Remind me again if you wanted to accept that avatar bet? If you think people are delusional for thinking Venice is in (meaning that I'm delusional), I'm willing to demonstrate my confidence. If Venice is not in, I'll wear an avatar of your choice, if Venice is in, you have to wear an avatar of my choice. Deal?
Remind me again if you wanted to accept that avatar bet? If you think people are delusional for thinking Venice is in (meaning that I'm delusional), I'm willing to demonstrate my confidence. If Venice is not in, I'll wear an avatar of your choice, if Venice is in, you have to wear an avatar of my choice. Deal?
LoL! Pacal dropped to his knees and raised him arms up to the sky looking upwards and said that as I removed him from my game the other day! I laughed hard! Possibly the greatest "defeated" line in the game.
LoL! Pacal dropped to his knees and raised him arms up to the sky looking upwards and said that as I removed him from my game the other day! I laughed hard! Possibly the greatest "defeated" line in the game.
I dunno, montezuma's "my warriors are pathetic and weak, I'm glad you've killed them!" Or askia's "the fires of war have consumes us, all hope is lost. Enjoy your victory in this world... You will pay a hefty sum in the next." Or Cathrine's flirting are all good contenders.
Remind me again if you wanted to accept that avatar bet? If you think people are delusional for thinking Venice is in (meaning that I'm delusional), I'm willing to demonstrate my confidence. If Venice is not in, I'll wear an avatar of your choice, if Venice is in, you have to wear an avatar of my choice. Deal?
honestly I only joined this forum to access the compilation of screens and videos on BNW, and I probably won't ever come back once the game is out. Venice is probably in the game, which isn't the cause of my ire, even though there are many better choices. I am repulsed by the arrogance of the people here, who have behaved not unlike sheep. Debate and conversation often has fallen before assumption and ignorance.
If you want me to change my avatar if Venice is revealed, I will not resist; however, I do not desire to change yours.
Venice is probably in the game, which isn't the cause of my ire, even though there are many better choices. I am repulsed by the arrogance of the people here, who have behaved not unlike sheep. Debate and conversation often has fallen before assumption and ignorance.
To be fair most of the "assumption" that goes on is based on credible evidence. You say yourself that you think Venice is likely in the game, yet are upset that others are also doing so...
While it is not a given that they will be (though evidence does suggest it), what is wrong with people speculating? People in this thread are giving their opinions on what the 'new, different civ' is. If the popular contender is Venice, why wouldn't there be people mainly going with that?
It is pretty self righteous to lambaste people for going with the evidence at hand. Before Venice was so strongly supported there were major speculations about numerous other Civs, and people were giving lots of ideas and possibilities. Most of them have faded away as the number Civs remaining shrinks, with the most likely candidates being the ones that are discussed the most.
I fail to see how people are arrogant or sheep like for following the evidence at hand. Only cool people go with that for which there is no evidence?
Especially considering the arrogance in your own post about how there are many better choices than Venice. Perhaps in your mind there is, but that doesn't make it fact. There are many Venice supporters out there, so to suggest that you are right and they are wrong is the definition of arrogance.
To be fair most of the "assumption" that goes on is based on credible evidence. You say yourself that you think Venice is likely in the game, yet are upset that others are also doing so...
While it is not a given that they will be (though evidence does suggest it), what is wrong with people speculating? People in this thread are giving their opinions on what the 'new, different civ' is. If the popular contender is Venice, why wouldn't there be people mainly going with that?
It is pretty self righteous to lambaste people for going with the evidence at hand. Before Venice was so strongly supported there were major speculations about numerous other Civs, and people were giving lots of ideas and possibilities. Most of them have faded away as the number Civs remaining shrinks, with the most likely candidates being the ones that are discussed the most.
I fail to see how people are arrogant or sheep like for following the evidence at hand. Only cool people go with that for which there is no evidence?
Especially considering the arrogance in your own post about how there are many better choices than Venice. Perhaps in your mind there is, but that doesn't make it fact. There are many Venice supporters out there, so to suggest that you are right and they are wrong is the definition of arrogance.
You don't want to engage this guy on matters concerning Venice. He should really have warning lights placed in his sig
And for Percee, dude, if you're gunna leave cos this place is so terrible, don't tell that to us, leave with a little gentlemanliness and respect please .
The odd-ball civ is Vatican City (with one new religious CS being introduced to fill the void).
UA - Monastic Society: +2 faith per city. Automatically found a religion when you start the game. You cannot build or buy settlers (you still start with your initial settler, however). Any city that is 80% your religion flips to your control. Cannot have a pantheon or founder belief.
UU - Arch-Bishop: Replaces the missionary. Costs 1.5x whatever a missionary would normally cost (depending on era, etc.). Has a passive ability to spread religion to any city within two tiles of the unit. Does not lose conversion strength in foreign territory, but starts with 2/3 the usual strength of a missionary.
UU - Swiss Guard: Replaces the pikeman. Gets a bonus when fighting near the capital. When garrisoned inside the capital itself, the Swiss Guard has +20% combat strength that stacks with the near-capital bonus, and takes damage itself for any attack made against the capital (going so far as to die before the city begins taking any damage).
The whole Israel/Vatican thing is a lost cause (although a Popemobile UU replacing the Tank would be the best thing Firaxis ever made). G&K was perfect for both, and neither turned up. Religion has had its turn in the spotlight, and religion is the only reason that Israel and/or Vatican would come in.
Unlikely. This forum doesn't need any "spoof" to produce walls of speculation. Any piece of information would lead to the same effect. Imagine something like "Next revealed civ will have unique improvement" - we'd have threads of the same size.
A Sioux civilization could expand, in terms of permanent Sioux territory, by leaving a trail of claimed hexes each time their nomadic capital moved on, possibly relocating to follow a mobile buffalo resource that the Sioux capital has to settle on.
Upon reaching the Industrialisation Era the Sioux capital then becomes permanently fixed.
However, it would also make sense if both the Huns and Mongol civilisations could be changed (or convertible) to this nomadic mode, as well as a potential Aboriginal civilization (Australia).
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.