I know they tried to balance some UUs good for them But really some UUs are so vastly superior than others I don't understand why they don't make all UUs great for all civs?

Also, UU's that come in the industrial and modern ages are too late and the usefulness by then compared to a good ancient or middle age UU is greatly reduced, there is no comparison.

I am thinking it is good to have the UU's in different ERA's for different CIV's.

I know it is not the only way to get a golden age, it would not be any beneifit to anyone if everyone had there golden age around the same time.

Many would argue that the panzer is a very useful UU.

personally, I have high hopes that civ 4 will introduce unique unit lines giving a civ a unique unit in every era- even if it has to make soem assumption, the game is very much a game of what if, and thereofre we shoudl seewhat ould happen if ROme contiued, what its legions might have evolved into ;)

@Wormwood- the panzer is only a good UU if you let the germans live long enough to use it ;)

...or if you have it yourself;)

Originally posted by Artifex
I know they tried to balance some UUs good for them But really some UUs are so vastly superior than others I don't understand why they don't make all UUs great for all civs?

Also, UU's that come in the industrial and modern ages are too late and the usefulness by then compared to a good ancient or middle age UU is greatly reduced, there is no comparison.

I think diversity is great. Why make every CIV the same way? Some have ancient UUs, some modern UUs, some land UUs, some naval UUs. What's the problem? If you don't like a certain CIV, don't play it, others may like it.

It's also no wrong to make certain CIVs stronger than others (in the common sense).

Some Civs simply didn't exist early enough to have an early UU - America being a prime example.

Well, if you want to use your imagination to create the modern incarnation of a legionary, you could use your imagination to create the ancient incarnation of a modern unit. Though, yeah, the F-15 is tough to work with in that sense.

I hardly ever rely on UU's anyway. My two fav civs are America and Maya. There trait combo is amazing for fast paced expansion. Sure America has a late goden age IF you rely on UUs for golden ages, but just build the proper wonders and you got a golden age. I actually like having a late industrious early middle age golden age. Huge bonus in tech. Can mass produce tanks and other military units to finish off the remains of my enemy.

I kind of do want to see each civ having a UU in every age, and yet I also kind of don't. It would break one of the unwritten rules of the Civ series and I think I would be greatly disappointed even if it did improve gameplay.

and too it is a relative thing..if ur in 2nds place and ur need is to destroy a far away civ and ur playing america, a late uu or ga is good. U can invade, build an airport with a worker start transporting troops to it and protect it with a well timed and a perfectly- suited -for -the -task UU.

I do think middle age golden age is best. Most of your cities are built and improved.There are lots of useful wonders to build in middle age. and it is also a good time to conquer a new land. If you play well, you will achieve your leading place in the early of industrial age.So middle age is what I think the most important age in the game.

Originally posted by Artifex
I know they tried to balance some UUs good for them But really some UUs are so vastly superior than others I don't understand why they don't make all UUs great for all civs?

Also, UU's that come in the industrial and modern ages are too late and the usefulness by then compared to a good ancient or middle age UU is greatly reduced, there is no comparison.

Considering I almost never fight wars before modern age, having them all in the ancient age would suck. If you ask me far too many are in the ancient age as it is - who cares about warriors with facepaint, I want uber-tanks/battleships/planes etc.

I think that the UU and the civ traits have been made the way they are for game balance in civ 3/ptw. Some traits were much stronger that others so the UU was stronger or weaker. Traits like expanionistic and industrious were so strong that UU's tended to be weaker... except for the industrious/scientific trait.

Also, some UU like the conquistidor are very specfic to a very specific need and do not apply well to some games.

I do think that the map generator needs to be looked at so that it can generate maps that more closely approximate the Mediterrain. This would give early bloomers a slight advantage.

Southstar,

I agree. I actually avoid civs with early UUs, because I dread the idea of an early golden age. Few (and undeveloped) cities and despotism isn't really my idea of the optimal time for golden age.

I want my infrastructure to be able to handle it - and a few wonders ain't so bad either ;)

I also agree with Xen on the lines of unique units, although it is indeed hard to imagine a stone age UU for America...

It's also quite concievable to have four UUs total for each civ, spread in accordance with their history.
America could have three Modern UUs and one Industrial UU, and this way every civ would have a broader era of advantage.
Not all the UUs would have to trigger a GA either... There could be only one GA-UU per civ...