Better civ special units?

[Hommer]

>allowing a unique unit per era would make the game unnecessarily complicated

wow. We play in Strategic game or a kind of TETRIS? When I play in Civ3 I don't doubt about seas near England because of their sea ability is THE SAME as the Russians, the Iroques, and even the Mongols (if there are any). +1 attack to UU - pffff.

So what we get in real life? Had Afghan people big navy, air force or artillery? No. But are the all "civilized" countries want to fight with Afghan army? Hmm, also no. Why? They have units from the end of 2nd era against an armada of 4th era units of NATO...

This means that Sid Meyer's Civilization3 is not a strategic game. It is a thing for making money.

 

[Kriton]

This means that Sid Meyer's Civilization3 is not a strategic game. It is a thing for making money.

Hommer, it is both of these things. I'm not certain, but I believe you are saying that UUs don't make that much of a difference. They make a huge difference, especially in the early game. Take the Hoplite as an example. It's 3 defence translates from a 4.5 spearman to a 7 Hoplite. And even with no UUs, it is still a strategy game because strategy is the art of planning war.

 

[Hommer]

>strategy is the art of planning war.

Why not simlpy art of planning?

You are right, in this term Civ3 is a strategic game. And chess is too. But... But why Civilization? Why not Iron Soldiers and Woody Workers? It is NOT really civilization-control game.

I think http://test.1000ad.net/ is more strategic game than Civ3.

Hmmm. I see that is an offtopic. Sorry.