LordByron
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2010
- Messages
- 65
More things i have noticed...
-Alliances are a necessity...without those points, everybody will hate you for ridiculous minor reasons (thing i didn't know), with that instead you can almost decide who goes against whom
-Civ will refuse your requests of friendship just to ask it themselves during their turn almost Always
-Peace negotiations are totally messed up... if you give back cities, enemy civs will demand compensation.... if they offer you 6 piece of arts and you refuse one, they will ask all your moneys for an equal deal....
-after a peace treat you can sneak in some good trades or an embassy because the civ realizes he is actually angry at you.
-if you burn a city your relationships are doomed forever.
-Warmongering is generally a bad idea for a lot of reasons: in CIV BE attacking someone would enrage his allies but please his enemies... that would open up lot of diplomatic gamestyles....
Being universally hated for any attack despite the reason (except casus belli that are clunky and not versatile enough) doesn t work at all... makes your allies hate you because you accept their request of a joint war and silly stuff like that.
-Joint war is broken....has no purpose in game if it gives huge penalties.
-What s the point in alliances if you can joint war in more than 2?
-"remove troops" points are broken... i didn t ask for open borders with a civ in order to be blamed for troop transit, also if i free your city my troops shouldn t be moved outside for at least a couple of turns.
Also the AI that wants to screw your game at all costs building all his city near you even when there is almost no resources is something intended....even if its just an annoying workaround....if it was a boardgame i would call it KingMaking..
-Alliances are a necessity...without those points, everybody will hate you for ridiculous minor reasons (thing i didn't know), with that instead you can almost decide who goes against whom
-Civ will refuse your requests of friendship just to ask it themselves during their turn almost Always
-Peace negotiations are totally messed up... if you give back cities, enemy civs will demand compensation.... if they offer you 6 piece of arts and you refuse one, they will ask all your moneys for an equal deal....
-after a peace treat you can sneak in some good trades or an embassy because the civ realizes he is actually angry at you.
-if you burn a city your relationships are doomed forever.
-Warmongering is generally a bad idea for a lot of reasons: in CIV BE attacking someone would enrage his allies but please his enemies... that would open up lot of diplomatic gamestyles....
Being universally hated for any attack despite the reason (except casus belli that are clunky and not versatile enough) doesn t work at all... makes your allies hate you because you accept their request of a joint war and silly stuff like that.
-Joint war is broken....has no purpose in game if it gives huge penalties.
-What s the point in alliances if you can joint war in more than 2?
-"remove troops" points are broken... i didn t ask for open borders with a civ in order to be blamed for troop transit, also if i free your city my troops shouldn t be moved outside for at least a couple of turns.
Also the AI that wants to screw your game at all costs building all his city near you even when there is almost no resources is something intended....even if its just an annoying workaround....if it was a boardgame i would call it KingMaking..