Recent content by myb7721

Inca's UU is insane. I got a 188 Domination win on Deity/Pangea/Standard/Standard playing sloppily. Get your terrace farms up, get a couple of campuses and the have machinery by turn ~60. After that rush Nationalism. The war starts and never stops. The UU stays viable (eventually as Corps) for...

I like your ideas. That said, ICS would be constrained by amenities if there were a benefit to large cities. So I don't think boosting the effectiveness of pop would help ICS, I think it would hurt it. It might also help to make the first amenity necessary at 3 pop instead of 5. ICS currently...

So, as we all know ICS is king in Civ 6. Tall is not a viable strategy. The increase per settler cost was meant to balance this. It failed to. It seems pretty obvious to me that simply increasing the benefit of higher populations via increase to science and culture would be an effective solution...

Deity: Builder to get 50% melee ranged policy asap, then a bunch of warrior and slingers/archers then domination.

Early game it is imperative that you use trade routes externally. This is primarily for the science gain, but also for diplomatic leverage. In the early game *most* of your science will come from trade routes. Also the diplo advantage you gain can turn what would otherwise be an hostile civ into...

Not to split hairs, but Colosseums and the like provided global happiness at launch. It was patched later such that the amount of happiness provided was limited by the cities populations (effectively making it local).

I think you may not realize that any local happiness generated in city beyond the amount of unhappiness generated by that same city, has no effect. That's why it's local.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think my suggestion is more clear than the current solution. It's not a matter of functional complexity but of complexity of nomenclature. More terms beget less elegance. And I understand the isomorphisms at play. It's not the function I'm criticizing, but...

Perhaps, I'm not being clear. It seems to me that it would be functionally equivalent to the current system if buildings only reduced the unhappiness contributed by the city in which they were built. If this is indeed the case, then I think this is a simpler and more elegant solution as it...

Reread my first post. I think you're missing my point. I agree that the effect achieved by the introduction of local happiness was needed. It's the implementation of the solution that I'm taking issue with.

You're right, it's not overly complex, but it is unnecessarily complex. There was no reason to add a new concept when it wasn't needed. Elegance should be the goal.

Local happiness works like this: Buildings and effects related to specific cities (such as from policies) that grant happiness only add to the happiness in that city. In other words, they only combat unhappiness generated by *that* city. In contrast effects that generate global happiness adds to...

The concept of local happiness is a needless addition that acts only to increases the complexity of Civ5's nomenclature. The same functional effect could have easily been achieved without the confusion introduced by subclassing happiness. Here's how: for any effect that would generate local...

industrial->modern->postmodern->future

I'd really like to see a comprehensive guide to diplomacy. And by that I don't just mean diplomatic victory. I'd like to see info on how to effect diplomatic relationships in both good and bad ways. For example when is a warmongering penalty incurred? That sort of thing...