Your own UU

[Silence101]

Which UU should really be in the game ?

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

I modded a Kamikaze promotion that can be added to a variety of units, including air units of course.

Personally, I think Firaxis went in the right direction with adding religions to Civ IV - I'd like to see them do more with it though... a bit more diversity between religions. One thought I had was giving every religion its own UU for civ's that adopt it as their state religion.

I may still do this, but I was having trouble thinking of a UU for every religion.

 

[Infantry#14]

here is my list:

Red Army Guerilla...China, replaces infantry...start at 16 str, half production cost and start with guerilla 1 and woodsman 1

Elite Executives...America, replace all regular executives, can choose to spread any type of corporation the player already has, allow all competing corps in any city (so it is possible to have all 7 corp in a city)

Fast Elephant...India, replace regular elephant, can flank attack siege units and cause collateral damage

Inquistor...Spain, replace missionary, spread religion and erase any desired religion in domestic and foreign cities

Ninja, Japan, replace swordsman, free city raider 1 promotion

Elite Spy, Russia, all spy missions perform 1/2 espionage cost and double success chance

 

[Wejer]

Swedish Karolin (replaces Musketman)

9 str.
+25% city attack
+25% city defense
+1 First Strike

 

[Wacky]

Merkava Tank Israel

25-50% defence

Cause its a great tank designed to protect his crew.

 

[Catan_Settler]

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 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.

Thanks man... I started developing a facial tic as I read his post. What the hell kind of books is he reading to think the Sherman was the premier tank of WW2? Most produced? Check. Best operationally? Not in a single category. Well maybe I'm exaggerating there... But offhand I can't think of one thing it did better than any of the later German tanks. Less armor, lower caliber gun, lower muzzle velocity, higher profile (=BAD makes a BIG ASS TARGET), ammunition locker stored RIGHT in the front where it was prone to self destructing the tank, the list goes on. Yes it was innovative for a western allied tank in that it fired both AP and HE shells, and it had some gyro control to allow it to fire semi accurately on the move... But even those features paled in comparison to the German equivalents implemented in their Panther tanks, which mowed down whole groups of Shermans as a matter of course, shrugging off direct hits from Shermans if the shot hit the sloped armor. Meanwhile, Russian tankers refused to use the Shermans when they got some via lend lease. Yes, even early Russian tanks were superior to the Shermans.

Now if you're talking quantities of tanks produced, sure the Sherman was champ. Makes a pretty big difference when your entire industrial complex is 100% safe and secure from all enemy action, though to be sure the American innovation of production engineering and standardized parts made a difference as well.

 

[Ur_Vile_Wedge]

As loath as I am to defend the Sherman tank, they were also very mechanically reliable, seldom breaking down, a feat that managed to elude most of the late war German tanks.......

 

[Wacky]

As loath as I am to defend the Sherman tank, they were also very mechanically reliable, seldom breaking down, a feat that managed to elude most of the late war German tanks.......

Yes, all true butt the arguments where against: Sherman the best tank ever.
Nobody said its was a unreliable tank. Its was just a fine tank but a T-ford tank.

And that was its greatest strength, the biggest war was the production war. The German tanks were the best butt in civ-language 500 hammers for 36 strength. Where the Sherman was 150 hammers for 20 strength.

 

[troytheface]

The Sherman suffers in every statistical category- yet came out as the victor. Patton stated that they were good enough- and herein lies the genius of american practicality.
Only bad tacticians would create an uber Tank or Ship ala Bismark or the King Tiger, and the lumbering Tank battles in Russia were outdated as soon as they began. Hence the paradox- a high profile, flammable, slow moving tank with a small gun had to compensate- and compensation equals creativity and adaptability. Those Russian and German tanks would have faired poorly in the Pacific theater and i am not sure how well that russian Tank would have done in the Desert. The Sherman was not geographically or tactically bound.
Likewise the Wildcat was the greatest fighter of WW2. Statistically it stands up poorly to the competition- yet it defeated "superior" enemy aircraft.
And the "Thatch Weave" was created (again compensation)- a tactic still taught and used- both France and Greece fell about 2 weeks before these planes were to be delivered. I suggest that the Wildcat and Shermans would have stopped "Blitzkrieg" afor it had a name. (In later battles the Americans would let them punch thu, travel a bit, then surround them.)

 

[Wacky]

I'll say Sherman vs T34,.... I prefer Russian hardware than

 

[troytheface]

"The cavalrymen under George Patton wanted a tank with tremendous mobility that would sacrifice armor and firepower in exchange for an ability to drive like hell without breaking down. They cited the official doctrine which stated that American tanks were not supposed to fight it out with hostile tanks anyway as that was supposed to be the job of specialized tank destroyer units. "

The side note of realibility is no small thing. Patton's use of this "weakest" statistical point - from Africa to northern Europe- made him victorious over broken down, out of gas, "superior" enemy Tanks.

 

[bestbrian]

The T-34 did quite well in the desert steppes of Russia; I don't think it would have had a problem in N Africa. As far as the Pacific goes, late model T-34s operated by N Korean crews cut through American troops in Korea like a hot knife through butter right up to the Pusan Perimeter, five years after the war. The T-34 was a great tank that combined the heavy gun and armor protection of the German Panzers with ease of maintenance/reliability/production numbers of the Sherman.

Btw, the previous poster was right on target in citing US Army doctrine of the period. The US Army used Tank Destroyers to engage enemy tanks; tanks themselves were to fulfill the traditional cavalry functions. By that score, the Sherman and Stuart do their jobs quite well, but can't compete with tanks developed by the Germans and Soviets with sounder fundamental docrines. Hell, the US didn't "out tank" the Soviets until the M1 and that took 10 years to work the kinks out after production began.

Oh, and as for the reason for this thread: The Viking UU should be the Longship; The Berserker is ridiculous.

 

[Catan_Settler]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim the Sherman won the war. Truth is, it was the Russians who won the war. Sherman tanks muddled their way through western Europe thanks to the overwhelming air superiority enjoyed by the Americans and Brits by the time they finally got around to landing in France and opening up a second front to assist the Russians. Bear in mind that by the time of D Day, there was no question that the Soviets would eradicate the Germans all on their own, although this was definitely accelerated by the Allied strategic bombing campaign. Would have been a lot nastier for the Russians had the Germans not had their oil refineries destroyed in Romania, etc. You have a point about the US doctrine of how to employ their armor though, but weren't the majority of American tank kills accomplished by fighter bombers, as opposed to ground based AT units?

 

[bestbrian]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim the Sherman won the war. Truth is, it was the Russians who won the war. Sherman tanks muddled their way through western Europe thanks to the overwhelming air superiority enjoyed by the Americans and Brits by the time they finally got around to landing in France and opening up a second front to assist the Russians. Bear in mind that by the time of D Day, there was no question that the Soviets would eradicate the Germans all on their own, although this was definitely accelerated by the Allied strategic bombing campaign. Would have been a lot nastier for the Russians had the Germans not had their oil refineries destroyed in Romania, etc. You have a point about the US doctrine of how to employ their armor though, but weren't the majority of American tank kills accomplished by fighter bombers, as opposed to ground based AT units?

Don't know the numbers, but I'm sure air power did more to massacre Panzers in France than Shermans and TD's. But, then again, breakdowns/malfunctions/poor design probably destroyed more Panzers than P47s and Mosquitos.

 

[Wacky]

^
To all, its a nice discussion but don't forget the UU

 

[Catan_Settler]

Ohhhh sorry. Yeah I'd like to see 2 UUs per civ definitely. One would have to be normal troops type like most of them currently have and the second would be a naval/air/mechanized/motorized unit. Vikings get a boat and a berzerker, but I'd push the berzerker back to be an axeman replacement. Americans get seals plus a better jet fighter. Germans get the panzer and an earlier unit, say a knight replacement. Brits get redcoats and spitfires or perhaps an improved battleship. For ancient civs like the Egyptians and aztecs, might be tougher to come up with ideas for them, but you would probably want to ensure that both of their UUs didn't come at the same time, because that could be simply overwhelming. Maybe have like worker/settler/spy variants or something, or suicide missionary bombers in the modern age for the Persians or something.

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

I agree, I think think every civ should get at least 2 UUs. Maybe one early and one late to balence things out, or like you said, one troop, and one mechanical type thing. Or to make it even more interesting, branch it out beyond military units like a worker, corperate dude, or spy, or missionary or something.

Ninja, Japan, replace swordsman, free city raider 1 promotion

I agree with you. That's a great idea. Have it be undetectable to enemy units out side of 2 tiles as welll. The Ninja is too cool to pass up!

America: The F-117 nighthawk, F-22 Raptor, or F-16 Eagle. Or, the American Marine: gets 2 extra promotions and is not affected by terrain modifiers. The Minuteman is also an option for an (early) infantry unit.

Byzantium: Great Missionary: Can spread religoun to one free city without being used up.

Switzerland: The Blonde Bombshell: Able to manipulate enemy units to do what you want them to do.

IDK...

 

[Pirate]

hee hee, I like the idea of unique specialists.

To go along with the engineer specialist:
Architect: +1 hammer, +2 culture (can be assigned by building a Castle, Colluseum)
Landscape Architect: +2 culture, -1 unhealthy due to population (assigned by building Acqueduct, University)

 

[jabberwalkee_]

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

LOL.....-100% vs stingrays?

 

[Catan_Settler]

LOL.....-100% vs stingrays?

Classic!

 

[DigitalBoy]

American Empire
BAR
Replaces Machine Gun
Can attack, but only receives +50% vs. gunpowder when defending.