theguy8882
Warlord
- Joined
- May 20, 2012
- Messages
- 201
Could someone tell me what exactly the Austrians ability is?
Austria
- Thread starter fuzzatron717
- Start date
fuzzatron717
Holy Warrior
you have to make a city-state an ally and then give the city-state some gold (unknown how much) and they become a part of your empire.
theguy8882
Warlord
- Joined
- May 20, 2012
- Messages
- 201
That's awesome! But is there a second part or is that it (no complaints just curiosity). And where did you find that info. I feel kind of out of the loop compared to everyone else on this forum.
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
Screenshots, news articles, vidoes.. tehre is plenty of "articles" check the Arioch's Well of Soul page for God and Kings, at the bottom are links to various videos, screenshots and articles about God and Kings.
fuzzatron717
Holy Warrior
but no second part
theguy8882
Warlord
- Joined
- May 20, 2012
- Messages
- 201
thanks!
Heinage
Khan
Anyone else think that Austria should only be able to "marry" city-states that it borders?
This would keep it realistic in terms of the historical spread of their empire (central European contiguous empire) as well as limit gameplay abuse where they are acquiring overseas territories from which to launch attacks.
That actually makes me aware of a third point. Being able to marry city-states on the other side of the world would instantly turn them into a de-facto colonial empire, seriously stepping on the toes if England, Spain, and the already too-weak Dutch.
Perhaps limiting them to only be able to marry city-states they border could be balanced by making their start position biased towards having more city-states surround them than normal. Again, that would serve to create a more realistic flavour to the game as central Europe was/is filled with city-states.
Thoughts? Comments?
This would keep it realistic in terms of the historical spread of their empire (central European contiguous empire) as well as limit gameplay abuse where they are acquiring overseas territories from which to launch attacks.
That actually makes me aware of a third point. Being able to marry city-states on the other side of the world would instantly turn them into a de-facto colonial empire, seriously stepping on the toes if England, Spain, and the already too-weak Dutch.
Perhaps limiting them to only be able to marry city-states they border could be balanced by making their start position biased towards having more city-states surround them than normal. Again, that would serve to create a more realistic flavour to the game as central Europe was/is filled with city-states.
Thoughts? Comments?
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
I agree, but even then I only plan to Annex the citiy on my borders anyway.
What would make sense it to make the required cost to acquire the city state by imposing a rate that depends on distance from the cultural tiles, so a city that touches at least a single tile would have the lowest cost to annex, and a city that is far away, the highest, it could also make sense to impose a water tax, so if it's on another island there is increased cost.
What would make sense it to make the required cost to acquire the city state by imposing a rate that depends on distance from the cultural tiles, so a city that touches at least a single tile would have the lowest cost to annex, and a city that is far away, the highest, it could also make sense to impose a water tax, so if it's on another island there is increased cost.
Heinage
Khan
For all we know perhaps they are already implementing something like this where it's easier to have influence with a city-state when you are close to them and conversely harder when you are far away.
This would, again, make sense historically and gameplay-wise...
This would, again, make sense historically and gameplay-wise...
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I disagree strongly with the word "contiguous." In fact, I was commenting recently that this ability is more accurate because Austria's territory was so scattered.
Here is a decent map circa 1700 that shows you some of their scattered territories.
Another from 1547
Here is another one from 1538.
Here is the 14th Century (I'm going backwards in time apparently).
Heinage
Khan
Louis XXIV said:
Ok, so perhaps contiguous wasn't the right word. But their main power base was central European and they didn't spread to distant continents.
So maybe if it's just made harder to have sustained influence with city-states that are further away from your capital (as mentioned in my post above yours), this would be enough.
I'd like to point out that that would be an interesting game mechanic to implement in general, not just from austria's point of view.
King Kalmah
Magyar Madness
umm no because if Austria would have taken over Italy then it would of had the naval power to expand over seas like English,Spain,France,yada yada yada...
They only had a single port on the Adriatic Sea "Rijeka" and its population was only 500 people in 1500ad.It wasn't until nearly 250 years later that it became a major port city.You cannot forget that the Turks were always fighting the Austrians.
If Austria had defeated the Turks in 1500ad it is very probable that they could have beat the French/Portuguese to Caribbean islands or even Asia...
I know I know its all heresy,but you gotta love CIV for giving us the chance to act out/live out these scenarios....
If it was all based in history then we wouln't have the United States of Russia or the USSA?
Heinage
Khan
Those are some big "ifs".
IF they had taken care of the Ottomans. IF they had taken Italy.
Basically IF they were the next best thing since the Romans, yeah I guess they would have been a colonial power.
That's like saying...If the Germans had won WW2, they would have been the first to send a man to the moon, so lets give them a Unique Ability which will help them build Space ship parts faster.
If no limit is set to Austria's UA (with regard to distance from capital), it will basically end up letting them spread accross the globe faster than the English can say: "Land Ahoy!"
(was gonna use a Spanish quote but can't fine one
)The problem is not so much in the fact that the UA will allow this to happen. It's more so in the fact that it will be abused and result in the game being played "unrealistically" (i.e. not staying true to the flavour of the civ)
To summarise my point, I shouldn't (and don't want to) be able to say the following:
"Hey, if I want to play a colonial game, I'll pick Austria. They're much better at letting me colonise the planet than England, Spain, or the Netherlands"
King Kalmah
Magyar Madness
You got to give the Ottomons credit they were a super power of their day.They ripped through Wallachia and Hungary.The Austrians had good strategic position and a good military in the 1800s.Keep in mind in the 1500s they were much to small to take back those lands that the Turks had just taken.Then theres the fact that it would have taken a miracle to push them back to Constantinople.The Ottomons were just that powerful...
If no limit is set to Austria's UA (with regard to distance from capital), it will basically end up letting them spread accross the globe faster than the English can say: "Land Ahoy!"
(was gonna use a Spanish quote but can't fine one
The problem is not so much in the fact that the UA will allow this to happen. It's more so in the fact that it will be abused and result in the game being played "unrealistically" (i.e. not staying true to the flavour of the civ)
Well it would just allow you to get cities faster.Pretty sure you still need the economy to support it,but you are correct that it will be abused and we can't have Austria beating Spain...
Next to England ...Spain was pretty much all over the place,,..
I agree 100% with this because Austria should never trump colonial powers.
We both know alot of the knowledge came from the German Scientists that the United States brought back from Europe.Wernher Von Braun was a recipient of a National Medal of Science and was instrumental to NASA.Von Braun was the chief architect of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the superbooster that propelled the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.His crowning achievement was to lead the development of the Saturn V booster rocket that helped land the first men on the Moon in July 1969.
Thats just one scientist.Many more came from Germany too....
on the last topic please private message me if you wish to pursuit this topic.I don't want to derail this thread.
Heinage
Khan
Rather than private message you, i'll use this forum as a place of discussion.
On this point, we are both very much in agreement. That is exactly the point I was trying to make. The fact that the Ottomans were right there on Austria's doorstep making life difficult and that it would have been a major (if not impossible) task to nullify the Ottoman (Turkish) threat. You suggested earlier that if Austria had been able to overcome the Turks and take Italy, they could have been a colonial power, but now point out (as I was trying to do) why that is fanciful idea at best.
Anyways, I think we agree on enough to move on
We both don't want to see Austria being used as a colonial style civ, so lets hope the devs have thought about this just as much as we clearly have 
King Kalmah
Magyar Madness
Rather than private message you, i'll use this forum as a place of discussion.
On this point, we are both very much in agreement. That is exactly the point I was trying to make. The fact that the Ottomans were right there on Austria's doorstep making life difficult and that it would have been a major (if not impossible) task to nullify the Ottoman (Turkish) threat. You suggested earlier that if Austria had been able to overcome the Turks and take Italy, they could have been a colonial power, but now point out (as I was trying to do) why that is fanciful idea at best.
Anyways, I think we agree on enough to move on
Well I know they could never take out the Ottomons,but I still feel it COULD have been a technical possibility for them to take out Italy or atleast "marry into" Italy.
Italy and Austria...Neighbors and all that jazz plus Italy was not unified yet...
but I love CIV for that reason it is truly the "what ifs" that bring not only the game of CIV,but history alive!
mitsho
Deity
Being able to take over cities on distant continents as bridge points is a big part of their UA and probably what makes it worthwhile from a gameplay point of view. You will hunt for suitable city states to ally and then buy quickly (for Strategic and Luxury ressources). The open question is what will happen to a) the diplomatic victory vote of the CS and b) to the unique benefit of it (mercantile seem to keep giving the luxury as it is placed below the city, but what about culture, food, faith and units?).
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Yeah, I don't think taking City-States far away will be unbalanced. It strikes me as the reason to have the ability. Taking a city-state next to you is easy.
Heinage
Khan
I'm not worried it will be unbalanced. I'm worried about Austria being made into something they shouldn't be.
You wouldn't, for example, want Nepal (if they were in the game) to have a unique ability which allows them to build an awesome navy, would you?
Sure, it might be a good ability, and a good reason to play as them if it's balanced, but it wouldn't make any sense right?
Another example would be: Give the Huns the ability to spend gold to complete a Wonder. Might be balanced, might be nice from gameplay point of view. However, it would undermine Egypt and make no sense at all, considering the flavour of the Huns as a barbaric warmongering civ.
Likewise, with Austria. Nice UA, balanced, good gameplay. But used inappropriately with no limit to acquiring city-states overseas, this would turn them into a colonial power undermining the English, Spaniards, and Dutch.
I'm not going to say the same thing again and again, so will stop here.
You wouldn't, for example, want Nepal (if they were in the game) to have a unique ability which allows them to build an awesome navy, would you?
Sure, it might be a good ability, and a good reason to play as them if it's balanced, but it wouldn't make any sense right?
Another example would be: Give the Huns the ability to spend gold to complete a Wonder. Might be balanced, might be nice from gameplay point of view. However, it would undermine Egypt and make no sense at all, considering the flavour of the Huns as a barbaric warmongering civ.
Likewise, with Austria. Nice UA, balanced, good gameplay. But used inappropriately with no limit to acquiring city-states overseas, this would turn them into a colonial power undermining the English, Spaniards, and Dutch.
I'm not going to say the same thing again and again, so will stop here.
DemonMaster
A.K.A. Fenhorn
To get a CS on the other side of the globe wouldn't be very practical. Borders create tension, so if you have a city all of a sudden with new borders that will create more tension (beside those that you already have) and that will be very far away if you need to defend it can be hard. Also that CS could have been a friend, a former ally, protected by another civ, a civ much closer to that city than you if war occurs.
Then again, if you have grandiose plans of world domination then you don't have to create a beachhead on that big other continent, you can marry yourself one.
