there needs to be a longbow UU in this game :)

[Shadowcrow]

I think it should just be the ONE fingered salute... and I'm not talking about the pinky, ring, index fingers nor the thumb.

lol
"The "two-fingered salute", or "bowfinger", may also colloquially refer to an obscene hand gesture in which the first and second fingers are raised and parted in a V, whilst the remaining fingers are clenched, palm facing inward. The gesture is commonly performed by flicking the V upwards from wrist or elbow. It has long been an insulting gesture in England and later in the rest of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, as well as in Ireland and parts of France. It is frequently used to signify defiance (especially to authority), contempt or derision and is often accompanied by the phrase "up yours". United States president George H. W. Bush, attempting to give the "peace sign", once gave the insulting V sign to onlookers while touring Australia, unaware of what it meant to Australians[1]"

I think it was rumored that the english longbows invented the gesture when french knights were cutting of english longbowmens fingers cause they were dangerous.

 

[Carboniferous]

Sadly, the origin of the two fingered salute is probably not an early example of English hooliganism abroad. (Stephen Fry said so, so it must be true!)

In the Wikipedia entry on Longbowmen, it suggests that the Duke of Wellington wanted a company of Longbowmen to field versus Napoleon, since they would be very effective against the lightly armoured infantry of the day with a much better rate of fire - no plate armour by that time. By then, archery skills had almost died out, so he didn't get his request.

 

[VirusMonster]

Sadly, the origin of the two fingered salute is probably not an early example of English hooliganism abroad. (Stephen Fry said so, so it must be true!)

In the Wikipedia entry on Longbowmen, it suggests that the Duke of Wellington wanted a company of Longbowmen to field versus Napoleon, since they would be very effective against the lightly armoured infantry of the day with a much better rate of fire - no plate armour by that time. By then, archery skills had almost died out, so he didn't get his request.

I found wikipedia's longbow entry pretty enlightning It says that African elephant longbow was as powerful as the English longbow.

 

[kazapp]

My vote goes to "this isn't the correct forum"...

 

[Refar]

My vote goes to "this isn't the correct forum"...

I am missing the "Don't care".
I dont think every unit in game needs a UU replacement. More so, if it is going to be some kind of fantasy unit, just for the sake of having one.
On the other hand [whoever] having a longbow UU wouldn't bother me in the least, if the unit makes sense.

 

[Bleys]

LBs are about as close as it gets to "an extra UU" for PRO leaders. Sitting Bull would be way too overpowered if his UU was an LB, no matter what "extra" traits it got. I do agree that maybe his UU should have been a Horse Archer, but not an LB.

I wouldnt mind an LB UU though, something with a bit more use on offense. Something similar to Chu's maybe, with some collateral damage, but make it resource dependant like the Chu as well. I dunno, thinking out loud.

 

[Diamondeye]

Yes, an LB use with Praetstrength, Oromo first strikes and Chokonu collateral, maybe with Jannisary bonuses on top. 60 sounds fair...

[/sarcasm]

 

[D_almighty]

Yes, an LB use with Praetstrength, Oromo first strikes and Chokonu collateral, maybe with Jannisary bonuses on top. 60 sounds fair...

[/sarcasm]

Longbows really shouldn't be that cheap though; think of all the training that an expert longbowman had to go through. I'd be much happier with a super-elite but very expensive longbow unit, to supplement the relatively cheap and easily-trained crossbowmen and macemen.

 

[Kaloioannis]

Longbows really shouldn't be that cheap though; think of all the training that an expert longbowman had to go through. I'd be much happier with a super-elite but very expensive longbow unit, to supplement the relatively cheap and easily-trained crossbowmen and macemen.

Actually a longbowman was more effective on the field than a musketman. The big difference lies in the amount of training a bowman has to undertake to be effective with the bow, whereas the gunmen were ready with minimal training and costs.
In other words real world musketmen were less effective as a fighting unit but faster and cheaply trained, which meant that the one using them could field 10 to 20 times more musketmen than he could field longbows. Also, given the fact that armies at the time consisted more and more on levies you can see the reason why the bow was ecclipsed by the musket.

 

[Acinonyx]

I could definatly see longbows coming in for England, except that their version should trade city defense for other upgrades... first strike would make sense except that it doesn't do squat against knights. The English longbows did not spend their time hiding behind walls (they hid behind the English Channel!).

For a UU with infantry, I would then switch that to Germany, since that was after all Fredrick the Great's thing. The German tanks are pretty sweet though.

The one that annoys me to no end is the Monguls. Thier mounted archers dominated knights in the 13-1400's, it wasn't some spear wielding nonsense in the dark ages. If I was designing the Mongul UU, it would have been a knight replacement; str 12, +1 first strike, flanking 1, -25% vs city.

 

[vanatteveldt]

@Kaloioannis:

If I remember my history, the English king at some point banned all ball games to convince people to practice archery in their spare time, so he would have a sizable pool of competent archers to recruit from

@Acinonyx

The English actually did a fair bit of fighting on their own islands (vs the scots and welsh), but the longbow was esp. important in the 100 years was against france, which was fought on French soil. I think the main advantage of the longbow was taking a strategic position and letting the french knights do their charge thing uphill under barrage.

So... the english longbow could be something like free guerilla, or a specific defense vs knights. but if I had to choose, redcoat > longbow anytime...

Totally OT (rambling dutchman), I think the English UB should be factory related rather than finance related. If any country, the Netherlands should get a trade or finance related building, as they had the first stock exchange and (I think) first incorporated companies and used trade to be way more powerful than their land size would have allowed. The dike is really silly, how on earth does having a dike get me more production on the sea? I would much rather give the English a special factory replacement and the Dutch a + trade route (income) building, maybe a better harbor (although it should really come later, optics/astronomy) or a windmill + production building, but that would not really replace an earlier building...

 

[Acinonyx]

I totally agree about the dike being silly, but from a game balance stand point, giving the Dutch something financial sounds dangerous. Tech lead? Nah, I'd rather have tech domination with a side of science! I got the Dutch the other day with a oceanfront river start, 2 fish and gold. I almost felt bad for the AI...

 

[Diamondeye]

@Kaloioannis:
If I remember my history, the English king at some point banned all ball games to convince people to practice archery in their spare time, so he would have a sizable pool of competent archers to recruit from

All sports, that is.

The English actually did a fair bit of fighting on their own islands (vs the scots and welsh), but the longbow was esp. important in the 100 years was against france, which was fought on French soil. I think the main advantage of the longbow was taking a strategic position and letting the french knights do their charge thing uphill under barrage.

Are you kidding me? One barrage could easily elliminate a whole division of knights. I tend to think of the battles at Castle Lena in Sweden and Richard Lionheart's victories in the Holy land from the trilogy about Arn, the templar knight, written by Jan Guillou. The descriptions are very fitting to longbows' proper use...!

I could definatly see longbows coming in for England, except that their version should trade city defense for other upgrades... first strike would make sense except that it doesn't do squat against knights. The English longbows did not spend their time hiding behind walls (they hid behind the English Channel!).

Yeah I agree. Longsbows were more effective than pikemen without shields, definately, against knights.

The one that annoys me to no end is the Monguls. Thier mounted archers dominated knights in the 13-1400's, it wasn't some spear wielding nonsense in the dark ages. If I was designing the Mongul UU, it would have been a knight replacement; str 12, +1 first strike, flanking 1, -25% vs city.

If I was designing it, it would be str 12, 3 move, mobility, march, +2 first strikes, -25% vs city, 30% chance of retreat, and cost a bunch more than usual knights. They were ridiculously good.

 

[gettingfat]

LBs are about as close as it gets to "an extra UU" for PRO leaders. Sitting Bull would be way too overpowered if his UU was an LB, no matter what "extra" traits it got. I do agree that maybe his UU should have been a Horse Archer, but not an LB.

I wouldnt mind an LB UU though, something with a bit more use on offense. Something similar to Chu's maybe, with some collateral damage, but make it resource dependant like the Chu as well. I dunno, thinking out loud.

I concur. Ever seen a highly promoted SittingDuck CG3/guerilla2/Drill longbow fortifying on hill cities? I've seen quite a number. It counts for 75% + 50% + 50% = 175% bonus. Adding the fortifying, city defence and the first strikes a few of them can stop a stack of rifles without siege weapons stone cold. They even have a chance against infantries as defenders. To also give them attack ability all SB needs are just longbows and some siege weapons.

Regarding their historical aspect. Longbows are very costly to train. If people think they should get higher strength to reflect the historical reality, then make them very expensive as well.

 

[pi-r8]

Man LBs are frustrating enough as it is. A CG3 LB on a hill city is almost invincible.

 

[kniteowl]

Note: My history is terrible, never studied it so don't be too hard on me if I make some history mistake lol.

I reckon for Completeness sake I'd like all if not most normal units (with the exception of modern units) be replace by a UU depending on the Civilization. The fact there are 3 UU swordsmen sounds a lil over the top for me... but most people would rather prefer historical accuracy I guess but then not everything is historically accurate in Civ.

eg -the Mongol UU should be a Kinght replacement insead of a Horse Archer Replacement Etc.. etc.. etc...

I'd personally like to see a Grenadier UU... American Minutemen come to mind, not sure what kind of bonus I would give them... maybe the ability to be drafted instead of Rifles or something... plus an exta bonus of 50% vs Rifles (so they could also Defend vs rifles). *shrugs*...

or a Settler UU (there's a worker UU, why not)...sure it'd have a Short lifespan unless you're playing on a terra map. It's unique Ability would be like 3 Movement or it can defend itself, probably be like a Scout 1 Str and 100% vs Animals.

What About a Treb UU?... What European Civ Specialised in Seige Weaponry? I"d give it 6 Str + 50% City Raider But I'd make them Vulnerable to Collateral Damage from opposing Seige Weapons.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Kniteowl you suggest some broken !@#$ .

Draftable grenades + cannons without extra teching for rifles? That's ugly. Really ugly. Many, many games would end with them. They're viable until infantry, and you'll let a globe city make one every turn to use alongside cannon?! Ooof. Game over.

Magic siege? . Siege is extremely hard to balance. A 6 strength treb with 50% CR would basically make them slightly better in the field, but MOSTLY the same vs cities. I'd probably say a little better after CR promos, but I'd recommend staying away from magic siege .

Settler UU on the other hand would be pretty weak! You typically don't make very many, and their utility even with an extra move isn't all that great...it does make sense if you're going to give every civ multiple UU's though...especially for a civ with otherwise great UU's that needs a crappier one (that's still kind of useful).

Honestly though, I'd prefer ANY of these over a LB unit. LB's piss me off as is lol. I loathe the AI researching feudalism, because warring gets 8000% harder until I get trebs, and even then it's a bit tougher. Stupid longbows and their stupid super CG promos.

 

[kniteowl]

@TheMeInTeam

Yea i wasn't considering about whether the bonuses were overpowered or not, I was just putting out random ideas. but a Undraftable UU granadier would still be nice maybe give them Free UU only bonus 1st strikes + Free Pinch Promo (just another random Idea).

a UU Treb would probably be 6 str + 10% City Raider now that I consider it combined with City Raider Promotions, without the promos they're weaker then a normal Treb but more likely to survive on the feild but when fully promoted to CR3 they're slightly more stronger.

As for the Settler UU yes it has a short short lifespan but combine it with an Imperial Leader and they could potentially give you a very early game advantage where you could potentially settle rich resource locations before your opponent. If you could combine a Chariot escort with a 3 movement settler you could potentially take locations before your opponent easily by moving 2 squares and settling with the 3rd movement point instead of waiting 1 turn where you could lose the location that turn or that turn could be used to setlle quickly and start building infustruture.

before BTS a lot of people believed that Axemen were already powerful almost overpowered because of the abilty to axemen rush AIs and if they ever included an Axemen UU that it would be overpowered, but the ones they introduced to BTS seem pretty balanced to me.

Introducing a Balance LB UU shouldn't be that hard I guess...

Maybe 5 Str And Immune to Collateral Damage from Seige not cho-ku-nus though lol. (just an idea but that might be overpowered lol)

or maybe 5 str + 100% vs Mounted units.

or 6 str + 2 Movement (loses 25% city garrison original LB bonus)

 

[Gath]

Right now longbows are a defensive unit, if one is going to make an Unique unit I think it should be offensive oriented.

I think the best civilization to give them to would be the english. So make them mounted longbowmen and give them a movement of two, and require horses, with a +50% to melee. Rest stay's the same. English often mounted their longbowmen to get them to the field of battle faster. Keep them on their current line archery promotions because they dismounted to fight, so they shouldn't be able to train the withdrawal abilities.

I think this would make it definetly unique, a fast unit good at offense that can double as defense, would be good to attack defending macemen with.

 

[glaivemaster]

If I was designing it, it would be str 12, 3 move, mobility, march, +2 first strikes, -25% vs city, 30% chance of retreat, and cost a bunch more than usual knights. They were ridiculously good.

They were good, but not that good. Mongol military might didn't come just from a well trained military - it also came from good mobility (they were generally faster than anything else at the time, especially the heavier armoured Western knights), good spy networks (knowing where to go and when), greater numbers, their enemies; weaknesses (most were fighting each other) and most of all great tactics to combine all of these

If I were to change them, I'd keep them the same, but make them knights (so Strength 10), remove the requirement for Iron and keep the Withdrawal chance. Not sure if that'd be balanced, maybe make them a bit weaker or something to compensate for their abilities (and their lack of decent armour IRL)