Considering moving back to Gods and Kings?

[MerchantCo]

I'm not wild for trade routes, I don't care about culture victories, and the World Congress becomes less interesting in the late game (as more and more important options are chosen). The only things I would really miss are the Ideologies and the new civs.

Should I move back to G&K, and perhaps revert back to BNW periodically?

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

No. stick with BNW.. seriously.

 

[Misotu]

Why?

Just asking because a bald opinion doesn't reveal much or help at all.

I like Gods and Kings but am becoming seriously frustrated by the lack of gold. If you can't even have 4 units out exploring and minor development of cities without running into serious debt then the strategy is very restricted.

Not fun.

So why?

 

[Makavcio]

I play BNW and GnK interchangeably. These are two completely different games. When I feel more like warmongering, i go for GnK, and when I feel like playing more peacefully, I just enable BNW.

I don't understand why you are advocating so strongly for staying with BNW, TheKingOfBigOz. In our situation, we can have pie and eat pie

 

[Yzman]

I play BNW and GnK interchangeably. These are two completely different games. When I feel more like warmongering, i go for GnK, and when I feel like playing more peacefully, I just enable BNW.

I don't understand why you are advocating so strongly for staying with BNW, TheKingOfBigOz. In our situation, we can have pie and eat pie

I would imagine its because of the new features and new civs.

I can't comprehend going back to an older version...but whatever suits you. The question was a bit loaded anyway.

 

[kwidem]

.

 

[redwings1340]

I personally like BNW a lot more, but play whatever you enjoy. If you're having trouble in BNW you can always get help, but if you just find G+K more fun, then feel free to switch back. This game is all about having fun, after all.

 

[Glassmage]

why would you downgrade?

 

[dinanipedro]

the biggest change (to the worst) iv'e found in BNW compared to G&K's is the per city science penalty.

especially the effect on the late game it has and the tech cost - i didn't conquer all those cities just to be forced to give them away to shaka or whoever so my tech rate is not impeaded. in this aspect i prefer the gods and kings science victory.

i still mix them up and play a bit of both

 

[player1 fanatic]

It's only impaired with cities are poor.

 

[Mudrac]

Play what you enjoy more, although I find BNW both different and better. Besides you can still have pretty nice wars in BNW, just saying.

 

[cpm4001]

Do what you want, but I suggest you stick with BNW. GnK is good, but in all honesty it's still an incomplete version of CiV. BNW, though not perfect, is certainly a major improvement.

 

[EK834]

especially the effect on the late game it has and the tech cost - i didn't conquer all those cities just to be forced to give them away to shaka or whoever so my tech rate is not impeaded.

That only happens when you rely on strategically unsound conquest at the expanse of everything else, which is realistic since no Empire has ever succeeded long by spending resources to conquer territory and population without judging if this would drain them instead of benefiting them, or by creating colonies that cost more than they benefited (over extended Empires usually collapsed sooner than later) The science penalty is easily overcome if you acquire cities that will produce more beakers than the penalty, especially in the late game when you can usually buy the buildings required to boost your conquest's output soon after you acquired the cities. You can't expect much science from cities you sack and kill half the population from. If you wage wars to acquire cities in peace deals and limit yourself to taking by force only huge cities like capitals or very tall cities, conquest will boost your science output, penalties or not. In BNW you just need to judge when it's better to stop conquering and make the most of what you already got. I've just got an awesome SV in a game where I acquired 12 foreign cities, all of them by war but only two of them by pure conquest, the rest by laying siege to city and bringing their defenses down, killing units and pillaging, and asking for a city or two to stop the war, all cities I judged big enough, with luxuries, Wonders etc. to be beneficial growth to my Empire. They far from drained my science output, and this less bloody type of warfare didn't even hurt my reputation to the point of losing RA possibilities. The blood-lusty warmonger would have needed twice my number of conquests just to match my "acquired" population, and would have suffered double science penalty from # of cities owned.