Paszczak
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 112
As far as I can remember, in vanilla Civ V rapid expansion (by settling or conquering) was very effective and pretty much the only way to play the game competitively because the game was so poorly balanced. Tradition was garbage and Liberty was (too) good. Melee units were too strong vs cities. Awkward tech tree and science slingshots with Great Scientists and Research Agreements gave military techs way too fast. Trying to turtle against an aggresive neighbour was pretty much a death sentence.
G&K removed all of these and promoted peaceful tall play by buffing Tradition and tweaking early conquest in the right way, which was reworking the way combat worked, although you can argue they missed the mark and made ranged units too strong this time around.
BNW has made further attempts to dissuade early warmongers so that everyone could enjoy later eras, idelogies and World Congress, but this time they've done it in the worst way possible. Instead of making early game conquest actually harder by further improving combat AI or city defenses, they took the easy route and slapped artificial warmonger penalties all over the place. As things stand right now, taking a city early carries extreme diplomatic penalties while late game conquest - which is already much easier tactically - is often overlooked as minor offense.
This made warmongering hate in its current form completely disconnected from reality and the reason it is argued every day in this forum. In the actual human history wars and conquests were plentiful in ancient era and were often a measure of how successful an empire was. As humanity progressed into later eras world became more civilised and war was frowned upon. What we have in Civ 5 now is a strange alternate universe where early conquest is a no-no, while modern war and genocide is totally acceptable as long as you keep everyone else happy by denouncing some other guy.
G&K removed all of these and promoted peaceful tall play by buffing Tradition and tweaking early conquest in the right way, which was reworking the way combat worked, although you can argue they missed the mark and made ranged units too strong this time around.
BNW has made further attempts to dissuade early warmongers so that everyone could enjoy later eras, idelogies and World Congress, but this time they've done it in the worst way possible. Instead of making early game conquest actually harder by further improving combat AI or city defenses, they took the easy route and slapped artificial warmonger penalties all over the place. As things stand right now, taking a city early carries extreme diplomatic penalties while late game conquest - which is already much easier tactically - is often overlooked as minor offense.
This made warmongering hate in its current form completely disconnected from reality and the reason it is argued every day in this forum. In the actual human history wars and conquests were plentiful in ancient era and were often a measure of how successful an empire was. As humanity progressed into later eras world became more civilised and war was frowned upon. What we have in Civ 5 now is a strange alternate universe where early conquest is a no-no, while modern war and genocide is totally acceptable as long as you keep everyone else happy by denouncing some other guy.