General A New Dawn discussion

45°38'N-13°47'E;13704644 said:
I don't think so. We already have a building for that, I don't think we should make things more complex between buildings and improvements
Click to expand...

That rule was broke a few revs ago with the new Mill building.
And don't forget about Industry. For long it was also called Factory.
Sure it may need a better name, but an upgrade would be appropriate.
 
Perhaps Watermills can upgrade to Industry improvements at some stage (tech' or era-based). Simplification! :deadhorse:
 
oldnooob said:
help please, I forgot how to declare war when the civ will not talk. I thought it was alt right click but no.
Click to expand...
Alt left click if I'm not mistaken, or simply walk in their territory.
 
Do you have any error message ?
EDIT: It seems you have Mega Civ Pack. Could you check if the mod is enabled in the launcher ?
 
No error messages ? Did you tried to check "Launch mod by default with the game" in the options and tried to launch Beyond the Sword ? What was the revision you were before ?
 
Ok. There must have been a problem during the update, but it's hard to say what.
 
Started a couple of games with rev 899, and I have to say I think that the hunting/myth additions are very well implemented. They add a bit of detail without being game-altering, and are a particularly welcome addition on the long timescale settings, which are what I use. Nicely done.
 
I'd like to see some more incentive to use the starting/early civics. Chiefdom and Tribalism, for example, would fit the North-American tribes perfectly, but they are rather lackluster gameplay wise.
 
black213 said:
I'd like to see some more incentive to use the starting/early civics. Chiefdom and Tribalism, for example, would fit the North-American tribes perfectly, but they are rather lackluster gameplay wise.
Click to expand...

Maybe some, but I think a lot of North-American nations would fit other civics much better. I think the starting civics are supposed to be somewhat lackluster to encourage players to move on from them, while the rest of the civics are supposed to be balanced for various strategies. My understanding has been that the starting civics represent organizing structures of very small civilizations that haven't yet needed to develop more complicated organization. It doesn't make sense for later civs to use them. And unless you use very euro-centric definitions for civics like republic and monarchy, they actually cover many civs very well, including North American ones.
 
Wow, I absolutely love the new update! It launches fast now, and the AI actually knows how to expand early in the game and be challenging! :) Great job guys!

I was wondering if it would be possible to increase tech costs (like at around +3%) per city that a civilization controls. I understand maintenance is supposed to prevent "more cities = better civ" in some ways. However, with all the financial buildings and resources it is very easy (on Prince and Monarch, anyway) to be at around 70% research most of the time. More cities equals more beakers, so I find myself well ahead (almost by half an era) of the topmost rival civilization in technology. Thus, the game isn't all that challenging coming around the Renaissance after a few ancient and classical wars have been won and I am practically triple the size of the largest rival civ.

Definitely make this feature optional, as I am sure there would be objections to the "Civ V" approach to increasing tech costs per city. But that in addition to maintenance, in my opinion, it would add another layer of strategy in challenge to the game.

Thanks :)
 
Caymon said:
Wow, I absolutely love the new update! It launches fast now, and the AI actually knows how to expand early in the game and be challenging! :) Great job guys!

I was wondering if it would be possible to increase tech costs (like at around +3%) per city that a civilization controls. I understand maintenance is supposed to prevent "more cities = better civ" in some ways. However, with all the financial buildings and resources it is very easy (on Prince and Monarch, anyway) to be at around 70% research most of the time. More cities equals more beakers, so I find myself well ahead (almost by half an era) of the topmost rival civilization in technology. Thus, the game isn't all that challenging coming around the Renaissance after a few ancient and classical wars have been won and I am practically triple the size of the largest rival civ.

Definitely make this feature optional, as I am sure there would be objections to the "Civ V" approach to increasing tech costs per city. But that in addition to maintenance, in my opinion, it would add another layer of strategy in challenge to the game.

Thanks :)
Click to expand...
Try Flexible Difficulty and Flexible AI first, and see how it goes. :)
 
Try High to low, and see how you like that, build up to ladder leader, then take over the bottom rung player, and build that up, 3rd time is the one you try to win with, if you can defeat your 2 previous set ups.

I can be a real crash to reality, when you take over that 3rd Civ and think, "once more into the dark beyond".
 
IPEX-731BA5DD06 said:
Try High to low, and see how you like that, build up to ladder leader, then take over the bottom rung player, and build that up, 3rd time is the one you try to win with, if you can defeat your 2 previous set ups.

I can be a real crash to reality, when you take over that 3rd Civ and think, "once more into the dark beyond".
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly, with High to Low you get to go against a civ you brought to the top yourself, so they're definitely better than what the AI would have done!

And recently a global define has also been added to let you set how many times to repeat the process, so you could do the standard 3, or 5, or 10...
 
From my POV, I'm always at the top of the ladder (not using High to Low). I've noticed the AI is somewhat resistant in war and manage to keep up in research and military (if it has enough cities).
The main problems to me are that AI wars don't progress (I would like to see some AI steamrolled, but not by me :D) and that AI isn't a real military threat to me (good at defence but poor at offense). I also think the score calculation should be rewritten to reflect military, buildings and research more than contacts and land discovery. I haven't look at it yet.
 
dbkblk said:
From my POV, I'm always at the top of the ladder (not using High to Low). I've noticed the AI is somewhat resistant in war and manage to keep up in research and military (if it has enough cities).
The main problems to me are that AI wars don't progress (I would like to see some AI steamrolled, but not by me :D) and that AI isn't a real military threat to me (good at defence but poor at offense). I also think the score calculation should be rewritten to reflect military, buildings and research more than contacts and land discovery. I haven't look at it yet.
Click to expand...

+!
Yes, you nailed it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Problem to expand borders
Replies
3
Views
122
<Nexus>
<Nexus>
A
Inquisition - Is there a bug? Not able to train or perform inquisitions
Replies
1
Views
169
<Nexus>
<Nexus>
R
Community Discord Server
Replies
0
Views
141
Randomon
R
T
"We are too far from our capital!"
Replies
6
Views
658
<Nexus>
<Nexus>
V
Barbarian generation: how it works in BTS and in AND
Replies
8
Views
1K
<Nexus>
<Nexus>
Top Bottom