I could see your point about the city improvements if we ever properly saw them, like in a city view screen (like Civ2)-in CTP you don't so the only time we see the improvements is by looking at the icon.

I do agree however, that Civ games should focus a bit more on the entire world.

quote: Originally posted by red_jon on 11-09-2000 04:39 PM Native Americans didn't use gunpowder as much as the Europeans, even though they invented the technology first.

Am I wrong? did the Native American really invented gunpower. I always think the smart Chinese people did it.

I thought it was the Chinese that invented it, but the Europeans utilised it more, hence the Musketeers.

quote: Originally posted by Stuff2 on 11-11-2000 10:58 AM The chinese invented the powder, the europeans saw the military possibilities. I'm pretty sure that the chinese didn't use gunpowder the same way europeans did. (until they found out that europeans did).

Actually, the Chinese did use rocketry in battle, but was a real limited application of the concept.

The Turks used a HUGE cannon during the siege of Constanipole, which became Instanbul. Nothing Europe had at the time was even close.

Also, the Indians used rockets against the British during the British colonization of India.

quote: Originally posted by Dom Pedro II on 11-11-2000 06:18 PM I think we got somewhat off track here.

yep, definitely totally off the track.

Just make it clear a last time: when the Aztec conquered muskets at the "noche triste" they were absolutely helpless because they never had seen such a thing before...
gunpowder was invented by chinese but its massive use came to Europe via Mongols and Turks (Osmans).

To return to the original topic: i also think it's stupid when my beloved Aztecs move around with roman-style legions or british-style musketeers, but let's see: what alternative to global-style units do we have?

a) "unique" units: they have been discussed quite often but it remains to be a balance-question and as VanHalen has mentioned it's not reasonable if i start e.g. with Cartagineans in an arctic region why i should have war-elephants while the vikings who started in tropical regions and inmidst a continent have longboats...

b)units with the same base-values but different graphic appearance and different names. done properly this idea could be a possibility, but does anyone really have a clue how babylonian musketeers look alike?

c) special abilities and/ or units depending on the starting location of civs (DC, I'm sure you find a related thread)

------------------
Wernazuma alias Cheshirecat alias Wörn

quote: To return to the original topic: i also think it's stupid when my beloved Aztecs move around with roman-style legions or british-style musketeers, but let's see: what alternative to global-style units do we have?

wernazuma, you like the Aztecs? It does explain part of your name... I would have thought you would prefer a European power being from austria.

quote: a) "unique" units: they have been discussed quite often but it remains to be a balance-question and as VanHalen has mentioned it's not reasonable if i start e.g. with Cartagineans in an arctic region why i should have war-elephants while the vikings who started in tropical regions and inmidst a continent have longboats...

If my suggestions about elephant and horse commodities are used, then elephants would never be in the arctic, so I think that takes care of that problem. Also, in the Americas, they will not have horses until the Europeans trade them to the American civs.

Also, there had been some talk in other threads about unique cities, and that should definitely be true for each individual civilization as well as their improvements. If AoE could do it, so can Civ3.

Now, I think there should be Civ specific units, but lets not go nuts. There is no need for civ-specific units beyond gun powder. All countries have adopted European militaries and uniforms. There is no country that still has soldiers with machine guns running around in native dress tribal or otherwise. Most civilizations try to adopt the customs of more advanced countries, so sooner or later, all people would have adopted European-style militaries if they had all survived that long.

The only problem is that numerous civs had no Catapults and those are extremely important weapons in the early game, so what would replace them?

------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

Dom Pedro II.... aka Hannibal3

I can understand the Elephant units pouring out of a sub-arctic civ not being realistic. To that logic, I am all for linking local resources to types of units built by civ. I am also for linking local resources to trade to make the economics of the game more realistic in application (not to Earth history).

I am against civ specific units. Any game might lead to any unit being built. If you are going to restrict Legions from being built because there are no significant iron ore around, fine. Don't restrict it because I choose the Aztecs, and in our Earth history, the Aztecs did not utilize legions. I think the point of Civ is the fact that it *could* have been that way. Under this logic we don't allow the Germans to develop the nuclear bomb, because they never had any our Earth history.