1. Shoshone. When they were first leaked, I thought "why them?" but after I realized that they were meshing all the Shoshone tribes into one, like their cousins the Comanche, I started to like them. Their UU and UA, if they go unchanged fits into my style of play perfectly, as I love to explore...
An Israel civ would be great, but I don't think they'd put it in a full-blown for political reasons. If anything, Firaxis would put them as stand-alone DLC so that those offended by it (don't ask me why, I'm just acknowledging those people exist) can simply not buy it.
I agree, I really wish...
It was hard for me to choose as well. I am happy about most of the new civs, though I wish they would still put in Israel, and the archeology looks fun. But I think I am looking most forward to the new culture and tourism system.
I hope so. I am not a fan of Venice! I wouldn't mind seeing the Sioux or any tribe in the western half of the North American continent, like the Apache or the Inuit. I know people say there is the Alphabetical Achievement list, but I don't think that that is as big a factor as every one says...
I completely agree with you. I love the Cherokee, but I think that Sioux, Apache, Comanche, or even the Inuit would be a good idea. If we can't have the Cherokee then I would like to see the Comanche, some of the greatest light horsemen of all history.
I can't stand dealing with disorder as well, so I use the governor to manage the citizens moods. Just right click on a city and select contact governor, and then click manages citizens moods in all cities. Yes sometimes it feels like cheating, but I have always hated when I am 2 turns away...
I also like the way that Civ III LHs changed era's, however civ IVs are better done. I wish they would have put Lincoln back in Civ Iv instead of Roosevelt.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.