Why no infantry UU

[r_rolo1]

Maybe because the SS were the secret police of the Nazi regime.

Maybe.

Or maybe not.. Waffen SS was a Nazi paramilitary force ( well, it was not military just because it was not officially part of the armed forces, but in all the other aspects it was a regular military force ) ...

But your point on why it would be problematic to use the Waffen SS in a game officially. In some countries it is simply illegal to use the double rune symbol of the Waffen SS, along with other Nazi related stuff...

 

[Psyringe]

Whose going to sue? How could someone sue?

After the Allies won WW2, they implemented a law in then-occupied Germany which disallowed the usage of certain Nazi symbols, including those of the SS. This law has never been revoked.

Also, media have to be retracted from the German market if they are found to be glorifying the Nazi regime or their proponents. Implementing the Waffen SS as an elite unit might be seen as a glorification.

Neither of the two cases is especially clear-cut, and if it actually came to a lawsuit, I suspect that Firaxis would win it. However, they can probably do without the bad publicity associated with one.

 

[r_rolo1]

It is not just in Germany. There are atleast 6 countries in Europe that forbid ( atleast some ) Nazi related symbols .

 

[Iranon]

The legal situation in Germany is a little strange: There is a surprising level of censorship but art is specificially exempt from it. Computer games are not classified as art, so they operate under heavier restrictions than most other media.
Nevertheless, I'd consider the Waffen-SS a poor choice for a UU for a variety of reasons, not restricted to censorship issues and taste.

*

Germany would be a candidate though; Stormtroopers as a UU wouldn't be entirely inappropriate (the units specialised in trench warfare, not the brownshirts. Still a PR risk because some people won't get the distinction).
Bonuses could be something like 'free Combat 1 and/or Drill 1, ignores bonuses from fortification'.

The tanks of WW2 are probably still more iconic though.

 

[r_rolo1]

As Germany in civ IV is actually Prussia + comments ( just look at the leaders ), it would probably be better to use as UU the Prussian rifles from Freddy days ( it was know that Freddy loved his tall soldiers after all ). Something like a rifle version of the Oromo would be nice.

On topic: TMIT already explained my point: a infantry UU would probably be extremely unbalancing due to the way that nothing can beat massed infantry barring nukes, missiles and air power. Longbow UU would suffer a similar issue: a civ with boosted longbows would be pretty much unscratchable in the medieval ages ( just think on a str 7 or 8 lbow ). And there you don't have air power ... and even siege is pretty limited ( especially in cities with walls+castle )

 

[Jerrymander]

Or maybe not.. Waffen SS was a Nazi paramilitary force ( well, it was not military just because it was not officially part of the armed forces, but in all the other aspects it was a regular military force ) ...

Hm, you're right. Here, ie: uncultured America, it's 'common' to believe that the SS were secret police.

 

[Nikolai Dneppen]

Well since the Infantry in Civ IV is based off of WWII era, one possible UU would be Russian Forced Conscripts. Make them weaker than normal infantry, but they are much cheaper to make and have reduce maintenance cost (similar to Fanatics from Civ 2). I don't think it would be "unbalance" because they wouldn't be stronger and make cities unconquerable, there's just more of them.

 

[revengeofmakno]

Maybe because the SS were the secret police of the Nazi regime.

Secret police? There was a clear distinction between The "Waffen" SS personnel and the other SS personnel. The Waffen SS was intended as an elite field army not a police force. Its best divisions were Panzer and Panzer Grenadier not foot infantry. It's foot infantry divisions were almost all understrength and recruited from non Germans very late in the war. I can't see this as an infantry unit replacement in Civ no matter what the opinions on Nazi symbolism are.

Wehrmacht WW2 infantry divisions don't make much sense either as they were much less mobile than those of the US or Commonwealth in that they relied heavily on horse drawn transport right to the end in 1945.

German Stosstroppen from late WW1 with perhaps Drill 1 and ignore enemy fortification would be a logical candidate! Those troops were numerous, not just a small elite.

There is also a mod with Canadian infantry from WW1 as a unique unit. This is also very reasonable as the Canadian infantry of that time had an incredible war record although I don't like the way the mod handles them.

 

[Deckhand]

There could be a Longbow UU that wasn't overpowered. Give it abilities that aren't synergistic with its primary role of city defender.
Like free City Raider with ability to be promoted along city raider line.

 

[kochman]

Which country has ever fought a war where their basic infantry really distinguished themselves as being much better than that of another country?

Many...
Is that a serious question? The German Wehrmacht of WW2 was better than all of its contemporary opponents and allies through new tactics, better training, etc.

The basic answer though is the one who had a firearms superiority over the opponents.

The only example I can think of is Germany during WW1, which managed to fight against Russia, France, and England all at the same time with very little help from it's allies. It's infantry had a reputation for building by far the best trenches of any side, and having very good organization. So it would be fair to give Germany an infantry-based UU.

Yes, good call.

However, what would you call it? Names like Wehrmacht, Stormtrooper, and especially Waffen SS are only going to make people think of WW2 and the holocaust. Of course Panzer also makes people think of WW2 (despite the fact that it's simply the german word for a tank), but the panzer units were always busy fighting actual battles, so they have a good connotation, whereas the german infantry of WW2 is remembered only for the holocaust.

This is probably, unfortunately, but undeniable... that there would be associations that would upset people... so best to be avoided.

 

[plasmacannon]

There could be a Longbow UU that wasn't overpowered. Give it abilities that aren't synergistic with its primary role of city defender.
Like free City Raider with ability to be promoted along city raider line.

I got a random event in my current game playing England.
Something about the English now produce the finest Longbows.
It gives me Combat 1 free on all Longbowmen.

I am not playing a protective leader, using Brennus this game, so, it helps.
With my Barracks, Theo, and vasalage, and being Charismatic, I have Combat 3.
I can use them outside the city to guard resourses, or attack weaker units.
The HAs hate me right now.

 

[Dhoomstriker]

America could use them. Call them "G.I.s".

But then they'd be just a bunch of (average) Joes.


The original list appears to be missing SAM Infantry (and probably other units, like siege-based units like Cannons and Trebuchets--although there is at least the Hwacha for the Catapult, etc). It might be more useful to create a unique unit based around SAM Infantry, to deal with the well-put comments about not basing a Unique Unit upon the "backbone unit" of your army.


I guess one could make the same arguments about siege-based weapons being already very powerful as one could make about Longbowmen already being really powerful. Hwachas are nice in their time, but their bonus against Melee units doesn't make them any more effective than Catapults against Gunpowder-based units (or even against Longbowmen, for that matter).

 

[anti_strunt]

After the Allies won WW2, they implemented a law in then-occupied Germany which disallowed the usage of certain Nazi symbols, including those of the SS. This law has never been revoked.

Also, media have to be retracted from the German market if they are found to be glorifying the Nazi regime or their proponents. Implementing the Waffen SS as an elite unit might be seen as a glorification.

Neither of the two cases is especially clear-cut, and if it actually came to a lawsuit, I suspect that Firaxis would win it. However, they can probably do without the bad publicity associated with one.

What about sticking "88" on the side of the Panzer?

Hm, you're right. Here, ie: uncultured America, it's 'common' to believe that the SS were secret police.

The Gestapo, indeed all German police forces were part of the SS... It's another myth that the (supposedly "honourable") Waffen-SS is in any way representative of the majority of that huge, byzantine bureaucracy.

 

[anti_strunt]

(double post, can I delete it somehow?)

 

[Psyringe]

What about sticking "88" on the side of the Panzer?

While not illegal, this would bear a huge PR risk while not having any real benefits.

The players who want historical accuracy can't be satisfied with "88", because the number never occurred on any official Nazi signs. The usage of the number as a code for the nazi greeting was invented later, when the Nazi party was already forbidden.

However, by using "88" on the tank, Firaxis would associate itself with German neo-nazis, because that's the scene where the number code originated, and where it was used and spread. And there is no way how this number (and no others) could have been used "accidentally". Since the number was supposed to be a secret code among Neo-Nazis to identify each other (like a secret handshake), the question would be raised whether Firaxis wanted to send those groups a message, i.e. identify itself as a part of the movement, like some rock bands or other groups which use the number for that purpose. Firaxis would have a hard time answering to these accusations because the can't state "historical accuracy" as a reason for using the number. In that regard, using "88", while not being illegal, has a much higher risk of becoming a marketing disaster.

 

[Vonreuter]

So much ignorance, fear and this most weird phenomenon of talking about "taste" when it comes to history...

OK, WWII is too touchy a subject, so I'll leave it to "panzer" and look for other options. It would indeed be a PR suicide to include anything with nazi symbolicism. Our western civilization is still shaking in its pants from the war and unable to look at these things neutrally.

Well, German Stosstruppen from WW1 were indeed fearsome, and so were ANZAC forces in WW1 (in Gallipoli, for instance), from what I've read. Also, Finnish infantry proved a match for the masses of Soviet infantry, tanks and airplanes, but then Finland is not a Civ. ANZAC shares this problem.

So, what are we left with? German Stosstruppen. Giving them something to attack fortified positions or vs. other infantry or machine guns would make them spot on for what they were used. If you don't know about the prowess of these troops, I heartily recommend reading about them.

The problem, of course, is that then we wouldn't have a tank UU. Perhaps the American SEAL should be replaced with Abrams?

 

[anti_strunt]

So much ignorance, fear and this most weird phenomenon of talking about "taste" when it comes to history...

OK, WWII is too touchy a subject, so I'll leave it to "panzer" and look for other options. It would indeed be a PR suicide to include anything with nazi symbolicism. Our western civilization is still shaking in its pants from the war and unable to look at these things neutrally.

Well, German Stosstruppen from WW1 were indeed fearsome, and so were ANZAC forces in WW1 (in Gallipoli, for instance), from what I've read. Also, Finnish infantry proved a match for the masses of Soviet infantry, tanks and airplanes, but then Finland is not a Civ. ANZAC shares this problem.

So, what are we left with? German Stosstruppen. Giving them something to attack fortified positions or vs. other infantry or machine guns would make them spot on for what they were used. If you don't know about the prowess of these troops, I heartily recommend reading about them.

The problem, of course, is that then we wouldn't have a tank UU. Perhaps the American SEAL should be replaced with Abrams?

I think UUs should give some consideration to when the Civ in question was most militarily successful, since the UU will allow the Civ to mirror some of this success during the same period in-game. In the end, the Stosstruppen failed to achieve any lasting strategic success, so I don't think they deserve to be made into a UU. In WW2 there were plenty of military victories, but I think these are best represented with a "Panzer".

So, if we absolutely must have a UU to replace the Infantry, who should get it?
Japan (Banzai; amphibious and bonus in Jungle/Forest)?
Russia (quality of quantity)?
Ethiopia (to represent the guerrilla resistance against Italy, certainly the Ethiopian war most known in the West; essentially a later Oromo)?
America (give it a movement of 2/3 to represent superior mechanised US logistics)?
India (Sikh/Ghurka warriors; as used by the British Empire IRL, obviously, but still excellent soldiers, and only Civ with a non-military UU)?
Vikings (if you absolutely want Finns in the game...)?

I would prefer Ethiopia or America or India, in that order, but I could see all of the three lose their current UU.

 

[Vonreuter]

I may get back to this topic later, but I have to comment on this:

In the end, the Stosstruppen failed to achieve any lasting strategic success, so I don't think they deserve to be made into a UU. In WW2 there were plenty of military victories, but I think these are best represented with a "Panzer".

What kind of a lasting strategic success was the total and humiliating capitulation of Germany to justify the Panzer UU then?

No, I don't think "lasting strategic success" can be the key factor in creating UUs. Then we'd have to throw the SEALs into the bin as well and replace it with a plane that gives the US air superiority, which is the key to winning modern wars.

I think any unit that has proven to be superior or groundbreaking (or simply legendary, such as the Immortals) in some way deserves to become a UU. Stosstruppen is one of the best ideas on this thread, and I also liked the idea of Soviet Conscripts, because it's very rare to see a unit that is special only in the number of hammers it takes to produce. Whether men used as cattle was "superior" or "groundbreaking" in some way is another matter, however.

 

[anti_strunt]

What kind of a lasting strategic success was the total and humiliating capitulation of Germany to justify the Panzer UU then?

No, I don't think "lasting strategic success" can be the key factor in creating UUs. Then we'd have to throw the SEALs into the bin as well and replace it with a plane that gives the US air superiority, which is the key to winning modern wars.

I think any unit that has proven to be superior or groundbreaking (or simply legendary, such as the Immortals) in some way deserves to become a UU. Stosstruppen is one of the best ideas on this thread, and I also liked the idea of Soviet Conscripts, because it's very rare to see a unit that is special only in the number of hammers it takes to produce. Whether men used as cattle was "superior" or "groundbreaking" in some way is another matter, however.

Very well, a strategic success period, which the Stosstruppen failed to produce. Whether you go by how groundbreaking, legendary or successful some military type was, I cannot ever see a Stosstruppe UU as a better choice for Germany than a Panzer, if given a single choice. Personally I can even see some pre-modern UUs as better choices, if one assumes that "Germany" isn't simply the post-1870 incarnation.

An air UU for the US is probably the best choice. They had the F15 in Civ 3...

All the talk of making a German infantry UU is misplaced, imo. A UU is an example of a unit which was considerably better than their counterparts in other empire/nation's armies at the time, and each civ gets exactly one of them. Choosing the Panzer makes the most sense, because the difference between the armored units of Germany and those of every other country was truly massive. Were German infantry better on a man for man basis than any of the allies'? Sure. But the difference was not as great.

I agree with Vonreuter: The Infantry UU which makes sense is to make a Soviet Conscript UU that is available for the cost of a rifleman, and can therefore be drafted for a single population point. (Maybe make the cost discount dependent on being in SP if that proves to powerful in game play) No other nation on Earth could have fielded so many infantry grunts as did the Soviet Union.

Hell, I'd say splitting Stalin off into a new "Soviet Union" civ actually makes sense, as would giving that civ the Research Institute. If I weren't too lazy to learn to write mods, I'd bother doing this.

Hey, the quality of quantity was my idea.

 

[Peregrine]

Normally, CIV units are simply there to use, I don't consider changing them, and so use them to the best of their abilities and my own.

But if I think about units even for a little while, some questions/problems occur to me.

The primary problem that I see is the current division of modern era infantry/firearm units in general. Muskets-->Rifles-->Infantry. This is simple, it works, but, imo, could use more detail. A more realistic division would be; Arquebus-->Muskets-->Line Infantry (napoleonic)-->Conscripts (WWI)-->Infantry (WWII). An even more detailed progression would include rifled muskets in between napoleonic and WWI.

Why the divisions? The reasoning is historical. The firearms of the Italian wars of the 16th century were very different than those used during the 30 years war/English CW of the following century, partly due to technological development, but also to the training regimes implemented in the 17th century. Toward the end of that century, real technological improvements mooted the utility of any infantry not carrying firearms. The bayonet was a part of this tech change, but not all of it. This musket-bearing line infantry persisted from the time of the wars of the very late 17th century until the time of Napoleon, with Napoleon using conscription to vastly inflate the normal order of battle and revolutionize strategic thought with the new numbers then available. A brief, yet bloody period followed with rifled muskets, characterized by the American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian war, but was followed very quickly by the transition to modern rifled arms, which then proliferated (WWI era infantry). Although the new, more effective rifles were universal and vast, super-inflated orders of battle became the norm, tactics hadn't changed much, even from the era of Napoleon. WWI and its grimly destructive battles exemplified this. What changed, from one world war to the other, was a revolution in infantry tactics, and the Hutier/Stossstruppen units/tactics of WWI was the precursor model; rough, but effective. Although most mentions of Hutier tactics address the 1918 German offensive in the west, the best example of what could be achieved was the Caporetto offensive in Italy, where six German divisions of Stosstruppen broke the entire Isonzo front and nearly knocked Italy out of the war--the front reeled back 300 miles post-offensive; an unheard-of advance in WWI battles/campaigns.

This breakdown answers some of the considerations regarding the German Stossstruppen of WWI; in game terms, these would simply be early-appearing "Infantry" units, appearing in a war fought primarily by "Conscript" units (using the suggested breakdown above). It works, and it's an idea that I've used in Civ2 scenarios/mods.

Back on topic; French Napeonic infantry--Fusiliers; higher combat value line infantry due to tactical practices implemented around this time, a response to the American Revolution's unconventional tactics for irregular infantry; the creation of the skirmish line forward of the conventional line infantry.