Recent content by swilhelm73

Bismark is the one exception to that list in that he was sacked, but his state continued to be a great power afterwords. I think we have Monty and Huayna because of the lack of knowledge of their actual expansive leaders. Though more so for Monty, IIRC, they could, and should, have used...

Hmm, what Civilization would Zenobia have led? Carthage, Egypt, Arab, Greek, or Roman?

Should the French get Édouard Daladier as a leader for the same reason? Or the Chinese Zhu Youjian? Or heck, why not give the Celts Vercingetorix? The mark of leaders in Civ should something more then just lost completely but did better then expected. If you want a Celtic leader in...

Well, how can you leave out Imperial Spain, the Caliphate, the Ottoman Turks, the Mongols, the Victorian British, etc?

If you play with unlimited leaders they can be pretty good. Yeah the UU is one of the weakest, but the UB is IMO the best in the game. Note too their UU isn't worthless. It makes a good escort unit when you are brining up extra siege units to your SODs, and is reasonably good when you need...

That's a good point. Generally Civ4 gives civilization strong leaders from history and Deng (Organized, Industrious?) would then be a MUCH better choice then Mao for a modern Chinese leader. Of course the Celts have Boudica who is best known for losing her minor kingdom and then a war, so...

Well, that depends how successful. At something like 100 WW per city taken, it does add up...

IIRC, WW is increased by war activities. Capturing cities will give you a lot of WW, killing enemy units in enemy territory will give you a little WW, and WW decreases slightly each turn. Also, there are a number of ways to minimize WW - Police State, Mt Rushmore, and Jails. If you run all...

Carthage probably should have more leaders. Hannibal was an exceptional general - but Carthage was a major power obviously before even the first Punic War. So perhaps Hannibal Mago - Fin, Agg Himilco the Navigator - Fin, Org

So I tried my first game on the circle map. I choose the Romans on Monarch. I got iron working early and conquered my neighbor to the north and south. How much longer should I try to keep expanding though with my Prats before I settle down and focus on buildings, wonders and such? Save...

I just started playing Rise of Rome and put together an army as Rome and went after Carthage. I notice I'm behind the real Punic war schedule, but I just took Carthage....and no victory points... Are there any discussions about this scenario, I tried looking and could not find any...thanks...

One of the changes I would argue strongly for is that there should be a gradual return to neutral relations presuming no other actions. It is rather silly that in 1950 you can have -x from "you traded with our worst enemy" when you traded said enemy corn in 2000 BC. And conversely if you and...

IMO, you actually should be able to stay neutral and not incur everyone's wrath. The Allies, for example, did not immediately DOW Sweden after WWII just because Sweden refused to join with the Allies/stop trading with the Axis. Of course there should be a temporary relation hit. But...

I'm the Inca and I have just defeated Carthage in a war. I border Brennus - who I've fought before, and the Ottomans. I am hoping to win a Domination victory, so eventually I will need to conquer just about everyone - but I am trying to decide my next target. Brennus has a higher power...

Also, it isn't a bad idea to plan one city with access to a few food sources and not much else to be your draft/Shakespeare's theater city. You won't need more then 7 tiles when you get fully going. But you do want access to as many food bonus tiles as possible out of those 7.