if Eskimoes came from the tundra, and Camels came from desert regions - regardless of the Civilisation's name?

When Great Britain captured India, they still used the Elephants that were there... they weren't magically transformed into Sheep!

 

[Illustrious]

Originally posted by stormbind
In the interest of completeness, Great Britain beat the **** out of Napoleon because British rifles were more accurate than French muskets. How about that for a Special Unit?!

Sorry to disturb your fine rhetorical flow, but that's incorrect. The British army during the Napoleonic wars made limited use of riflemen (just two regiments - the 95th and 60th - out of the whole army), and the accuracy of the Baker rifle was valued but limited in effect.

However, what won battles for the British against the French was English muskets - substantially the same muskets as the French used (the English Brown Bess and the French Charleville were almost identical in specification).

The war-winning difference was not unit type but tactics: French infantry advanced in column, supported by artillery, and depended upon their opponents not being able to stand against their charge. The British (in particular the Duke of Wellington) took up defensive positions in two lines (which meant they could bring more muskets to bear against the oncoming enemy), sheltered on the reverse slope of a hill (so that the artillery was a minor irritant rather than a major threat) and withheld fire until close range. One or two volleys were followed up with a downhill charge.

Not really much scope for a special unit there, I'm afraid...

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Illustrious
The British army during the Napoleonic wars made limited use of riflemen (just two regiments - the 95th and 60th - out of the whole army) ... what won battles for the British against the French was English muskets - substantially the same muskets as the French used (the English Brown Bess and the French Charleville were almost identical in specification).

Not really much scope for a special unit there, I'm afraid...

This is great! I don't pretend to know the specifics of the Napoleonic wars, I had just heard that rifles were being developed in England and that British regiments took the brunt of the war to allow her allies a chance to recover.

I am a wee-bit dissapointed that Great Britain cannot claim the rifleman regiment, or can it?

What about the scouts, as seen in erm... that TV show... Sharp! Weren't they a unique unit type and the first to brandish rifles?

 

[The Little Man]

Get your facts straight, the jet engine was a german invention, inventet by Hans Von Ohain, can't be borthered posting all the information here, but go to this site, it has alot information about the invention of the jet: http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljetengine.htm

During WW2, the germans also produced far superior Jet planes compared to any other nation, the Messerschmitt ME262 Schwalbe. It was years ahead of the British G41 Meteor, which basicly was a failure.

Basicly in the 20th century most british weapons were (and is) somewhat lagging and behind compared to escpecially German and French weaponary.
Well, the british were the first to develop tanks, during world war 1, but they were very poor, and british designs after WW1 was some of the worst in the world (Commenting on the era between the 1st world war and the end of the second).
The modern Challenger tanks are good though, however they are way to expensive, like the American counterpart the Abrahams, good tanks but really not whorth the insane cost.

 

[Illustrious]

Originally posted by stormbind
I am a wee-bit dissapointed that Great Britain cannot claim the rifleman regiment, or can it?

Not really. Or rather, not alone.

Prussia and Austria among others had units of Jägers ("hunters") armed with rifles. And the Americans had used riflemen as skirmishers during the War of Independence. In fact, it was the success of American rifle sharpshooters that inspired the Brits to form their rifle units (the 60th regiment was actually at one stage renamed the "Royal American Rifles")

The French admittedly never made much use of riflemen. That was mainly because they had a different tactical system of skirmishers: while the Brits, Prussians and Austrians tended to use smaller numbers of skirmishers - and so it made sense to arm them with the more expensive and harder to use rifle - the French used large screens of skirmishers in front of their heavy infantry columns - far too many to justify equipping or training them with rifles.

What about the scouts, as seen in erm... that TV show... Sharp! Weren't they a unique unit type and the first to brandish rifles?

You know, when I saw your first post, I guessed you'd been watching "Sharpe"! Great entertainment, but not 100% history.

The real importance of the rifle regiments was that they previewed the move away from rigid "automaton-like" combat drill towards individual initiative and small-unit tactics. But it was only later that these developments really bore fruit - as late as the Crimean War we were using lines of troops firing volleys....

 

[narmox]

Originally posted by stormbind

If countries with Ivory could make War Elephants instead of Horsemen... then that would be cool, and it would make some sense. If countries won many sea battles, and this unlocked the ability to build Man-O-War .... then that also makes a little sense.

But saying a civilisation can build some Special Unit because it's name is England or America is just absurd and damages playability

While we're at it, let's not make the civ traits tied to the civ name either! If a country makes lot of wars, make it militaristic. If it trades a lot, make it commercial. etc..!!!!

(If you're not sure if I'm sarcastic or not, rest assured - I'm not sure either! )

 

[Illustrious]

Originally posted by The Little Man
Get your facts straight, the jet engine was a german invention, inventet by Hans Von Ohain, can't be borthered posting all the information here, but go to this site, it has alot information about the invention of the jet: http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljetengine.htm

You don't make yourself look very clever when you post a claim that von Ohain rather than Whittle was the inventor of the jet engine... and add a link which shows that Whittle's patent was several years earlier than von Ohain's....!

To quote from the website you linked us to: "[Whittle] received his first patent on turbojet propulsion in January 1930...... [von Ohain] first conceived the idea of a continuous cycle combustion engine in 1933".

Rather than try to further the heroic myth that any one man was the inventor of jet propulsion, it is more sensible to recognise that a number of people were working on the problem at the same time. Indeed, the very first sentence of the site you quote takes the view that "Dr. Hans von Ohain and Sir Frank Whittle are both recognized as being the co-inventors of the jet engine" (my emphasis).

 

[Civanator]

IF you can argue anything, can you argue who invented the lightbulb?

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by The Little Man
Get your facts straight, the jet engine was a german invention, inventet by Hans Von Ohain,

As Illustrious pointed out, that site argues against you. More complete sources go as far as to say that Hans Von Ohain coppied Whittle's engine.

Edit: Sources may be biased. I'll not want to have to defend them.

Also, Whittle W.1 was almost the same as Hans Von Ohain's engine but the Whittle W.2 was many times better. This was not used in the Meteor, but would be used in much faster aircraft.

Regardless of what you say, you only strengthen my original complaint which was that America should not get a better jet aircraft in Civ3.

Originally posted by The Little Man

During WW2, the germans also produced far superior Jet planes compared to any other nation, the Messerschmitt ME262 Schwalbe. It was years ahead of the British G41 Meteor, which basicly was a failure.

As already pointed out, the Meteor used the basic W.1 engine but regardless of that... the Meteor went on to fight in North Korea, Argentine Civil War and many other wars... they were still in service with the Brazillian Air Force in 1975. That's not a failure, that's a success! What did the Me262 do? Did it just gather dust in some musseum?

Originally posted by The Little Man

Basicly in the 20th century most british weapons were (and is) somewhat lagging and behind compared to escpecially German and French weaponary.

What French weaponry?

So you're saying the only way England could win in the war that it did win, was to use tactics so much better than anything the Germans could possibly dream up? Ok, I'll accept your argument

Today, Germany and Great Britain have mostly the same air force. Both Tornados and Typhoons, except Great Britain has more. They also have Harriers, oh... and the SAS, if they count

Originally posted by The Little Man
Well, the british were the first to develop tanks, during world war 1, but they were very poor.

A poor tank is better than no tank

British tanks at the start of WW2 were rubbish. But the thing to note is that Britain had not been spending years getting ready for WW2, so they still had a lot of WW1-style equipment! It's not their fault they are situated next door to war mongerers

Besides, British tanks in 1944 rocked. I forgot the name, it's the one that comes before Chieftain.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Civanator
IF you can argue anything, can you argue who invented the lightbulb?

I'll argue that it was invented by Thomas Edison, and the telephone was invented by a Scotsman

 

[No idea]

Originally posted by stormbind



Frank Whittle invented the Jet Engine. He was English, born in England, raised in England, died in England, invented the engine in England, and it flew in England before WW2... how much more English can the jet possibly be?

Actually the German company Heinkel made the first jet aircraft, it flew before Whittles aircraft.
And the German Me 262 was operational nearly a year before the meteor.
And why would they make the F-22 a UU? Its not even in service yet.

 

[stormbind]

Any complaints with this?

The Whittle engine was invented in 1930 (UK)

The Von Ohain engine was invented in 1936 (DE)

First working model of a Whittle W.1 was in 1937 (UK)

The Heinkel He-178 flew in 1939 (DE)

The Gloster E.28 flew in 1941 (UK)

Bell XP-59A Airacomet flew with Whittle W.1 engines in 1942. They did not affect the outcome of WW2. (USA)

Me262 with jet engines flew in ????. 1433 were built but they didn't do much. It flew in 1941 with piston engines but I cannot find a date for jet engines. (DE)

The Gloster Meteor flew in 1943. 3947 were built. They did affect the outcome of WW2 and many more wars. (UK)

 

[wilbill]

Jeez, you leave the thread for a few hours to play the game and you guys run rampant, don't you?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by stormbind
Gurkers come from India because it's a friggin jungle, not because it's called India.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They were gurkhas , not "gurkers". And they're Nepalese, not Indian. They were incorporated into the Indian Army by the British. They came about in the Himalayas, not the jungle. Otherwise, your point is well taken.

Originally posted by stormbind
Thanks for the correction wilbill

I owe you an apology, stormbind. Or at least an explanation. I wasn't really agreeing with your point on the UU's. Rather, I was trying (and obviously failing) to be sarcastic. Which really wasn't called for. We ought to have a punctuation mark to denote sarcasm.
Since I got caught being a jerk, I'll give you the serious reply you deserve.
While you're completely right about resources and geography not being logically tied to the UU's, I don't think that matters. Realism is not Civ 3's strong point in a multitude of ways. One of the features that players seem to really appreciate and enjoy is the fact that the various tribes have fairly distinct and identifiable qualities. Each civ has a "personality" that makes you like it, fear it, despise it, etc. These cultural identifiers are much more pronounced than in Civ 1 or 2, IMO.
The UU's are an important part of the cultural identity and I think the vast majority of players prefer having them in the game. I certainly do. But I think you may have unintentionally made a great suggestion. Gurkhas would make a really great UU for India. Although the sound effects wouldn't be as cool as the trumpeting of the War Elephant, they don't require Ivory to build. And they're some of the best combat troops the world has ever seen.
Now, back to deciding who invented the jet engine, or the steamboat, or the moustrap or whatever...

 

[sabo]

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.




and jet fighters were 'invented' in Germany.



as for the UU: turn them off if you don#t like them

Yeah, it was the ME262, unless I missed something in school I was taught that jets were invented in Germany.

ps... Ballistic Missles were ALSO invented in Germany, before anyone jumps on this take note I said "Ballistic Missles" not rockets. It was called the V2.

here is a quote from the history of the Jet engine.. (see I got proof)
]

Dr. Hans von Ohain and Sir Frank Whittle are both recognized as being the co-inventors of the jet engine. Each worked separately and knew nothing of the other's work. Hans von Ohain is considered the designer of the first operational turbojet engine. Frank Whittle was the first to register a patent for the turbojet engine in 1930. Hans von Ohain was granted a patent for his turbojet engine in 1936. However, Hans von Ohain's jet was the first to fly in 1939. Frank Whittle's jet first flew in in 1941.

and here is where you can find it
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljetengine.htm

 

[sabo]

Originally posted by stormbind
No offense or anything, but the USA was formed from a civil war and the bulk of the population are of Europeans so it's not really a unique civilisation at all.

The only unique american units and civilisation would be the Native Americans. Ideas for a UU: Cool blow pipes, throwing axes, archers on horseback...


Although, the USA does generally put more faith in huge bombers than any other country. I mean, WW2 Lancaster was British so clearly big bombers aren't unique to the USA but when most nations swapped their big bombers for smaller fighter bombers or the Avro Vulcan (just an example)... the USA went and developed the B52! So... big bombers are kind of an American trait.

Are you British stormbind?? There is nothing wrong with national pride but you should get the facts straight before you post and with some kind of proof, because believe me, someone out here will shoot you down if you can't back up what you say.

Topic: Native Americans?? News Flash: EVERY countries' citizens migrated from "somewhere". In your England I believe everyone migrated from Normandy, (the normans) correct?? Everyone points to the US as not having there own natives because migration happened so recently in history, but every Civ in every country came from "somewhere" (except maybe africa where it all started)
also the first B52 first flew in the 1950's, it's hardly a modern day bomber. Our newest Bomber, the B1 is NOT a big bomber as far as WWII type bombers go.