TBH in some way I always imagined when the AI does not good it is part of the simulation. Many statesmen, generals and leaders have done very stupid things in history. And not one of them was an almost allmighty, 6050 year old overlord like we, the players, are. So it's okay to do better for...
In Civ5 you have even more than in Civ4 I think, not really sure though! At least the same count.
And now we only get default and 3 affinities. Which is a bit lame. Should have at least minor differences.
And happinies and health per city, like in Civ4. That game had really figured it out! Luxury resources then could be allocated to cities with a limited supply which would encourage getting more of them. Or maybe they would give like +3 to the city they are next to and +1 to all other cities. But...
I would like more than 2 choices or more quest variants based on random or maybe the planet type. ATM it seems really more like a disguised promotion system.
I think we should agree that for immersion reasons it would be bad to almost always have to have negative health to be efficient. It makes little sense that only the dirty, people absusing societies have the edge. Of course that can be a valid strategy, but usually not in the long run...
There should be a stacking bonus for having more than 10 health and a stacking malus for having less than -10. Maybe incorporate virtues.
Yes, since Civ5 there are really not enough penalties involved. It's always only choosing a bonus, no negative consequences... And it seems we are at the...
If Civ would be made by me, the only civs available would be the really early ones like the egypts and tribes like the suebs or celts and they would get the option to form kingdoms, empires and later nations with new names. Always hated it when you meet the USA or France, Germany and other...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.