Recent content by Leuf

I think that could be interesting. Great People would have to be more powerful, and you'd have to remove the option to use them immediately as the civs that were using a strategy that would make them less likely to be able to hold onto them would just always pop them immediately for the short...

I wouldn't have a problem with it if you didn't need iron to build all the early siege units.

It's possible they scaled up the happiness bonuses along with the rest of the bonuses until they got the difficulty they wanted, but never experimented with different levels of happiness independently. If there wasn't a happiness bonus maybe the other bonuses would have ended up lower.

Elizabeth did that to me in the first game I played, before any patches. She had about 6 of them in a cluster with a couple knights nearby and the terrain all around was hills or forests. It was death. I had to suicide in horsemen to get it down to a manageable number of them, and then she...

Some people have decided they just don't like the game, that's fine. But then stop playing it and move on with your life then. Apparently he hasn't even played one game all the way through after the patch but he has this whole mile long rant about it. It's not about criticizing the game, it's...

Here's an idea... what if you could research certain techs a second time to get bonuses for what that tech enabled, or just go on to the next techs. And once you researched any of the techs that were dependent on that tech you couldn't go back to get that bonus. More effective military units...

The AI needs to play to win. Even if you had a huge lead the end game wouldn't be dull if the AIs dogpiled you when you completed the apollo project. My last game, on King, Monty had a tech lead and a huge military but he just sat there, even when I culture bombed him. Mechanisms for new civs...

I think the problem is that the AI doesn't seem enthusiastic about actually playing the game either, mostly preferring to just sit there acting like a two year old trying to get you to attack it. And if you did attack it, you would utterly crush them, so why are they trying to get you to do it...

Mine said 31.6 mb

March two workers straight into my army. Next turn march an unescorted settler into the same spot. I guess that kept them from losing the next city for a turn?

England thanks you for saving them from my army.

When you strip down the game to its core it is still a 2D tile based game. If you strip away the eye candy it ought to run on a 486 ;) It's the gameplay that is important. I ought to be able to play civ in windowed mode and just switch over to it for a few turns while I'm working on other...

Not tech advanced, but my last game the barbs put down a city on a hill and built walls. I parked a scout near it and watched the AI suicide one unit at a time at it. One of the barb longbowmen got up to city defense III and the other was combat II before I finally came and took it.

I think it's just psychological. Consider the reverse of attacking the city. It's pretty much guaranteed that if it is defended by 2 units and you attack with 2 units that your units will drop dead, but if you bring 6 then the first 2 win. In reality you just remember the times you couldn't...

The only upgrade in civ3 that I recall being too low was knights to cavalry. The problem is in tying the cost to the shield/hammer differential. I think it should be tied to the strength difference. For balancing reasons the shield/hammer differential doesn't always reflect the real...