uu's

[CTM]

There was nothing special about American airforce carriers. In fact, during World War II the British had the only navy with carriers that had armored plate decks where the ships took off from. Everyone else (including the Americans) had wooden decks, which although allowed for more planes made them more vulnerable to bombs as of course they would burst into flame.

The American GI was also just standard American infantry that was in no way superior to any other infantry at the time. In fact, it's been proven (go read Trevor Dupuy's A Genius for War: the German Army and General Staff, 1807-1945) that the German army during both world wars performed statistically better than it foes, basically because the German General Staff (the new one, built after the Napoleonic Wars) was built on a system that could handle mediocrity. It was to provide the military organization and leadership that could effectively train, organize, motivate, and lead German troops. German combat superiority is why the Germans were able to fight effectively against opponents that clearly had more men and materiel than they did themselves.

There was nothing exceptional about the German mercenaries that fought during the 18th century, either. To quote the book:

The practice continued longer in Germany than elsewhere for reasons that were almost completely economic. Since it was still a competitive business, the petty German princes who hired out their soldiers naturally made certain that they were well trained and well disciplined. A quality product meant more sales, and money was scarce in 18th century Germany.

There is, unquestionably, a modern German military tradition, traceable in part to the survival of the military mercenary trade in Germany into the 18th century, but even more directly stemming from the exceptionally good Prussian armies of the early Hohenzollerns, and the even more exceptional use of those armies by Prussian King Frederick II, the Great. Yet it was a comparable Prussian Army--every bit as well-trained as Frederick's had been--that was led to a humiliating defeat by Frederic William III in 1806 when he tried to teach some lessons to an upstart French ruler...

...it should be remembered that Napoleon's next to last battle, nine years later, was a clear-cut victory over a numerically superior Prussian army at Ligny, two days before Waterloo.

Thus history does not support a long tradition of exceptional German military performance before the 18th century, and it suggests that the excellence of the Prussian Army between 1750 and 1815 was, at best, relative. Nor did contemporaries perceive the Germans as exceptional soldiers.

Prussia did not defeat Austria because of better rifles, either, but because they had a better General Staff and were able to mobilize more troobs to the front than Austria could. I think Austria was also trying to put down a rebellion in the Italian province they controlled at the time.

Keep the Panzer for the Germans. Find something else for the Americans. The F-15 is distinctly American, with nothing else like it in the real world, if not it comes too late and is useless in the game.

 

[apatheist]

There was nothing special about American airforce carriers. In fact, during World War II the British had the only navy with carriers that had armored plate decks where the ships took off from. Everyone else (including the Americans) had wooden decks, which although allowed for more planes made them more vulnerable to bombs as of course they would burst into flame.

"Super carrier" refers to a post-WWII aircraft carrier, along the lines of the U.S.S. Enterprise or the Nimitz class of nuclear-powered carriers. The Royal Navy's aircraft carriers are substantively different.

It's hard to say in general that any culture really had that unique and special of a military unit. You could find such flaws in the choices of the majority of unique units in the game. The F-15 is arguably no better than the Su-27, for instance. Actual superiority is nice, but significance in the nation's perception of themselves is also important. And then you'll have some cases where you don't have either and you just have to pick something.

 

[CTM]

That's definitely true. The American UU comes so late, though. Of course, the Americans themselves are a late civ, so.

That is what is so funny about them. In the game (Civ III, that is) because of their influence today, but when you consider the entire scope of civilization and the game's mechanics it's hard to play as them considering wonders are pretty much the only way to get a golden age when you want it and the UU comes too late (and effectively not much better than what you can build otherwise) to matter much.

 

[apatheist]

Which is why I think a GI would be a better UU. Even a B-52 is a little too late. The Minuteman is too early; ideally, the UU should be from when the nation is at or entering its peak.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Bugfatty, it's true that American GI's were armed with M1 Garrands that had semi-auto capability, which indeed made it THE most usefull rifle out on the battle field, in terms or POWER the M1 sacraficed a lot to achieve the SA mode.

The other nation's bolt-action rifles could take a guy down from twice as far as the M1 and with one shot, while the M1 would take a couple shots into the torso to take a man down, (kill him).

Huh?

The M1 Garand fires a 30-06 bullet which is an extremely powerful cartridge. The same cartridge the US springfield bolt-action fired. In fact it was one of the most powerful rifle cartridges used in WWII.

And the Garand was just as accurate as the Enfield, Nagant, Arisaka or Mauser bolt-action rifles if not more accurate.

I think you got the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine mixed up. The M1 carbine was accurate but definetly underpowered.

 

[Vietcong]

i agree with the above post, it was nearly as acuret as the kar 98 k or any other balt action rilfe. but if u fired the gun more rapidly as it was able to due to is being simi auto, it was defently considrably less accurete then the bolt action.

the japanes rifles whear poor, at beast. ecpecaly later in the war. thay used poor metals to make the barals and metal parts. thay resorted to melting down pots and pans, mixing iron with bronz ect. and the cartregaes whear of poor quality allso.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

Vietcong, bolt or semiauto has nothing to do with accuracy, at least not in terms of the standard service rifles issued then. If the M1 was reported as less accurate, then it was because the GI's were shooting fast, not recovering from recoil and taking proper aim again. There were accurized M1 rifles issued for sniping, IIRC.

Japanese weapons were pretty junky.

RE: the carrier issue - the US today has much bigger carriers than anyone else. Most carriers used by other nations are the smaller sort that you can fly "Jump Jets" off of, i.e. Harriers and the like. So, a modern US carrier would be appropriate as a GA unit, my complaint would be that like the F-15, it comes too late.

 

[Vietcong]

thats what i mean, if u shot it off to fast then it will be less acurit.

 

[Albow]

perhaps the US's UU could be an early version of a nuke? It ended the Pacific war and then American entered its golden age (50s). It would also guarantee that once you use it, you enter the golden age ... perhaps make it a lot less powerful than conventional nuke (limited pop loss, not all units die, less orange fallout) , but also cheaper.

 

[OLX]

There was nothing exceptional about the German mercenaries that fought during the 18th century, either. To quote the book:

Yeah, and besides, as I hear it, Didn't most of the Hessian Mercenaries Defect to the US when they sensed the Brits were losing?

 

[jasper1]

I think you all are getting very confused. The m1 Garand is inherently less accurate then bolt action rifles like the Kar 98. But is more then accurate enough for a main battle rifle and is better rifle then a Kar 98. Both rifles are more then powerful enough. The m1c was used with a scope as a sniper rifle but it was not as accurate as a bolt action rifle. A bolt action rifle has less moving parts and can be made more precise. The hl2 mod DOD is gamey so don’t look at there damage modal as realist because its not.

If you firing with iron sites an m1 is more the accurate enough. The m1 is more gun then is really need. The m16 for example is better for the range that you will be shooting at in real life. The Germans developed the first assault rifle with the introduction of the MP-44.

Although the m1 was better you have to under stand that the average German squad was smaller then a US squad and packed more fire power because they used more machine guns like the mg-42.

In other words mg-42s and mp-44 are what you want your squad equipped with and by the end of the war many German squads where armed with these weapons.

 

[Vietcong]

yea, thay used modifed scoped m1s in nam.

as for the atomic bomb uu. its not a bad idea, the gerateed golden age thing is to much tho.

how about a limited pop loss of 200,000. and 75 chance for the one unit in a stack to be killed*or damage*, and 50 percent for all others. helth drops by 100% and 4 buldings get 75 % chance of being destroyed, all others have 50.
plus its delivered by bomber planes so it can be intercepted by figters and shot down..

the tatical and icbm shold be a pop loss of 1 million max, all buldings have 75% chance of destruion as do all units *or damage for units*

 

[Vietcong]

anther thing is u had to shot off all rounds for the m1, i whold any day go for a bolt action rifle, or that german simi auto rifle*forgot its name*. had 10 rounds, pluss u didnt have fire off all rounds like the m1...

whold be intresting to see if this gun was as comman as for the germans as the m1 was for the allies... allied casualtys whold be much higher.

 

[Vilati Timmadar]

Prussia did not defeat Austria because of better rifles, either, but because they had a better General Staff and were able to mobilize more troobs to the front than Austria could.

When a prussian soldier can fire six shots and reload lying in cover in the time an austrian soldier can fire one shot and has to reload standing - then you can mass as many troops as you want - the weapons technology is deciding.

Sure, the prussians mobilized more troops in a fewer time, but that wasn't the only thing that mattered. In the war 1870/71 against the French and in the war against the French in 1940, the French were superior in numbers, but lost. Numbers are not everything.