Recent content by jjkrause84

When discussion 1UPT don't forget scale. It ruins he scale of Civ. Archers firing arrows hundreds of miles, and 'massive' armies of 6-8 units. Scale and scope are some of the best things about stacking. You can feel like you're leading a genuine army, not just a tiny handful of squads.

This is exactly it. Civ V (and to an extent Civ VI) relies on fluff and distractions to keep you from realising how insignificant everything is. In Civ IV getting that one particular wonder really mattered. The difference between having 5 or 6 cities was vast (thanks to Oxford and Wall...

'Complexity' and 'depth' are two very different things. Civ 5 ultimately had more systems, more moving parts, but the end result was fewer decisions that really mattered....in part, yes, because 1UPT meant that you could turn around and destroy the AI any time you wanted. The only thing...

I think the agendas should be far more randomised and swap between leaders each play-through (otherwise playing against certain Civs might become too samey...besides the agendas just mean they all end up hating you anyway). As for Civ abilities and UUs, etc. I like the differentiation. Makes...

It's totally pointless, imo.

Having to pay maintenance is not a 'punishment'. Things cost money to maintain, and distance makes this problem worse. It is a basic reality. Modelling it in the game (as opposed to treating Civ like a pure game, and not one that should at least casually reference reality) is a good thing...

In my OP I did: limited stacking starting at 3 and then progressing to 6 as time goes on (and those numbers are just ballparks). Units would still act as individuals. No need to form corps or anything like that. The problem is that Civ VI only has very, very limited stacking (so limited that...

It forces tactical warfare, not strategic. Indeed, it makes player tactics so powerful that one has little need for strategy. Build your one small army and conquer the world. In previous Civs I used to attack along multiple axes, maybe a main assault and also a naval assault elsewhere. This...

Stacking would vastly increase the number of units....but would actually reduce the number of 'moving parts'. It is why I can move a stack of 25 Infantry and 12 Artillery in Civ IV with a single mouse click, whereas navigating a 3 Infantry and 1 Field Gun in Civ VI is far more time consuming...

So, because you personally didn't like unlimited stacking we should not even consider limited stacking? Far better to have an enemy missionary blocking you from upgrading some wheat in your own territory? Really?

The more I think about it I think that if we can just get rid of 1UPT Civ VI has enormous potential. The building game is really fun...probably the best it's ever been. The governments are great, and religion is pretty good (but could be improved). 1UPT, however, has a few really grating...

Warmonger penalties would only really make sense at he very end of the game. For the vast majority of history 'going to war' is just what you did. To my mind there shouldn't be any penalty at all as long as you have a casus belli, and casus belli should be much easier to get. "He looked at me...

is it just me, or is iron way too rare? It seems like there's maybe one or two plots per continent....

Noble in Civ 4 was the same level. You couldn't just turtle...the computer would over-run you and out-tech you if you tried. While obviously it was easier than other levels you still had to try to win. Harder difficulty levels will help the computer cheat better, but that won't make up for...

Well, I'm about to finish my first game of Civ 6...a conquest victory with France. While many of the annoyances from Civ 5 are gone I feel like the ethos of the game is identical. You can do, or not do, whatever you want...lazily clicking enter for a few hundred turns and then you win. I was...