Is it me or am I correct in thinking that in Civ3 the number of different units and number of technologies were reduced from Civ2?
Terrain options were reduced as well; no farmland, no terraforming and no swamps.
Less is more I presume...
It does affect the gameplay: by reducing the tech tree, units become obsolete much faster. In one of my games I never bothered with gunpowder units or cavalry... let alone cannons. They were almost instantly overtaken by riflemen and artillery. The industrial era flashes by.
Terrain no longer requires diligent work to make the most of it. Workers are cheap and I always have a boatload of them in captivity too. Irrigation, roads, clearing and you're done. Clearing is headache-free as well: if you decide you have too little shield production after all, you simply add a mine to the grassland or plains (lol), or reforest the least productive square. Lumberjacking is an odd duck too... very easy to do, especially if you have so many workers idling.
Units choices are more limited too. Due to not only the (possible) reduction in their number, but also due to the *extreme* similarity of strengths they have, there are only a few worthwile.
For example: in the ancient era, the swordsmen have Att 3 -the only unit above 2, and thus worthwile. Archers and horsemen are pretty weak in comparison (2 moves or not). Or take the chariot: from 4 (civ1) to 3 (civ2) to freaking 1! Useless to the max. Horsemen are twice as strong.
Comments welcome.