Recent content by Something12

They are redundant, we don’t need two different ways to settle a city when settlers do it just fine, it would only contribute to feature creep. The game tells you where their are city locations that would receive loyalty pressure, and even then it’s not like you place a city outside of a 6 tile...

It is redundant in that we don’t need 2 different ways to settle a city when settlers do it just fine, and I don’t see how it would make the game “more fluid” or somehow “kickstart” the early game when it could easily just be achieved by having settlers make the cities, in fact I say it might...

There is a reason why you can’t build spies normally until the renaissance and the amount you can build is limited, getting all your gold robbed, your only great work stolen and your governor neutralized in the early game does not sound fun, and being able to just spam spies in order to use...

I find the game is already too fast when my army is outdated by the time I finish upgrading it, and I don’t understand how it would make the game more fun or “faster” when all it does is just add completely redundant features by having 2 things both settle a city, but you do you. It is still...

Your solution ends up being more redundant when you add a ability to make a city from a city while also having settlers, this wouldn’t improve the game, it will just add more features that really don’t need to be there. in addition I do not look forward to needing to take 30 turns to build one...

Pretty much everything makes the game slower, but builders and settlers not being able to just teleport is good for strategy and doesn’t really slow the gameplay in my experience, it would feel incredibly weird if they could just teleport away whenever I get a unit close to them, and is...

So? Still increases strategy and needing to move your units isn’t very annoying personally. on the pop size limit, just make it so you choose a line of buildings first and the amount of building “trees” would be limited by pop, but the pillaging part is a valid reason to keep districts even in...

It makes sense from a strategy standpoint, since they become targets in war in order to weaken your opponents while gaining more resources in developing your empire, therefore increasing options in warfare without overcomplicating it. If they have no strategy in placement and can be built...

How are needing to move settlers and builders around “make no sense” when it takes 40 years for some warriors to move across a river? I find it adds strategy when you need to defend them from other civs that you may be at war with. At that point just remove the districts. I don’t see how this...

I value good gameplay more than historical realism, and generally making cities able to do everything at once reduces strategy and therefore makes the gameplay worse, but that’s just my opinion.

Where is the strategy in being able to do everything at once and research everything at the same time?

Again, wouldn’t that lead to an ancient + classical era that lasts hundreds upon hundreds of turns on standard speed? Also if a player is having to fight tanks with crossbowmen that means one of 2 things 1. They didn’t invest enough in research 2. Somehow the opposing player got away with just...

G I’m not talking about having a 700 turn long game which isn’t a problem, I’m talking about having a 700 turn ancient + classical era which seems a little extreme for a standard speed game and seems to be the goal of the original poster considering he mentioned that it’s for giving more time...

Wouldn’t this lead to an over 700 turn long ancient + classical era? assuming my math is correct and since you want longer Era’s and don’t want the Medieval Era in 5000 BC? Or am I missing something? Also your idea of letting people settle cities anywhere doesn’t sound very fun, I don’t want the...