KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Giving mines +1 with Dynamite and Trading posts +1 with Economics (but making them +1 without)
would help.
would help.
Something has to be seriously tweaked here, else all those buildings are only good for very small 'empires'.
Buildings are too expensive and provide too little bonus. Those +xp buildings are unnecessary as you can gain xp faster by beating up barbarians.
So, either those buildings cost less shields or provide better gains. They said, you need to specialize your cities. However, now what you build for a bigger empire are +happiness buildings and + gold stuff. This has nothing to do with diversifying your cities.
Penalties for big empires are so big, it is not civilization as it used to be. Civ games have always been about building something big. Just look at the silly nation wonders. Must have the building in every city? So, again you are discouraged to expand.
BTW -
The other problem... there's really no "distance from capital" penalty that I'm able to find... I suppose you could say trade network is harder -- but it seems like there's little point in "logically" expanding. Instead -- I just pick the best spots on the continent and scatter all over the place.
Taj Mahal gave me a 50+ turn GA last night.
Maybe it's dependent on game speed. When I built it, I didn't get quite 50+, but it was certainly much more than 8. It was long enough for me to be spoiled enough to be severely disappointed when the GA ended.
Giving mines +1 with Dynamite and Trading posts +1 with Economics (but making them +1 without)
would help.
In short, what I was trying to get across is that I think there’s room in Civ 5 for a tile improvement (apart from the manufactory) that adds hammers to a (particularly non-riverside) grassland or plains tile. (I’d like to see riverside grassland or plains tiles meanwhile have the option of having watermill improvements built on them, as I mentioned in my earlier post.) That way, the civver has the choice of adding food (via a farm), gold (via a trading post) or hammers (via what I’ve called a windmill) to these tiles. .
Anyone also notice some wonders being utterly useless? I.E. Pyramids.. 50% worker production? Worker production is only important for the 1st, 2nd worker, and by that time you won't have the wonder.
Maybe it's dependent on game speed. When I built it, I didn't get quite 50+, but it was certainly much more than 8. It was long enough for me to be spoiled enough to be severely disappointed when the GA ended.
EDIT: I was playing on standard FYI.
I appreciate that I think they were going for a more balanced approach of you not wanting to build every building in every city ala Civ4, but it does seem for some of the buildings that the benefit vs. maintenance should be tweaked somewhat. I think it really encourages city specialization.
However, people should at least consider the possibility that rather than Civ V being wrong, that Civ IV was wrong.
Civ IV building system made it so building was fun, for you gain inmediate, tangible effects and consequences of your actions, and forced you to make hard choices between developing your cities VS building armies and furthermore, even if in the endgame you would end up with cities populated with almost every type of building on them, the building order would define and specialize each city trought the ages.
Meanliwhile, in comparation the Civ V building system punish builders, and takes the decision away from the player: if you have 30 or so buildings possible yet only a couple of them are useful, you are not giving 30 options to the player, but rather limiting him to 2 or 3 and turning every city into a "vainlla city", with little, if any possibility of specialization.
How in the world can a limiting, non flexible, restricted system be better? Sid Meier once said that "gaming is a series of interesting decisions". Civ V building system revolves around taking decisions and options from the player's hand. It is plain and simple bad game design.