Does it focus on score more?Go support Saga of Man in any way possible for you
If victory points reflect how great empire is (which is debatable currently) then sure. The world doesn't stop at 2050 ad, though. It's just for checking the scores, could be any different year.Unlike the victory points that are very "natural" and not gamey at all. Also, the world just stops at 2050 ad. very natural
It focuses more on immersion and historical concepts being correct than on anything else. Here's a link to the latest alpha, if you'd want to give it a try. Leaving comments in that thread is welcomed by the creator, so I'd take notes while you play & post them after.Does it focus on score more?
Can't currently, just bought Baldurs Gate 3It focuses more on immersion and historical concepts being correct than on anything else. Here's a link to the latest alpha, if you'd want to give it a try. Leaving comments in that thread is welcomed by the creator, so I'd take notes while you play & post them after.
I said it many times. Leave the Songhai alone. Of course they are op. The game needs a civ like that. I also think the tabya is more op than the mandekalu, even so, leave it.There was a time i didnt know why is it so strong, untill i saw amphibious Knight on a river
Im learning to play on diety now, and im at the stage im trying to judge any tile basing on its relative value,
and value of a production is a lot, especially early game. You get like 8 tiles of river near your capitol, and you are set up, to dominate
your neighbours. So yea, those Tabya-s seems like almost OP, not sure why there is this additional 10% towards buildings there. Its already strong
It also gives early culture from being UB, which at this stage of the game for many civs could be 50% more culture in the expansion cities.
Wow, is those strange triangles are offensive roads build by new automated workers? Impressed
And they clean after xD
Hmm, just wonder, do workers know, which roads were built by automated workers, so that whey dont remove roads that wer build by human?
I mean, i wonder what would happend to offensive roads build by human, is it a risk, that automated workers would remove it prematurely?
I have problem with current workers, that sometimes i build road not optimally, so that i could squize more villages between close cities, and i see sometimes, that
there are parralel roads build next to mineJust learned to accept , that i cant squize 3 villages, when on optimal road could be only 2
![]()
Why? Do we also need OP cultural victory that we had?The game needs a civ like that.
Why? Do we also need OP cultural victory that we had?
It's just so funny how things work out the wrong way. Nerf, nerf, nerf, but what do you actually achieve. Mainly, you eliminate ways of not winning the game, ever thought about that?No leave that to vanilla and civ6, we really need to nerf the most op stuff, balance is imperative to the mod.
But Mandekalu and tabya arent the game breakers, its the extra movement that really make it roll over other AI's unable to understand how to defend against it, exaggerated by UU being cav and ignoring rivers which are normally a hindrace/defensive line.
Hwatcha logistics for free is another bad one.
Thats the thing, use modmod if you want op stuff and yes Iroquois is also subject to this issue under certain circumstances, celts and kilimanjaro isnt as extreme since hills are usually spread out.Iroquois are also almost as OP as Songhai with the extra movement, extra production from longhouse, woodsman promotion. And if you play with 3/4 UC you can add prowlers (indirect fire, retreat) to the OP list.
Nerfs does not eliminate ways of winning, its supposed to eliminate trivial wins.It's just so funny how things work out the wrong way. Nerf, nerf, nerf, but what do you actually achieve. Mainly, you eliminate ways of not winning the game, ever thought about that?
It's just so funny how things work out the wrong way. Nerf, nerf, nerf, but what do you actually achieve. Mainly, you eliminate ways of not winning the game, ever thought about that?
Balance is achieved. Or at least closer to it. That's the point of nerfing OP things. Without it, it's trivial to play as OP civ and pain in a butt to play against it.It's just so funny how things work out the wrong way. Nerf, nerf, nerf, but what do you actually achieve. Mainly, you eliminate ways of not winning the game, ever thought about that?
Is it really true that people want to play op civs? A pain in the butt to play against. Yes, isn't that half the point of playing?Balance is achieved. Or at least closer to it. That's the point of nerfing OP things. Without it, it's trivial to play as OP civ and pain in a butt to play against it.
Iroquois are also almost as OP as Songhai with the extra movement, extra production from longhouse, woodsman promotion. And if you play with 3/4 UC you can add prowlers (indirect fire, retreat) to the OP list.
The half point of playing is playing an imbalanced game? What??Is it really true that people want to play op civs? A pain in the butt to play against. Yes, isn't that half the point of playing?