List of units in Civ3 based on screen shots

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by korn469
any others nations use aircraft carriers?

Italy have a carrier named "nave Garibaldi" able to lauch AV8 B II Harrier planes with a skyjump in a Short Take Off, then Landing Vertically. They carry helicopters, too (mainly for ASW, rescue and troop transport).

It's not very different from a Class Tarawa US Navy ship.

[Alfonsus72]

Spain has also an aircraft carrier capable to operate with 24 SWOTL planes (and also helicopters) called "Principe de Asturias". I guess is similar to the "Garibaldi".
Spain also sold one vessel of the same class to Thailand, but I´ve read is not operative due to problem with the thailandians SWOTL planes.

Foch and Clemenceau are french carriers, bigger than those of Spain or Italy.

But I guess only the USA has carriers that could "carry" more than 80 non-swotl planes.

The problem is that "the longer the plane ranges are, the useless the aircraft carriers become". Of course USA carriers are not useless, as we could saw in the Gulf war and we can see now with the retaliation against Bin Laden. But mind that the heavy bombers were based on Diego Garcia. I mean that WW2 was the finest moment for the carriers, but with time they will lose importance, except for those with a "global strategy" like the USA.

[ixnay]

From the newest update:

In a screen, an ironclad is selected.

Stats: 4(4).4.2/4

Plus the Aztec's UU, the Jaguar warrior, an upgraded Warrior (1.1.1)

The J.W. is 1.1.2

[korn469]

i updated the list to include the Jaguar Warrior and the ironclad's stats, in another thread Jeff Morris from firaxis also identified the last ship under Magnetism, that ship is a privateer, he also confirmed that the list of ships was right

and is it just me or does anyone else have a problem with an ironclad and a battleship traveling at the same speed? i mean if you compared the U.S. monitor to the U.S. Missouri i'm sure you'd find a rather large speed difference

Jaguar Warrior
With such a low attack power power, this CSU isn't one to be truly feared, however on a small map the Aztecs with their extreamly early golden age could be one of the most dominant civs.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by korn469
and is it just me or does anyone else have a problem with an ironclad and a battleship traveling at the same speed? i mean if you compared the U.S. monitor to the U.S. Missouri i'm sure you'd find a rather large speed difference

If they keep some of the Civ2 functionality, the modern ships (like the battleship) will gain an extra point of movement when you discover Nuclear Power.

[DonJoel]

though i cannot explain why Elephants and Polytheism have been linked at all...the belief in numerous god have nothing to do with elephants, but elephants do seem to make people happy so i see why they are considered a luxery item in civ3

The reason they are connected is that the only country ever to use war elephants is India and in India the major religion is hinduism and hinduism is the only major polyetistik religion in the world.

And i believe its a jaguar warrior, there is no eagle warrior.

[Internationalist]

About the Aicraft carrier discussion, I understand Iran wanted to buy a new one from the Russians(Yeltsin as head of state).Perhaps with Putin in power that changed though..

[Stuie]

Has anyone mentioned:

Cavalry 6.2.3

The screenshot:

http://www.gamestar.de/images/magazin/popup-bilder/civilization3_b2.jpg

[korn469]

ok i updated the list to include cavalry, which i am assuming is the mounted gunpowder unit under military tradition...good pick up on that stuie!

DonJoel

carthage also used war elephants, so i still don't get the polytheism link, and firaxis confirmed that the Aztec CSU was the Jaguar Warrior

stuie

one other thing, you are probably right about modern ships getting a boost with nuclear power, but that would still only make a battleship one faster than than an ironclad, and if you look at the screenshot, the battleship has a sun icon on it, so it may already have nuclear power

[Shiva]

Originally posted by korn469
Harlan


we now know that the War Elephant is in the game as the Indian CSU, but it replaces the Knight, Polytheism is at least three techs before Chivalry (cerimonial burial --> mysticism --> polytheism), so the Indians would have an unbalanced advantage...they get War Elephants way before any other civ gets knights, and it doesn't require any resources to build...that is too much, so while it might be possible it would seem strange

though i cannot explain why Elephants and Polytheism have been linked at all...the belief in numerous god have nothing to do with elephants, but elephants do seem to make people happy so i see why they are considered a luxery item in civ3

The god Siva (aka Shiva ) beheaded Vinayak (his son) for blocking entrance to the palace. After telling his wife what he had done she begged him to bring the boy back to life. Not having the childs head handy he replaces it with the head of Gajasura, a monster/elephant that he had been carring, thus bringing the boy back to life.

Later Vinayak wins a race between him and Kumarswami that Siva held to select the best one of them as a leader of all the gods. Upon winning Vinayak takes the name Ganesh. All Hindu gods worship Ganesh whos blessed as the Supreme God of the universe.

[DonJoel]

carthage also used war elephants, so i still don't get the polytheism link, and firaxis confirmed that the Aztec CSU was the Jaguar Warrior

You dont? I think I explained it pretty good. The Indians are atleast the most famous for using war elephants and it wouldnt suprise me if the Carthaginians had a polyethistik religion too, it certainly wasnt Islam or Christianity since they wasnt invented back then.

[korn469]

Shiva and DonJoel

i know that you have backed up examples of the use of elephants in india with religious examples, but i still don't think that the military use of elephants and the development of a religion with various gods are linked...i would say that elephants were used because they had military and not religious implications

how about Vaghadeva, the tiger god? tigers also probably have alot of representation in hinduism, and tigers can kill a man much easier than a horse, however the widespread military use of tigers is unheard of while elephants had little impact on most military operations, horses on the other hand proved to have worldwide military implications

i would say that a group that either believed in one god, or didn't believe in gods at all could grasp the military uses of elephants, as they could grasp the military ultility of horses or gunpowder or nuclear weapons

even more than that, we have seen various changes in the tech tree, but many people in this forum wants to hold on to the elephants/polytheism association while easily letting go of caravans, diplomats, spies, crusaders, dragoons, and cruisers...that is what i don't understand why are there people arguing that the indian war elephant still comes with polytheism while nobody is arguing that diplomats still come with writing when firaxis has made it fairly clear that neither one of those associations are true...can u explain that?

one more question, does anyone want to guess if the battleship is nuclear powered or not?

[DonJoel]

Yep you are right, there are no true connections but polyethism is a good choice if you want to keep the original civilization advances.
But polyethism isnt the only unit that has a bad tech, im thinking of labor union and mechanized infantry for example.

PS. I believe the most popular hinduistik god, Ganesha, is part a boy, part an elefant.

Did they really use tigers?? How did they manage to grow enough?

[Saint Marcus]

add Privateer to the list

[korn469]

DonJoel

i don't think that tigers have ever been systematically used in war and that was my point, tigers are represented in hinduism just like elephants are, but their religious associations mean little when it comes time to devise military strategies

think abouts snakes, many religions have snakes as a symbol (even christianity) but it's not like they load ICBMs up with cobras or rattle snakes, because snake warhead would be useless, compared to a wearhead that had smallpox in it

so yes they linked elephants and polytheism in civ2, but that link isn't in civ3

EDIT:

MarkL, i added the privateer yesterday, it was the unidentified ship under Magnetism

[Shiva]

Originally posted by korn469
Shiva and DonJoel

i know that you have backed up examples of the use of elephants in india with religious examples, but i still don't think that the military use of elephants and the development of a religion with various gods are linked...i would say that elephants were used because they had military and not religious implications

Hehe, hey I was just showing what might have been going through thier minds It would be a weak link but it wouldnt be the first.

[DonJoel]

But what do you think about Labor union and mechanized Infantry?

[korn469]

Shiva

hehe
ok give me some historical links for the granary in every city for the pyramids and the statue of liberty lets your choose any form of government (especially fundy or communism)

[korn469]

i updated the list to include the roman legion

Legion
The legion is an upgraded swordman with the following stats 3.3.1 (attack.defense.movement). This means that the legion allows the roman player to have a capable offense along with a great defense in the early game. Because of that the Roman player can focus on building Legions for the bulk of their offensive units and all of their defensive units. The dual use of Legions will give the Romans more flexability in the ancient era than other civs. The enhanced defense of the Legion would allow the romans to use ships (triremes in particular) to land their Legions beside of enemy cities because the legions could survive attacks by the cities defenders.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by korn469
*Scouts 0.0.2

Impressive list you got there. Be sure to bump it every now and then. Anyway, I have just one minor comment:

Are you sure about that 0.0.2 scout-unit? All no-defence/no-attack units can be kidnapped/enslaved, and thats OK for settlers & workers, since they represent population-points, as well.
But that scout-unit should at least have 0.1.2 stats (no attack, but a basic retreat-tactic defence) - at least if they are mounted on speedy horses.

[korn469]

Ralf

phutnote gave me the stats for the scout, and i'm almost positive that he had a screen shot for it

i'm checking on it though

as for bumping the list, i do it at least once a week to add in the new civ of the week, or as new screen shots surface

but thanks for the compliment

[Sarxis]

Your labors are appreciated Korn.

Have some 'good will and favoritism'- from me to you (since I have no cash).

[Stuie]

Originally posted by korn469
Ralf

phutnote gave me the stats for the scout, and i'm almost positive that he had a screen shot for it

Scout screenshot:

http://www.strategyplanet.com/civilization3/images/shot61.jpg

Guess you CAN capture them... ?

[Skanky Burns]

Thatd be strange capturing a scout. I mean, it makes sense when capturing settlers or workers. You assign 100 soldiers to 'keep them under control', not really making a big hole in the capturing army. These soldiers then guard the settlers/workers, making sure they do work for your empire.

Capturing catapults/cannons/etc also makes sense. There a few soldiers guarding this seige equipment. You kill them all, assign your own men to control the seige equipment, and thus it becomes your unit.

But capturing a scout?? The scout is a single person on a horse, who's well trained on finding their way around, making maps, etc. How could you keep control of someone like that? A military unit captures him, then offers him freedom if he works for them. The scout agrees, and sets off to the west... but returns to his home town instead.

My point is, how would another civilization keep control of a loyal scout that you built??

[DonJoel]

Being able to capture scouts sounds so stupid so I dont think you will be able to.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
But capturing a scout?? The scout is a single person on a horse, who's well trained on finding their way around, making maps, etc. How could you keep control of someone like that? A military unit captures him, then offers him freedom if he works for them. The scout agrees, and sets off to the west... but returns to his home town instead.

My point is, how would another civilization keep control of a loyal scout that you built??

May be you can't capture them in Civ III, I don't know, but it doesn't seem so silly to me: often scouts where groups of people that are mostly formed from native men (they know better the surrounding territory) and someone of your loyal "officer" just to control them and report the news back to home. Capture them and wouldn't be impossible to change the officers in charge and bribe/sign a treat with the native to change their fidelity.

[Bisonbison]

The other scout possibility is that you can't capture them and they can't defend themselves: if you attack them they die automatically.

[Skanky Burns]

Ok, i guess it would make sense if the scout was a small grooup of people, who are controlled by a loyal 'officer'...

Or if you just kill the scout

Either way, im happy

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith
often scouts where groups of people that are mostly formed from native men (they know better the surrounding territory) and someone of your loyal "officer" just to control them and report the news back to home. Capture them and wouldn't be impossible to change the officers in charge and bribe/sign a treat with the native to change their fidelity.

This is what I envisioned. Lewis and Clark (for instance) were part of an expedition comprised of various underlings and native guides. If another nation (let's say France) had wished to sieze the expedition, it would have been a relatively simple matter to replace Lewis and Clark with like minded individuals loyal to France and carry on.

[korn469]

i added the Iroquois Mounted Warrior

its stats are 3.1.2