What would they like as if UUs were historically accurate?

[Peng Qi]

This is a thread more for speculation funsies than super serial speculation or pure funsies. I was just thinking about Hoplites and how they have absolutely no interaction with seafaring or amphibious assaults, which they obviously did a lot of if you've read the Iliad. Of course, UUs can't have every single trait they had in real life, but what if they did? Minutemen cost nothing to build! War Chariots available at Pottery! Every elephant-based unit is ridiculously powerful until musketmen! Foreign Legions are full of depressed people from the fringes of society!

What else can we think of?

 

[blackcatatonic]

Longbowmen would be able to hammer little stakes into the ground in front of them to stop mounted charges

This isn't a UU per se, but Knights would be able to fight dismounted - historically, they often did so.

 

[KevinMiles90000]

The mongols would kill everyone and the english would maintain total naval dominance despite only marginally better watercraft.

 

[apocalypse105]

Sacrifice population to create free minuteman

 

[Ghonasiflaids]

Elephant units would require ivory, and horse units would just run away from them on sight.

America would be able to ignore UN votes.

 

[Gucumatz]

Elephant units would require ivory, and horse units would just run away from them on sight.

America would be able to ignore UN votes.

China and Russia can block the UN from even voting.

 

[smallfish]

Golden Age every game America develops the atomic bomb and use them twice before anyone else

Industrial era empires that take Order gain 10% combat bonus against America

 

[duxup]

Golden Age every game America develops the atomic bomb and use them twice before anyone else

That actually would be a neat gameplay element.

Of course many of these UU and such are not so much inherent to a civ as it is about happenstance, geography and unrelated decisions. Still that would be interesting if Civs suddenly gained more powerful UUs or aspects out of nowhere.

 

[Peng Qi]

Sacrifice population to create free minuteman

Are you implying that non-militia armies are composed of robots?

 

[Ajuga]

Aren't UU's unique units whereas a lot of people in this thread are talking about the UA's unique abilities or just civilizations as a whole?

 

[Mods]

what about unique buildings?
-moai statues would do nothing at all

 

[apocalypse105]

Are you implying that non-militia armies are composed of robots?

No I am saying that minuteman where civilians who picked up their arms if danger was coming

WHile other armies where allready in position in a camp or accademy...

 

[Louis XXIV]

I wouldn't really use the Iliad as an accurate source for military history - especially since they combined several different periods of Greek history and it's not entirely clear the so-called Mycenaeans would have fought in a Phalanx like the later Greek Hoplite.

If UUs were treated as historically accurate, the issues of scale would present themselves first (ranged units like Archers). The other thing that crosses my mind is needed horses to ride Camels into battle. Obviously, magical healing abilities would go away. The three Elephant units would be just as likely to injure yourself as the enemy.

 

[Peng Qi]

what about unique buildings?
-moai statues would do nothing at all

I actually think the Moai is pretty well modeled. It encourages you to spam them everywhere instead of "more useful" improvements that could grow your economy or population.

 

[buchengshi]

what about unique buildings?
-moai statues would do nothing at all

You can no longer build Maoi after reaching the industrial era. Once any player researches mass media your Maoi generate one gold plus one gold per adjacent Maoi; but only if you have open borders with at least one other civ. (From tourism.)

 

[teks]

minutemen would totally suck. The american revolutionaries lost the vast majority of their battles against the superior english redcoats, and the elite german mercenaries. Our revolution proved that you can lose every battle, and still win the war.

Mongols would be exactly how they are now.

Spartans didnt have a navy at all until a certain spartan general came along who was gay for a particular Persian prince. He funded a big navy and defeated athens, but this was an exception. generally it was athens = water, sparta = land, and I'm assuming the greek hoplite is based off the spartans, so I don't know about seafaring traits. Thebes eventually beat the spartan hoplite, but they weren't known for a navy either. Later on alexander slaughtered thebes.

The thebes gay army http://suite101.com/article/history-of-gays-in-the-military--the-sacred-band-of-thebes-a322799

Alexanders spearmen were more like pikemen then spearmen they had two-handed spears and no shield, so can't count them.

Th egyptions should get Mamluks instead of a war chariot. Fearsome slave-soldiers who were trained in combat their whole lives. Ironically this army of slaves was created because they were more loyal then traditional soldiers, and free men tried to sell themselves into slavery to join their ranks.
Why should the mamlukes be the egyptions UU. I don't know, maybe because they defeated the mongols, ended the crusades, and eventually took over the sultanate?

 

[Lyoncet]

Spartans didnt have a navy at all until a certain spartan general came along who was gay for a particular Persian prince. He funded a big navy and defeated athens, but this was an exception. generally it was athens = water, sparta = land, and I'm assuming the greek hoplite is based off the spartans, so I don't know about seafaring traits. Thebes eventually beat the spartan hoplite, but they weren't known for a navy either. Later on alexander slaughtered thebes.

Spartan Hoplites weren't particularly different than any other Greek city-states' Hoplites. The only substantive differences AFAIK were 1) the Spartans trained more rigorously (had to, to keep all those slaves in line) and 2) the state provided them with their equipment, so they were usually better equipped. You are right about the lack of Spartan navy though. Pericles' strategy of relying on the Athenian Empire's naval superiority may very well have crushed the Peloponnesian League if Athens hadn't been brought to its knees by plague.

As for the question of Hoplites and whether they should have an amphibious advantage, I don't know about that. As was mentioned, the Illiad isn't exactly a history text. And most of the fighting was mêlée, rather than the Phalanx formations that the Hoplites represent in-game. I know, I know, Hoplite and Phalanx aren't interchangeable, but it seems to me that the formation, rather than the equipment that was the definitive characteristic. ("Hoplite" just means "one who carries a Hoplon [shield]".) The Peloponnesian War did see a lot of naval raiding parties strangling the League, but that wasn't really representative of Hoplite combat either. So I'd say no, coastal raiding wasn't really a big part of the Hoplite's repertoire.

 

[teks]

I think we based a lot of our knowledge on illiad even though it wasn't a documentary. Their were marine hoplites. The only thing about it is I don't think the hoplite marines were too different from other marines, except they were a superior unit. I mean they still faced a disadvantage trying to invade from sea, and they were better off on solid ground.

 

[Morningcalm]

The Korean hwacha would require iron, and be able to damage multiple units at once.

The chu ko nu would have further reduced range, but perhaps increased armor.

Great Generals would be able to fight.

Mongolian keshiks would have increased armor, hitpoints and have a limit on training (they were elite bodyguards, not the main horse archer army of the Mongols).

Byzantine cataphracts would replace knights, not horsemen.

More civs would have battering rams and coffee shops (G and K reference).

 

[SalmonSoil]

No I am saying that minuteman where civilians who picked up their arms if danger was coming

WHile other armies where allready in position in a camp or accademy...

Actually I think most armies historically have been civilian armies. Only really in early modern times did true proffesional armies come into existence. I'm under the impression that Medieval lords just levied their peasants, and I know that the Greek city-states used their male citizens, who were expected to equip themselves. I'm not really an expert on military history though so someone can feel free to correct me.

The idea that minutemen don't have a recruitment cost but are recruited from a cities population is actually pretty cool though, especially if you let them merge themselves back into the city or return a portion of the population when the unit is destroyed (assuming survivors).