Kitten,
I wouldn't dare ignore you. Many points were put but not addressed. I don't think the thread came to a real conclusion. Bronso conceded there may be no problem with play balance, but then I was never bothered by that idea, as I said.
The sad thing is that there would be nothing wrong with special units if they at least came out of special circumstances, but they have been designed the opposite way around; they are predetermined and that is nonsense. Despite what others have said this kind of thing actually limits the strategic challenges of the game, not the other way round.
If special units were a byproduct of a particular combination of technologies coupled, say, with particular cultural developments and if they could as easily occur for any civ, then they would be fine. Better still it could be a matter of luck whether that particular combination actually occured in any given game or time or civ. Then you could not plan for them but would have to keep an eye out for what your neighbours were up to.
As it is they are at odds with the premise on which civ is based.
If you think about it really hard you will realize that in the course of a normal game of civ2 or civ, there will often be a unit that only one player develops and exploits while others pursue other goals, so it is not as if there is not already a fair degree of variety and after all we are talking abuout the overworked military aspects of the game.
There is even plenty of evidence in the forums that different players regard different units highly. So the equations are already nicely complex.
My one line summary is that special units detract from realism.
Switching them off is not necessarily a good option f they have been woven into the fabric of the game. But of course we won't know that until we get to play it. I shouldn't have to switch them off anyway, they should be an optional extra for scenario designers and would-be wargamers who cannot cope with real wargames.
that would explain why the american sell their f15 fighter worldwide 
