Your own UU

[Wacky]

Which UU should really be in the game ?
Or Which country should really have an other UU ?

For example: Soviet Union T34, lower production cost 50% against German Panzer

Japanese: Kamikaze-plane replaces guided missile 100% against Ships

 

[NeverSurrender]

Russian Mig? American F16? English SAS? Ummm... French Foreign Legion? English Spitfire (quick to produce fighter).

 

[DigitalBoy]

American empire:

Doughboy
Replaces Infantry
Additional +25% against gunpowder units

Or something like that. I just find it curious that there's no infantry UU.

 

[troytheface]

America.......Cowboy...replaces... Cavalry-ignore terrain
Greece........Hoplite.....replaces....Spear-25% vs Melee
Persia.........Immortal...replaces ...Spear-Starts with Medic
Vikings.......Longboat...replaces..Galley..all units loaded get Amphibeous
Germany.....U boat......replaces... Submarine...NavigationI, 120 cost
Native Amer.....Brave...replaces ...Archer.....Starts with WoodsmanI

I like the Mig and French Foreign Legion ideas tho. Those early Migs just blew the crap out of everything in the sky and the French Foreign Legion is a great example of Unique.

 

[Wacky]

English Spitfire (quick to produce fighter).

A Englisch quick to produce fighter should be the Hurricane-fighter, the Spitfire was a great plane butt the huricane was the mainplane for the RAF.

 

[ZB2]

The thread title was misleading, I presumed you wanted to know what UU we players would want to represent ourselves, and/or the strategies we employed using such units.

But anywho;

Soviet T-34/76 - Replaces Tank - 140 Hammers (tank is 180, infantry is 140) - Starts with Flanking I.

Byzantine Dromon - Replaces Trireme - 1 first free strike - 50% attack against Triremes

Indian Ghurka - Rifleman - Strength 13 - Starts with Woodsman I

Carthaginian War Elephant - Strength 8 - 50% attack against melee units

 

[Wacky]

The thread title was misleading, I presumed you wanted to know what UU we players would want to represent ourselves, and/or the strategies we employed using such units.

Indian Ghurka - Rifleman - Strength 13 - Starts with Woodsman I

English is my second language, what should it be ?

Why Give the Ghurka 13 strenght vs 14 ? A second Jag ?

 

[ZB2]

Oh the english doesnt matter, its just my interpretation.

The Ghurka would have less strength becuase he is not trained in a professional military, but has Woodsman I becuase of their knowledge of the local areas, which in India is a lot of contested Jungle/marsh.

I was going to suggest Woodsman I, and Woodsman II however...

 

[bhavv]

That Gurkha would be far too disadvantaged. -1 str in no where near worth woodsman 1 and 2. By the time you get rifles, forests and jungles around enemy civs would be chopped. A UU is not meant to be weaker then the unit they replace, they are supposed to better. Or a rifleman with only 12 str but with +25% city defence and two free first strikes would be worth the lower strength for defensive players. I would like a modern day equivalent of the amazing chu ko nu basically.

 

[kneark]

American UU....

Well the Indian Empire can have their Workers be their UU, so why not a UU that is a specialist for cities?

Patriotic Zealot
-25%
-25%
+3 if state is present
-3 War
+3 GP (Great Patriotc Zealot)

Great Patriotic Zealot
May settle in a town producing -4 War and +2 .
May spread propaganda in a friendly town, instantly producing -2 War in that town and all towns connected to the town.
May spread propaganda in a foreign town, causing a +4 penalty until that civilization joins in the American war effort.

EDIT: Don't worry, I'm American, I can make fun of us...then again I don't think it's much of a problem otherwise anyway. =)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

American UU....

Well the Indian Empire can have their Workers be their UU, so why not a UU that is a specialist for cities?

Patriotic Zealot
-25%
-25%
+3 if state is present
-3 War
+3 GP (Great Patriotc Zealot)

Great Patriotic Zealot
May settle in a town producing -4 War and +2 .
May spread propaganda in a friendly town, instantly producing -2 War in that town and all towns connected to the town.
May spread propaganda in a foreign town, causing a +4 penalty until that civilization joins in the American war effort.

EDIT: Don't worry, I'm American, I can make fun of us...then again I don't think it's much of a problem otherwise anyway. =)

RIGGED. I WANT THOSE. With religion just ONE would drop WW by effectively six. Oh man, WW would almost never matter.

Rome gets mafioso to replace spy.

England could potentially get a special longbow unit.

Viking galleys can travel further in ocean (did they not hit North America at some point before columbus?). Give it limited ocean travel.

 

[pi-r8]

Carthaginian War Elephant - Strength 8 - 50% attack against melee units

Oh man this would be unstoppable. Charismatic War Elephants rule hard enough as it is.

 

[Zello]

Australian UU: Crocodile Hunter, replaces Warrior, +50% vs barbs, city + 1 per CH

hm...come to think of it

UB: Pub, replaces....aqueduct?


Leader: John Howard
Traits: Whatever the US leader in the particular game has , otherwise Fin + ?

 

[TM Moot]

Indian Ghurka - Rifleman - Strength 13 - Starts with Woodsman I

Not intending to be picky, but iirc the Gurkha's are mostly recruited from a few mountainous valleys in Nepal.

You could always have a Sepoy (Indian Infantry) or a Soway (Indian cavarly), or further back in time a War Elephant?

 

[ZB2]

That Gurkha would be far too disadvantaged. -1 str in no where near worth woodsman 1 and 2. By the time you get rifles, forests and jungles around enemy civs would be chopped. A UU is not meant to be weaker then the unit they replace, they are supposed to better.

Not intending to be picky, but iirc the Gurkha's are mostly recruited from a few mountainous valleys in Nepal.

IT'S JUST AN IDEA!​

 

[troytheface]

lol, how about the Gurkha (another great example of unique) with
GuerillaI - by the time of rifleman that would give you GuerillaII
and a 2 move on mountain terrrain unit- however, maybe it should replace infantry.

 

[Tlalynet]

Independant Westren Canada
Fronteersmen
Replaces Settler
4Str +50% City defence. Can only attack within cultural boarders. Can Preform Worker actions.
(Could work for the states too)

UB
Inland Terminal
Replaces Granary
+2 Gold

Mexico
Fox Warrior (Zoro)
Replaces Swordsman
Free Drill I and II, +100% Vs gunpowder units.

The Moon
Lunar Knight
With Future Teck VIII
30 Str, 50 First strikes, +100% Vs Archer, Melle, Mounted, Gunpowder, Seige, Armor, Helicopter Units. Can Withdraw from Combat, 400% Chance, 8 movement, can move in shallow water, ignores terrain movement cost, immune to nukes.
1200 Hammers.

 

[mboettcher]

There should be multiple UU for every country.

In regards to what you said about the t-34, I agree it should most definately be the UU for Russia. It was extremely strategic in the war and there aren't many UU for the era and there should be more. It should be cheaper but should not have any advantages against panzers as It was a heavier tank than the panzer mark IV (which was an excellent all around tank but certainly not the t-34) and it was completely useless against Panthers and Tigers whose guns and armor were just too much unless WAY out numbered.

In regards to the Panzers they should get ambush and +25% vs armored units to reflect the legacy of the Panther as the most completely versatile WWII tank in its balance of firepower, armor, and mobility and as the tank that ushered in the modern era of tank deisgn. It would also reflect the superority of the modern german tanks (and the fact that the same company makes the most sucessful tank gun of the modern world as those highly sucessful ones of the panther and tiger)

 

[troytheface]

The best tank of WW2 was the American Sherman. It had a small gun and high profile so it could fit in cargo ships -a large quantity.
They could put forks on it and attack hedgerows and were small enough to fight in jungles, desert, forest, and the flatlands of europe.
All other tanks were geographic specific. Except the glorious Sherman of which they also made an amphipbeous version.
The antiquated tank slugfest the Germans and Russians engaged in was nothing more than the beginning of the end of such conflict.
The Shermans beat back the best German tank of the War.

 

[ZB2]

If I detect correctly, mboettcher, like me seams to have a good knowledge on the fun topic of war and tanks. But Troyintheface I'm afriad I must take you to school on tanks on behalf of tank loving fans everywhere.

The best tank of WW2 was the American Sherman. It had a small gun and high profile so it could fit in cargo ships -a large quantity.

The Sherman, beyond all your patriotic pride was nothing more than a symbol of mass production. And shipping crates weren't really use for tanks if I think correctly; a crane at a dock might have trouble picking up a 30ton crate.

They could put forks on it and attack hedgerows and were small enough to fight in jungles, desert, forest, and the flatlands of europe.

Fighting in the flatlands of Europe was the Germans speciality.

All other tanks were geographic specific. Except the glorious Sherman of which they also made an amphipbeous version.

The German Tiger, and im not sure, but the Panther also had deep wading capability, 'amphibious' in your words. And the T34, Tiger, and Panther + successer tanks had wide tracks for greater cross-crountry drives.

The Shermans beat back the best German tank of the War.

Best tank for Germany can be very disputable between upmodded Panzer Ivs, Panthers, Jagdpanthers and Tigers; which I wont bother arguing for any of them, but the last three had thicker armor to deflect m4a1 75mm gun, had a better muzzule velocity, and for the Tiger and Jagdpanther, could fling an 88mm shell through and through a shermans front armor (nominal angle of impact) with barely any resistance, and at quite a good range too.