One thing that really bugged me about Civ II was the great unit variation... that bottlenecked in the Rennaisance.Consider this: Ancient age units included the warrior, phalanx, archer,legion, pikeman... at any one time you had at least two "infantry" units available. There was also a wide variety of horseback units, reaching a peak with both the knight and the crusader. But once into the Renaissance, you are suddenly limited to one infantry unit and one horseback (musketeers and dragoons). In the Industrial Age this was nearly as bad, with only Riflemen and Cavalry (okay, Alpine troops too). In the modern age you get units in spades, and the variety blossoms again.
The problem with this, as I see it, is that during these "middle sections" of the game some strategy is missing: UNIT STRATEGY. If you want defense, there is one unit. One unit for scouting and in-field assault. And one unit for attacking cities.
What gives? I would like to see CivIII definitly have more variety to stop the inequity between ages. I can think of other Renaissance units... maybe Grenadiers, or Militia, or a Mortar unit... Even different types of cavalry and such, like lancers as well as dragoons.
CTP lagged here too. Most of the time you only had a max of two units for a certain purpose... just when you think you've got a good variety in the modern age at sea (destroyer, battleship, sub) they pull a fast one on you in the diamond age and limit you to only one military surface ship.
Enough rambling. What my point is is that it is silly to restrict types of units, for that takes much of the strategy out. Strategy should be about using units appropriatly, not just about who has more. Variety is what turns brute force into true tactics.
And you?
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
