ULTIMATEGP
Blitzkrieg!!!
Good ideas I think maybe a special tank like the Sherman or a big red one infantry replacement.
-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days (this includes any time you see the message "account suspended"). For more updates please see here.
UU for America
- Thread starter deadcat
- Start date
Firstly, I do not think the Navy SEAL UU is broken. Use it on a archilego map or even on continents for direct city attack from the water and it is almost too much of an advantage. the first strikes and march let it attack repeatedly without stop. The water attack position protects it from pre-attack by AI seige weapons.
Secondly. the F-15 is not like all other countries fighters. While a couple of the MIGs come close, the SAAB and renault planes are a joke compared to it. The new strike fighters have now turned the F-15 into a joke but I guess it is okay to have the top 2 fighter planes in the world instead of just the top 1.
If all the civs got a second UU, i would vote for a nuclear attack sub for the US. Not a ballistic missile sub. The attack sub would be on par with destroyers in power (or at least closer) and have first strikes (1-2) and a better withdrawal bonus.
Secondly. the F-15 is not like all other countries fighters. While a couple of the MIGs come close, the SAAB and renault planes are a joke compared to it. The new strike fighters have now turned the F-15 into a joke but I guess it is okay to have the top 2 fighter planes in the world instead of just the top 1.
If all the civs got a second UU, i would vote for a nuclear attack sub for the US. Not a ballistic missile sub. The attack sub would be on par with destroyers in power (or at least closer) and have first strikes (1-2) and a better withdrawal bonus.
lord_graywolfe
Wolfman
if the ships were a bit better, like being able to bombard units, i would suggest the Constitution class frigate. Ol Iron Sides is a legend and that class ship dominated the seas.
SuperBeaverInc.
Groucho
I think America should have the Minuteman as the UU. Just imagine the epic battles you could have between Minutemen and Redcoats!
A+ombomb
Actuary
I agree 100% with the idea of the pioneer as an upgraded settler for the americans. But I don't think that particular upgrade for them would be that useful in multiplayer. It might be better to make it equally useful in both single player and multiplayer. I would suggest this:
Hearty Pioneer:
Str: 1(0)
Move: 3 (2)
Cost: 100
Can only defend
Instant woodsman II promotion.
Instant hills II promotion.
Cities built with pioneers instantly gain 5x city hammer production for the first turn after being built (only) (ability to make use of surroundings more efficiently for building). In the early stages, this amounts to approximately a free warrior.
Cities built with pioneers have bonus 10% defense.
Hearty Pioneer:
Str: 1(0)
Move: 3 (2)
Cost: 100
Can only defend
Instant woodsman II promotion.
Instant hills II promotion.
Cities built with pioneers instantly gain 5x city hammer production for the first turn after being built (only) (ability to make use of surroundings more efficiently for building). In the early stages, this amounts to approximately a free warrior.
Cities built with pioneers have bonus 10% defense.
Paratroopers
American Paratroopers made a huge difference in WWII. It was also a ground breaking tactical achievment to drop 70,000 (American & British) paratroopers into France behind enemy lines.
Ask any WWII veteran about Bastogne and they'll tell you about paratroopers.
American Paratroopers made a huge difference in WWII. It was also a ground breaking tactical achievment to drop 70,000 (American & British) paratroopers into France behind enemy lines.
Ask any WWII veteran about Bastogne and they'll tell you about paratroopers.
Lordclane
Chieftain
A couple of ideas:
1) Marines. For many decades, the American armed forces had a virtually unique capability for large-scale ampiibious assaults against on-the-beach defenses. Most nations' "marines" could only land against no resistance or token resistance, and fought once established on land. There were minor exceptions-- some armies had a few battalions worth of "commando" or "special forces" units that might conduct such operations. During World War II, the Brits and Canadians both had landing forces in in division strength, but this was a short-term capability; only the Americans maintained the training, naval capability, and troops for such operations, later used extensively in Korea and to a lesser level in Vietnam.
2) Air Cavalry. The game currently offers helicopter gunships, but the United States has consistently maintained a strong air-infantry capability since the second world war, originally with paratroopers-- that remain-- but since Viet Nam also with a strong helicopter-based air cavalry component. In the second world war, the major powers on both sides had some gliders and helicopters. The Germans pretty much gave up paratroopers after the Battle of Crete (their "paratroopers" such as the Herman Goering division had neither chutes nor chute training, though they did maintain some special forces units). The capability for large scale airborne operations after the end of the Second World War was pretty much limited to the Americans, though the Brits retained some limited capability, used in the Battle for the Falklands.
These could be treated as unique units, but the limiting factor was really one of cost and time. For real marines, paratroopers, or air cavalry, a lot of extra training is required, and some very expensive naval or air force infrastructure (e.g., combat landing ships) are required. If marines and air cavalry were simply excellent-class infantry with the additional movement/landing capability that were VERY, VERY expensive for their combat capability, they'd only be built by relatively rich civilizations that needed their specific capability.
For a truly unique American unit, it's worth considering that Americans fielded troops with the Kentucky Long Rifle-- low rate of fire but VERY accurate-- and, in a similar vein, unlike our European counterparts, American musketmen were drilled to AIM their muskets. European infantry were trained to look away from their targets when they fired. This was safer with some muskets, and contributed to a higher rate of fire, but American fire was more accurate and, hence, had a somewhat longer effective range. Thus, one might introduce Early American Infantry in place of musketmen, that would actually be a mix of musketmen and riflemen. Their "special capability" would be "first shot," with, perhaps, a higher combat value on the first shot. The former would reflect the longer range; the latter the value of aimed fire. Legitimately, though, after the first exchange, they'd be no better than normal musketmen, and maybe even weaker, since American troops had a lower rate of fire and were not as well trained for melee with bayonets.
1) Marines. For many decades, the American armed forces had a virtually unique capability for large-scale ampiibious assaults against on-the-beach defenses. Most nations' "marines" could only land against no resistance or token resistance, and fought once established on land. There were minor exceptions-- some armies had a few battalions worth of "commando" or "special forces" units that might conduct such operations. During World War II, the Brits and Canadians both had landing forces in in division strength, but this was a short-term capability; only the Americans maintained the training, naval capability, and troops for such operations, later used extensively in Korea and to a lesser level in Vietnam.
2) Air Cavalry. The game currently offers helicopter gunships, but the United States has consistently maintained a strong air-infantry capability since the second world war, originally with paratroopers-- that remain-- but since Viet Nam also with a strong helicopter-based air cavalry component. In the second world war, the major powers on both sides had some gliders and helicopters. The Germans pretty much gave up paratroopers after the Battle of Crete (their "paratroopers" such as the Herman Goering division had neither chutes nor chute training, though they did maintain some special forces units). The capability for large scale airborne operations after the end of the Second World War was pretty much limited to the Americans, though the Brits retained some limited capability, used in the Battle for the Falklands.
These could be treated as unique units, but the limiting factor was really one of cost and time. For real marines, paratroopers, or air cavalry, a lot of extra training is required, and some very expensive naval or air force infrastructure (e.g., combat landing ships) are required. If marines and air cavalry were simply excellent-class infantry with the additional movement/landing capability that were VERY, VERY expensive for their combat capability, they'd only be built by relatively rich civilizations that needed their specific capability.
For a truly unique American unit, it's worth considering that Americans fielded troops with the Kentucky Long Rifle-- low rate of fire but VERY accurate-- and, in a similar vein, unlike our European counterparts, American musketmen were drilled to AIM their muskets. European infantry were trained to look away from their targets when they fired. This was safer with some muskets, and contributed to a higher rate of fire, but American fire was more accurate and, hence, had a somewhat longer effective range. Thus, one might introduce Early American Infantry in place of musketmen, that would actually be a mix of musketmen and riflemen. Their "special capability" would be "first shot," with, perhaps, a higher combat value on the first shot. The former would reflect the longer range; the latter the value of aimed fire. Legitimately, though, after the first exchange, they'd be no better than normal musketmen, and maybe even weaker, since American troops had a lower rate of fire and were not as well trained for melee with bayonets.
Dudedudeyo
Chieftain
Why not a B-52 bomber? I would go with that or the crussier.
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
The super-carrier would be the most appropriate, however since naval and plane units seem to be out, the Apachie Longbow. Far more realistic since this is something the US has that is way out there the best, and proven. As opposed to special forces that while they exist in larger numbers as certainly not better than some other countries.
superjib
Chieftain
emills said:
Well I missed a war between US and Sweden or France...
And Renault build cars (planes without wings but wheels...
), Dassault Aviation build planes ! How can you talk about fights between a Mirage 2000 or a Rafale or a Grippen with a F15 ?? Not the same generation, not cannon duels but a datasystem duel... but you re right ! Top gun was a good movie 
Definitely minutemen or powerful carriers...
We keep in mind that US have military power thanks to the air superiority but we talk about UU and CIV, so US discovered the Stealth tech before and have built many fighters ! That's all !
But not these SEALS !!!! Yep a lot of movies and video game concerned them thanks to Hollywood and Video game indusrty in US... France has Marsouins, UK has SAS, Russia has Spetznas...
Or..... maybe Texas Rangers !
Inspector Javert
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 510
Maybe a jet with the ability to drop a tactial Nuke as a bombing misson (a la Nagasiaka)
Love
Deity
Why dont put in blackhawk helicopters instead of gunskips!
