Age of Imperialism

[OrderofOlav]

I see where you are getting from, but isn't each Civ supposed to make you play just a little differently? The Dervish state is all about being defensive (but also being strong in the offense when being attacked).

 

[Hoop Thrower]

I admit that the Qal'qat Increasing Military unit production for every Defensive Building in the city would be amusing and awesome.

 

[DoctorMcGann]

Well, it could be changed to the arsenal which would make it less historically accurate. But really, is a late era building that bad, all the WWII Civs seem to do just fine with them. Either way don't worry about the effects, they are worth it

Edit: yeah I admit I play also with extended Eras and never get to the modern era (mostly due to crashes). But I don't see the point of picking a Civ with specials for a certain era and not playing in that era. When I play Stalin for instance I make sure I start at least in the Renaissance, besides you get the cavalry UU in the Industrial era, which is one era before the modern one, I don't really see the problem (not that we are not willing to change it though ).

I literally never start in any era other than ancient. It feels really weird to start a civ game with three settlers and a bunch of units.

 

[Zantonius Hamm]

Whether it replaces the Arsenal or the Military Base doesn't matter too much, at least not to me. I always end up building all defensive buildings in my games, and I always play to the end, except if defeat is obvious. To me, the Military Base is actually available quite early. I mean, come on, the Modern era is just 75% through the game... you still have both the Atomic and Information eras left. It's like entering the Medieval era and thinking "Oh, soon I'll be in the Industrial era and half way through the game!"; it doesn't work like that.

I admit that the Qal'qat Increasing Military unit production for every Defensive Building in the city would be amusing and awesome.

It won't. :X But I promise it'll be interesting if I manage to code the current concept.

I literally never start in any era other than ancient. It feels really weird to start a civ game with three settlers and a bunch of units.

Same.

 

[OrderofOlav]

Well, I have to when I try to play with a modern modded Civ, because like I said, everything eventually crashes on me :/
My point was it is silly not to play towards an era where a certain Civ's uniques kick in, but that was not what Hooptrowers problem was so nvm.

 

[Tarmont]

Whether it replaces the Arsenal or the Military Base doesn't matter too much, at least not to me. I always end up building all defensive buildings in my games, and I always play to the end, except if defeat is obvious. To me, the Military Base is actually available quite early. I mean, come on, the Modern era is just 75% through the game... you still have both the Atomic and Information eras left. It's like entering the Medieval era and thinking "Oh, soon I'll be in the Industrial era and half way through the game!"; it doen't work like that.

Different playstyles I guess. Somewhere between Medieval~Renaissance, the game pretty much stales and it gets on a point where you know that you're going to win (Aka far much more population and science than the second player, usually after you conquer your first capital), so why bother?

I personally think that, when you are that far much ahead in the game, unique thingys pretty much "obsolete" due to your overall generation of production and gold; The uniques simply don't matter anymore.

 

[Zantonius Hamm]

I play on a low difficulty, anyway (King), so I think a lot of people will play the game different from me. Even if I were to start playing on Emperor+, I think I would still play to the end, just because.
The staled game only happens to me once I reach the Atomic era and only if I go for a victory other than Domination. Therefore I never go for Science victory, because it is itensely boring.

 

[OrderofOlav]

I think a game getting stale is because of the way you set it up, I always play with as much AI as possible on huge maps, or play in later era's, so it takes a while for it to get stale for me. But I acknowledge that that is probably not the play style of the average Civ player.

 

[Zantonius Hamm]

I once played on the smallest map size, with max AI. It was amazing, and it felt like a real competitive game for once. You had to fight for survival. For reelz.

Now that I said that I really wanna try it again...

 

[Natan35]

In My first game with mods i started in the industrial era... in earth map, with 3 Russias and Stalin.
(Then i realized how powerful nukes are )

 

[OrderofOlav]

Yeah I'm really boring in that regard, I want everything to be as historically accurate as possible. I don't remember the last time I didn't play with Yneamp, which is something I'm really focused on having with modded Civ's. It is always disappointing to see a Civ not included on a map he is supposed to be on
In retrospect I should probably gather their geographic locations myself and give them to the authors.

 

[Zantonius Hamm]

Could you find the true start location position for Taleh, then? I can't use YnAEMP because it keeps CTDing me, so I see no point to add it for own use.

 

[OrderofOlav]

Of course! Not at this exact moment but soonish!

 

[Natan35]

Why... why would you make a civ led by a deposed king? Manuel I is better choice for Portugal, i think...
(Fun fact: Manuel II was called "the unfortunate", and Manuel I was called "the fortunate" )

 

[Zantonius Hamm]

Because he was the most voted for. We (sorta) practice democracy here, lad.

 

[Natan35]

A colonial civs thread that practices democracy... that chooses a deposed king... just saying.

 

[JFD]

A colonial civs thread that practices democracy... that chooses a deposed king... just saying.

You're saying nothing, because monarchy and democracy are not mutually exclusive; including as the means of selecting a monarch.

Unless you're saying something else, but it's my duty to drill it into your head

 

[OrderofOlav]

Haha, better listen Natan, Jfd knows what he is talking about!

 

[Hoop Thrower]

Besides, Pedro II was a deposed Emperor and you'll be hardpressed to find a Brazilian saying he wasn't the most (or at least second most) fitting choice.

 

[OrderofOlav]

Exactly, you can choose to have a person represent a country (or a certain state the country was in) not only based on their reign. Manuels devotion to his country was really admirable.