Recent content by bumpyglint

I don't understand how the part of trade routes is a point in this discussion. It looks like to me we are talking again about faith, there's no difference in the yields of land and coastal cities so what's the point? And having more range is such a little bonus that you will use it less than 15...

Ctrl + F ---> type "always" ---> the only sentence I wrote with it is "the point is that a good land empire is easier to get, it needs less technology/civics (you can totally ignore a good part of the tech trees) and, ceteris paribus, it's almost always better than an empire based on coastal"...

You really want me to repeat the same thing over and over again. I'm not saying that gold is horsehocky, I know it's really good, even better than production if you want. But if I must sacrifice production (or anything else) for gold there must be a good proportion. If plains is 1 food and 1...

Building a district, a lighthouse and then a shipyard to have +3/+4 production is not exactly having "lot of hammers" (expecially considering what you had to produce to have them). "Lot of gold" is not so much, I still repeat that 1 food 1 gold is the WORSE possible tiles after tundra/desert...

Ok, I'll try to answer again to all this things. Let's analyze this. Coast yields = 1 food 1 gold. This means it's worse than plains, grassland, plains with hills, grassland with hills, any wood tiles, any jungles tiles. It's only better than desert and tundra. After you've built the harbor...

?? If I lose half of tiles on the coast I have 50 % less good tiles and 50 % less probability to get a good spot for my districts, not even counting that I will be vulnerable to ships (even barbarian one) and that sea resources give almost no productions (which is one of the most valuable thing...

Yeah you could use only 1 canal but 2 cities instead of 1, that's true, but usually this means 2 suboptimal cities. Anyway It seemed to me that was just an island, I was wrong, but I think my theory doesn't change a lot :lol: In 99 % of times it's still better to build 2 more ships than 1/2...

Even for a map like that building not 1 but 2 canal district would just give you few movement bonus (like 5/6 more turns before to start the war, in the worst case). Building 2 canals probably will cost like 2 districts, so if they don't give any other bonus it would still be better use that...

Forts was exactly what came up in my mind. In a game with huge lacks of production it never happened to me to spend some precious production for an engineer when for the same amount I could build a totally new unit (that really often can be way more usefull than that little fort bonus). On the...

On Pangea is 0,000001 %. On continent 1 %. Yeah, on a map totally based on water, Coastal cities can be sort of good pretty often, but that should be something obvious.

If they don't give bonus to Canals I'm afraid they will be nice to see but pretty useless, expecially in 99 % of the maps...I hope they have some type of bonus.

Nice job! But I didn't understand if you created a Mod with this feature or not, are you working on it?

The point is that at the moment the map gives you land suited for a naval empire maybe on 1 % of the game (if you are not playing a small map type or similar, obviously). You are taking about something that almost never happen, 99 % of time land based Civs are way better than the "sea one".

I appreciated that they are trying to buff trade routes on the sea! I don't know if it's enough but at least that's the right direction, even if all other problems are still here.

Saying "Rome" I was meaning the Roman Empire! Anyway I think we all can agree that expecially in the past the sea trade routes where incredibly important for a country, but I think that Firaxis can't just give a boost to them. First, because at the moment there's not a real difference between...