Adding bonuses to civs (hasn’t truly been sandbox since)So out of curiosity, which changes were so much bigger than Civ Switching? And by the way, I don't think there is an objective statement about this after all.
Adding bonuses to civs (hasn’t truly been sandbox since)So out of curiosity, which changes were so much bigger than Civ Switching? And by the way, I don't think there is an objective statement about this after all.
Indeed. I remember the old Civ2 :/Adding bonuses to civs (hasn’t truly been sandbox since)
Well a "historical path" like Greece - Normans certainly sounds broken to me, and speculations like Persia - Mongols - Russia don't sound much better to me either. But fair enough, if you are not convinced that fixing is necessary, that's a perfectly fine opinion too.Truth. But as I said I just don't agree with the framing of the poll here. I'm not sure if I like the civ switching feature yet, but I also wouldn't say I don't like it yet, nor that I think it needs to be "fixed."
The fact that two answers are that it needs "fixing" are still quite presumptuous to me.
Well a "historical path" like Greece - Normans certainly sounds broken to me, and speculations like Persia - Mongols - Rome don't sound much better to me either. But fair enough, if you are not convinced that fixing is necessary, that's a perfectly fine opinion too.
For you, that's really a bigger change, than not being able to play your original Civ throughout all ages anymore?Adding bonuses to civs (hasn’t truly been sandbox since)
First they add bonuses…after that it’s bonus management 0->1bonus set is a bigger jump than 1->3 bonus setsFor you, that's really a bigger change, than not being able to play your original Civ throughout all ages anymore?![]()
It made the Civ game we know. The competition between a lot of unique civs with its own ability inspired from its history. In my opinion, Civ7 is just one of the similar series using this format, with more specific focus.For you, that's really a bigger change, than not being able to play your original Civ throughout all ages anymore?![]()
So out of curiosity, which changes were so much bigger than Civ Switching? And by the way, I don't think there is an objective statement about this after all.
I think that isn't simple at all.
For one, it forces every civ to now have 3x as much design depth as they would with just era-specific bonuses, effectively tripling the design/balancing workload.
For two, it still likely will result in a lot of civs feeling kind of samey/impotent in "offline" eras that don't highlight the era they would want to be designed for.
We haven't seen any indication the game will be designed like this, so until we see evidence of it I'm discarding what is essentially a many worlds theory as not being worth all the vague implausibility it opens up.
Civ switching is definitely a big change, conceptually. And it obviously is because a lot of people are still struggling with it.For you, that's really a bigger change, than not being able to play your original Civ throughout all ages anymore?![]()
For you, that's really a bigger change, than not being able to play your original Civ throughout all ages anymore?![]()
I think they're both big changes. I'll miss ancient USA.First they add bonuses…after that it’s bonus management 0->1bonus set is a bigger jump than 1->3 bonus sets
That is why Crises makes me very slightly hopeful. It’s actually a “negative” thing being added. (and the Age system means many bonuses don’t stack because they are limited to one age)I think they're both big changes. I'll miss ancient USA.
But don't underestimate the gameplay effect of all the bonuses. Absolute optimal play revolves around stacking bonuses. The more you add, the easier it gets to stack. It's a sugar rush. Player loves the taste, but they're hungry again 2 hours later.
CK3 had that problem. Most players could and did stack enough bonuses on their Men at Arms or knights, that they could stomp any military opposition. Mongols invade and outnumber you 8 to 1? No big deal. Political intrigue? No threat. Doesn't matter your ruler is a blind 2 year old. You've stacked MaA bonuses and have a treasury to afford infinite war(by using Norse legacy bonuses to earn 50-100 gold after every battle and reinvesting it in your economy).
I'd prefer Firaxis not go down a similar road, but there is a distinct danger they'll get there the more uniques added. Everybody'll be happy initially, but unsatisfied in the long term.
So out of curiosity, which changes were so much bigger than Civ Switching?
Yes. It actually added a lot of what has been built on now. I loved every bit of it personally.Civ3 introduced borders and resources, didn't it?
I don't know what Civ 4.3.0 isIt’s a much better approach than if we were just getting Civ 4.3.0
The Ages itself and the associated Crises could be interesting, though.