- Joined
- Oct 25, 2000
- Messages
- 12,624
I merged civaddict098's thread into this threads, since they are the about the same shots.
Also edited the first post and the thread a title. Only the first 4 are new.

T100 said:This is the coolest screen shot I have ever seen.
![]()
Andrew_Jay said:I noticed a few things with the units:
-apparently no "modern" artillery, you go from catapul to cannon to artillery (a la "Replacable Parts" in III). I assume "machine gun" is an artillery unit?
And there only seems to be one missile(Probably the ICBM), as opposed to the 3 in Civ 3. :/Carver said:This is a great find Bshock.
I was hoping to have at least one more aircraft. I see a prop fighter, jet fighter, prop bomber, and stealth bomber. Another jet bomber like the B-52 or the B-1 would be cool.
The "WWI-type arty" appears to be a machine gun. I don't deny that it's an artillery unit, just noting that there does not seem to be a modern rocket artillery (III) or howitzer (II).Carver said:Well, I see 4 arty units: catapult, cannon, WWI-type arty, and WWII+ arty.
Because some of the gaps between units are simply too big. For example, a WW1 or even WW2 era submarine doesn't hold a candle to a modern hunter-killer sub, which is completely different to the equally modern ballistic missile submarine. In a perfect world you should constantly be updating your military to keep pace with scientific developments, instead of using one type of unit for almost 100 turns at a time.Vael said:Why do we need 300 units anyways?
How many of the units in Civ 3 were completely unused, wastes of art? I could name a dozen. There's no reason to have a ton of units unless they're all going to be used and have a proper place. Firaxis shouldn't add units just to add them, IMO.
PriestOfDiscord said:In a perfect world you should constantly be updating your military to keep pace with scientific developments, instead of using one type of unit for almost 100 turns at a time.
Hyperbole much?Lucky The Fox said:In a perfect world I'd be spending half of my playtime clicking upgrade-button?
PriestOfDiscord said:But to answer your question, yes you should have to be upgrading constantly. Keeping a large, top of the line military costs a lot of money. Look at the U.S. Defense Budget for proof of that.
I think unit support reflects things like salaries of the soldiers and maintaining the equipment, not replacing a wing of cold war strategic bombers with some stealth bombers.Lucky The Fox said:Doesn't the unit support kind of reflect that?
PriestOfDiscord said:And there only seems to be one missile(Probably the ICBM), as opposed to the 3 in Civ 3. :/
Yah! cheap nukes all around!Carver said:Well, I would be okay with the ICBM as the only missle if and only if the bombers can carry nuclear bombs. In fact, I might like that better than Civ3.
The lack of upgrades could be at least partually explained by the use of unit upgrades (yes, I know, it's through battle experence but still...).PriestOfDiscord said:I think unit support reflects things like salaries of the soldiers and maintaining the equipment, not replacing a wing of cold war strategic bombers with some stealth bombers.
Andrew_Jay said:The "WWI-type arty" appears to be a machine gun. I don't deny that it's an artillery unit, just noting that there does not seem to be a modern rocket artillery (III) or howitzer (II).