Civilization III fans must unite against those who think it is inferior to Civ 4

Civ 3 is much more strategic than Civ 4, which people liked better for its graphics
In Civ 4 units defending cities get ridiculous advantages, longbowmen being the worst, (almost impossible to kill before gunpowder and still hard to kill after that).
Its not rare for a macemen to kill a gunship, or a longbowmen kill a U.S. navy seal. It is almost impossible to take over a civ unleess you have ten times their military force, (and sometimes that doesn't get you far) or you have tanks by the time they get rifles.
Civ 4 claims to be the better than all previous civs in all categories, gameplay, graphics, user-friendliness, strategy, etc.
Besides graphcs Civ 4 is not superior in any way, in fact Civ 3 it's predecessor is superior in every other way.
Civilization 3 has an easier-to-use civilipedia (user freindliness), the gamplay is a lot less complecated (better gameplay), Civ 3 actually has so many strategic options left out in Civ 4 (strategy). Civilization 4 lied about being better than all previous titles. It claimed to have better modability, false, Civ 3 is one of the easiest games to mod, modding Civ 4 is a very complicated process that no one I know can figure out. In civ 3 it is actually possible for an attacker to beat a defender with equall technology.

In civ 3 some irrational things happen, but it is rare. Civilization III is the superior, Civilization IV is in reality inferior.