Recent content by VeronicaCardican

The question is: If you have the means to convert enemy cities like that, why not omit the bloodshed and just win a religious victory?

That depends on the specific situation. In general it's better to kill a civ that's close to religious victory rather than trying to convert them. But if you are the last civ that hasn't been converted to their faith, yet, then conquering their cities can make their religion dominant in your...

I agree. It's one thing to say that in a domination centered game, gold trumps culture/faith and thus Kongo can't make optimal use of a certain very specialized (and arguably cheesy) strategy. But claiming that everything else is indisputable because not going on a rampage to transform Civ VI...

Maybe this is related to the fact that you can nuke your allies' cities with no effect on the alliance.

Mont St. Michel itself has two Relic slots. Also I remember getting relics for Apostles who died at the sword of military units. So the restrictions of theological combat can be circumvented.

You don't need spies to please Catherine. She mainly judges you by the visibility level you have with other civs. Sending envoys and establishing embassies is sufficient usually.

The correct change of behaviour is that they should be more inclined to declare war against you. A successfull conquest leaves you in a position of relative power that tends to get stronger over time because conquering is faster than settling. If they don't force a fight soon, chances are that...

How on earth would that be a blessing??? You can play absolutely every civ that way by just not building any holy sites. Voilà! Every civ blessed with no effort at all.

Most agendas will generate likes or dislikes based on your choices. It's just another value to consider when making up your strategy. You may be inclined to collect plenty of Great Writers/Artists/Musicians to gear up for your culture win. But if you know, Pedro is in the game, be prepared for...

The table with transition numbers opens up a new view on what our diplomatic modifiers actually do. Up till now the mist accepted theory was that the tooltip shows the delta of diplomatic score and reaching certain score thresholds would gradually result in a change in diplomatic stance (mood)...

I disagree here. I don't see the primary role of agendas in added immersion. Instead they are a solid game mechanism to give players the ability to influence AI opinion of a players' civ. Agendas add a separate layer of goals to achieve. If I value my relations with Norway, I will maintain a...

I didn't mean to contradict you. That's more of an explanation for why former friends declare war in spite of good diplomatic relations. That your trades become worse before the war is just the same thing I posted above. I get bad trading terms even in games where I manage to get by without...

I could imagine that the game evaluates the player as simply as: IF player has more than average #cities, research, culture, score AND at least one city taken by force THEN player is a significant threat that should be contained.

You may still want those universities around for their great scientist points anyway. If you are aiming for a science victory, Sagan and Kwolek will aid your space projects a lot.

I always had the feeling that there is a severe trade penalty for being in the lead. When I am approaching hegemony, friends and frenemies alike seem to demand outrageous trade deals like 1:3 luxury exchanges. I found that accepting such lopsided deals helps keeping the peace. I don't loathe...