First, I'd like to say how absolutely amazed I always am at the type of modifications "amateurs" have added to the Civ series of games (including CtP [no flaming about CtP, please]). The work is outstanding and the effort is greatly appreciated. To you, Dark Sheer, I can only say: outstanding.
I hope I am not too presumptuous, but as long as everyone seems to be making requests, I'd like to add my own. I'm a bit of a military history buff. I like to think of units in Civ as belonging to certain eras of warfare that stand out in history (as opposed to incremental changes). I think Firaxis did a fairly decent job in this, but there seems to be a couple of distinct units missing from the line-up.
I cannot justify going from a Musketman (early 1600s version presented in the game) to a rifleman without the intervening Musket Infantry with bayonett that changed the course of warfare and was around for such a long period of time (from the 1700s to the mid 1800s --over 100 years). I'm simply amazed that such a unit did not make its way into Civ3; it's such a logical progression. The Musketman did spell the end of Knights and is a necessary unit, but the better firing, bayonett musket --along with new tactics to employ them-- made pikemen obsolete and became the attacking and defending unit of choice. The unit I have in mind would either look like the famous British Red Coats or a Napoleonic Warfare soldier (pretty universally equiped and dressed by then).
Another jump I find hard to swallow is the exclusion of the Ship-of-the-Line. A temporary sollution is making the Man-o-War into the Ship-of-the-Line and changing Britain's unique unit to Longbowman. So, this particular oversight is not such a problem.
I also find it difficult to swallow going from an Ironclad to a Destroyer/Battleship. In the late 1800s to early 1900s a VERY important invention was made that changed the making of warships forever (and is still in use today --although a "bit" more modern and efficient). That was the steam turbine engine. Generating so much more power and taking up so much less space than previous steam engines, these engines were responsible for the development of ships like Britain's famous "Dreadnought" class of warships. I am thinking more along the lines of an "Armored Cruiser" that is much more powerful than a ship of the line and ironclad but simply cannot match the absolute power of the "modern" battleship. This would provide a wonderful intervening naval unit so there isn't so much of a jump in technology and power.
Also surprisingly lacking is a B-52 type jet powered heavy bomber. Why did they leave that out? The B-52 can carry IMMENSE amounts of ordnance as compared to WWII bombers. In fact the F-15E "fighter" can carry a larger payload than a WWII B-17 bomber, let alone a B-52 heavy bomber. (I served in the 391st "Bold Tigers" squadron of F-15Es in Mountain Home, ID).
And, lastly, although not absolutely necessary, I think it would be very nice to see a "bombard" type medieval cannon. To go all the way from a catapult to a 1700s type horse artillery seems to be quite a jump and a bit of a stretch.
IMHO, a lot of the other unit suggestions are incremental/interim units or highly specialized units that don't really fit into the scope of the game. Although fun, a lot of these units would hardly get built before the next type of unit is available (e.g. WWI fighter).
So, to sum it up: most important is a Bayonnet Musket Infantry and Armored Cruiser. Of secondary importance would be B-52 type jet-bomber, medieval Bombard Cannon, and a Ship-of-the-Line.
Well, here's for hopin'.
And thanks in advance.
But the ship is so small its very hard to see. If you were to extract the animation and look at the one facing east and west you can see the small canon 
