Wrong UUs?

[Alvin]

The thing that I find most distastful about civ3 is their ability to mess up UUS.
Here are some that I think that arn't right. I don't have C3C.
1. America- come on, F-15, it was probably the f-14 or the f-16 that had the most influence on world armies. Their UU should be something like the M1A1 or the Abrams because they totally domanite any battle ground in the world.
2. Russia- Cossaks(pardon my spelling, if I got wrong) are historcally present, however they had little impact in any major mordern wars(not in any I learned in history class). Their UU should be the T-34, after what did to the German Panzers in WW2.
3. Mongols- They should switch the Keshik with the Rider, since the Rider is Mongolian, then the Chinese should get their own spearmen.
4. English- The sea really dosen't count that much in Civ3, since they can only blockade and bombard enemy land units, so what's the big use? They should switch the Man-O-War for a spitfire, or a English longbow man.
If you have any more addiations, please post!

 

[Mr.Communist]

The thing that I find most distastful about civ3 is their ability to mess up UUS.
Here are some that I think that arn't right. I don't have C3C.
1. America- come on, F-15, it was probably the f-14 or the f-16 that had the most influence on world armies. Their UU should be something like the M1A1 or the Abrams because they totally domanite any battle ground in the world.
2. Russia- Cossaks(pardon my spelling, if I got wrong) are historcally present, however they had little impact in any major mordern wars(not in any I learned in history class). Their UU should be the T-34, after what did to the German Panzers in WW2.
3. Mongols- They should switch the Keshik with the Rider, since the Rider is Mongolian, then the Chinese should get their own spearmen.
4. English- The sea really dosen't count that much in Civ3, since they can only blockade and bombard enemy land units, so what's the big use? They should switch the Man-O-War for a spitfire, or a English longbow man.
If you have any more addiations, please post!

I can't defend all these unique units choice, but I'll try to come up with a reason why each one was chosen.

First, F-15? I think Sid wanted a civilization with a airplane unique unit. Since America is kinda young (by civilization ages standarts) they had to put their golden age late in the game. The F-15 was the perfect solution, since it shows that America dominance over the world occured in the year surronding 90's (after the Soviet's fall, making them the only super power in the world). Perhaps there are more "influence" military unit in America History, but they choose the F-15 because its:

-An AirPlane (the only civ to use an airplane has a unique unit)
-Represent their power in the late 1900's.


I can't explain why they have chosen russia and china's UU. But England's UU is easy to figure out why they have chosen the M-O-W, simply because :

-England was, and (in my book) will always be a naval superpower. The English navy was suberb during Colonial Time. Plus, take a look at the world map, and you can easily figure out that their influence has been all over the world. To India, to America, in Europe, in Africa. That's lot a of sea to travel. The M-O-W is only there to represent their naval power.

The Spitfire wouldn't be a good choice. Why? Since after WW2, it was the death of all colonial power (England, France, etc). England lost (in my opinion) lots influence throught out the world after WW2 (they still have influence, dont get me wrong, but America took their place after WW2)

 

[sealman]

America's military might is based on controlling the air. Therefore a jet aircraft is an great choice for America.

 

[Vegasgustan]

I understand why the F-15 was probably chose to be America's UU, but it could have been a "Gatling Gun Unit". In the Civil War and after it played a pretty major role and America was the only country to have it at first. Also, on a side note, why do they make America use the "Native American" style for the palace? I think that in Civ4 they should perhaps figure something else out. What though, I am not sure.

 

[KabeDerlin]

Is the palace really THAT big of a deal? I mean... come on...

 

[punkbass2000]

I'm pretty sure they don't make any civ use a particular palace...

 

[azazel5555]

2. Russia- Cossaks(pardon my spelling, if I got wrong) are historcally present, however they had little impact in any major mordern wars(not in any I learned in history class). Their UU should be the T-34, after what did to the German Panzers in WW2.

I have to disagree with the above, the T-34 was a Soviet unit rather than a Russian one (major difference to some people). On the other hand the Cossack does represent a unique Russian (and Ukrainian) historical unit. As for the T-34 being superior to Panzers during WWII this can be highly debated. According to the rule applied by the British concerning the engagement of PzKpfw VI (Tigers) was that three T-34 (or five Shermans) were needed to destroy a single Tiger, but only one allied tank was expected to return from the engagement. So putting the T-34 on par with a Panzer wouldn't make much sense.

As for England i agree that a much better UU could have been chosen, the Welsh Longbowman would have been my first choice, just look at the battles of Agincourt and Crecy.

Edited for typo.

 

[Strato]

The F-15 I'd agree with, as with the Longbowman. Perhaps the M-O-W played a big point with the American War for Independance, but the Longbow was really the critical thing that gave the English the edge in the 100 years war (as azazel5555 correctly pointed out with the Battle of Agincourt that has been immortalised as being one of the greatest upsets in history).

For the Chinese, what can be said? Maybe do a blatant rip off from Age of Empires and give the the Chu-Ko-Nu but then, where would it fit, who would it replace, and what sort of stats would it have (maybe a blitz option perhaps, but then it'd need two movement points)

For the Ruskies, I don't know, and with the Mongols, yes, I guess the Mongols would be better off with the Chinese Rider.

 

[Beamup]

As for the T-34 being superior to Panzers during WWII this can be highly debated. According to the rule applied by the British concerning the engagement of PzKpfw VI (Tigers) was that three T-34 (or five Shermans) were needed to destroy a single Tiger, but only one allied tank was expected to return from the engagement. So putting the T-34 on par with a Panzer wouldn't make much sense.

While this is true, the Tiger was NOT the staple German tank. Rather, it was the extra-big and extra-tough (and rare) version. The Pz (IV, IIRC, though maybe III?) was by far the most common - and was not all that superior to a Sherman. Sure, a Tiger could take on 4-5 Shermans, but they didn't HAVE many Tigers.

Also, if you consider the stats of the Panzer, it's pretty clearly meant to represent blitzkrieg-style tactics (fast and blitz) rather than toughness or power (A/D same as the Tank). That is, it's not really meant to be a Tiger.

As for the original question, the designers have said publicly that one of the biggest factors in deciding on UUs was Golden Age placement. The height of British power, for example, corresponds historically to the end of the CivIII MA - so that's where their UU is placed. A Longbowman-based UU would put their GA too early. A Spitfire would be much too late. And since, during the imperial period, British power was substantially based on control of the oceans... a Frigate-based UU is by FAR the most appropriate.

The same reasoning applies to Russia - if you say their GA was around Peter the Great (which is the obvious place to put it particularly if you're distinguishing between Russia and USSR) a Tank-based UU is much too late... while the Cossack comes at pretty much exactly the right time.

As for China/Mongols - you can't give the Rider to Mongolia since Mongolia wasn't one of the 16 original Civs!

US - Yes, having the American UU be an Abrams based on Modern Armor would make a great deal of sense too. But then there would be no aerial UUs at all, so there's a good case for the F-15 - after all, there's no other Civ that could credibly have an aerial UU. Only the Germans would appropriately have their GA in that time frame (and look, they're the only other one with a UU then...) and, really, the Panzer makes a great deal more sense for them.

Simply put, in every single case, given the priorities of the designers (timing of GA), the UUs all make reasonably good sense. The fact that there are other possible priorities in no sense makes them "wrong" or "messed up."

They made a different design decision than you would have. Get over it.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

the UUs all make reasonably good sense.

Hwacha's? 3MCs? Immortals?

But I agree with your reasonings for the ones you expand on.

 

[Beamup]

Hwacha's?

I officially decline to comment on PTW (and C3C) UUs. Patching new stuff in after the original design seems to have resulted in several UUs that don't really fit with the original theme.

3MCs?

See above.

Immortals?

I don't really know enough about the history of Persia to make specific comments on them... but from the writeup in the Civilopedia they seem reasonable enough. What exactly makes you consider them questionable?

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Historically, they were lightly armed contemporaries to Hoplites, not the only unit eating Legionaries alive. It makes sense that the Sassanids can beat Rome as they did in history, but there were no Immortals around at that later period - so either the name or the unit stats make no sense.

 

[Alvin]

The T-34 was one of the main units to drive to Berlin in WW2, as being a superior unit, most of the Germans fled at the sight of the T-34. The T-34 revolutinzed military warfare by introducing advacanded(again, pardon my spelling) proplusion system, heavy weaponary. Hitler drew up the plan for the tigers as a last resort to counter the T-34, it had a really big gun and had a unreailable armor system. The T-34's top speed was something like 10 miles above the Tigers. Only about 2400 Tigers were produced in WW2, while something like 10,000 T-34 was produced in WW2(again, from my history class), I can't argue the fact that Russia had superior production power than the Germans, then again, who lost WW2?
The M-O-W is a unit for I have little use. I mean, who would need a unugradable unit that only has so much attack and defensive power. Should the Spitfire be a ample replacement? I don't know. Really, I think the special unit should be the Longbow man with something like 5.2.1, or 4.3.1 that would cost a few extra shields.
The Keshik is really the wrong UU for the Mongols because it does not even represent the most famous Mongol unit, the horse archer. The new horse archer should be 6.1.3 costing 30 more extra shields(that way you can beat the crap out of anyone you want).

 

[Beamup]

Historically, they were lightly armed contemporaries to Hoplites, not the only unit eating Legionaries alive. It makes sense that the Sassanids can beat Rome as they did in history, but there were no Immortals around at that later period - so either the name or the unit stats make no sense.

What would you think would make sense for stats?

 

[Sargon of Agade]

The Immortals should have an extra hit Point, same stats. The name Immortal cam from the fact that even though the Immortal ranks took horrible losses, but come the next battle the loses were replaced, giving the idea that the troops were infact "Immortal"... I do not know how else to express that historical fact. As for the korean UU, I am not even sure why they are in the game, other then to satisfy the Korean market...

 

[Illusion13]

Didnt Immortals get their *** handed to them by Hoplites? And, in the game, does that actually happen?

 

[citizen001]

The UU usually reflects a Civilisation's golden era, in that way Sid can defend all the choices for UUs.

 

[MikeH]

Historically, they were lightly armed contemporaries to Hoplites, not the only unit eating Legionaries alive. It makes sense that the Sassanids can beat Rome as they did in history, but there were no Immortals around at that later period - so either the name or the unit stats make no sense.

Well if we're going to get historical, the Numidian mercenaries were light cavalry not infantry, but really Carthage should have a naval UU as their navy was their major source of power.

 

[Strato]

but really Carthage should have a naval UU as their navy was their major source of power.

True. But then that may have caused serious problems with the early game balance. The boats would still need to be restricted to landing next to land (given the technology of the time), but what other benefit would there be to make it unique? Navies I don't think play a big role at the start (or really anytime), unless you play on archipelago, so the UU may go unused. Of course, it depends on gaming style too, and such a UU may have benefitted some players.

Perhaps Carthage being naval was an oversight on Sid's behalf?

 

[MikeH]

Sorry I should have made it clear that I was arguing from a historical POV, I understand why the UUs were chosen from a game balance POV and actually agree that in the case of Civ, game balance should overrule hisorical accuracy.