Kupe Navigator
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2019
- Messages
- 2,848
.... dose anyone actually do wonder victory anymore?Uh, wonder victory? Relic victory? Trade Monopoly in AoE3?
same with Trade Monopoly.
.... dose anyone actually do wonder victory anymore?Uh, wonder victory? Relic victory? Trade Monopoly in AoE3?
that's boring as heck... it is no better than AOE series in which there is no other winning condition than domination when even in real life there are other ways of becoming dominate power- like military or cultural influences for examples
And score victory IS THE WORST FORM THAT NEEDS TO BE GET RID OF! I HOPE TO SEE IT GONE IN CIV 7
Civ 6 is the worst in the series.
Beat that one.
(you all know I don't really think that, but that has to be the most unpopular opinion about Civ 6, no?)
Yes, I win most games of AoK with wonders and most games for AoE3 with trade monopoly. Whether you enjoy them or not doesn't really change the fact that they exist..... dose anyone actually do wonder victory anymore?
same with Trade Monopoly.
that's not how history works. There are many other way for a civ or a nation to be dominant. See hard power and soft power ( like USA and Britain for example) I like how in civ you can win the game without necessary having to destroy other civs and can win "peacefully"- and create a lot of culture.the victory conditions feel artificial and unintuitive. I would rather the winning Civ be the all-around best across the majority of the game and not the one spams the most rock bands in the last few dozen turns.
that's not how history works. There are many other way for a civ or a nation to be dominant. See hard power and soft power ( like USA and Britain for example) I like how in civ you can win the game without necessary having to destroy other civs and can win "peacefully"- and create a lot of culture.
that's not how history works. There are many other way for a civ or a nation to be dominant. See hard power and soft power ( like USA and Britain for example) I like how in civ you can win the game without necessary having to destroy other civs and can win "peacefully"- and create a lot of culture.
like what? having only score victory? Score is kinda meaningless in my opinion as it feels bit random and unwarranted. You have got X amount of score and it means... what? influence ( we have that in terms of diplomatic victory) culture ( culture victory) science ( science victory)If you'd read my other posts you'd see I specifically said pure military domination should be virtually impossible. I'm advocating for a victory condition that combines all aspects of the game.
like what? having only score victory? Score is kinda meaningless in my opinion as it feels bit random and unwarranted. You have got X amount of score and it means... what? influence ( we have that in terms of diplomatic victory) culture ( culture victory) science ( science victory)
Score is meaningless without context.
if you consider score=influnce we already have it as a "favour" and surviving itself is not impressive enough as many good historians will say. What they found impressive about Rome is NOT that it survived for such a long time but rather how much of a influence it had on the European culture.Maybe Civ doesn't need a victory condition at all. If I had my way the "victory condition" would be surviving the whole way through the game, something that would require not just military prowess but also diplomatic cunning, scientific advancement, skilled economic management, and religio-cultural stability and strength. Basically, invert the assumptions underlying the game's logic, taking it from one that presumes success to one that presumes failure. In other words, can you take a band of people and navigate the shoals of history all the way from 4000 BCE to 2000 CE? Many times the answer would be 'no,' and at some point along the way you would find your people conquered or absorbed or withered away. But sometimes it would be 'yes,' and it would be a great accomplishment.
that's boring as heck... it is no better than AOE series in which there is no other winning condition than domination when even in real life there are other ways of becoming dominate power- like military or cultural influences for examples
if you consider score=influnce we already have it as a "favour" and surviving itself is not impressive enough as many good historians will say. What they found impressive about Rome is NOT that it survived for such a long time but rather how much of a influence it had on the European culture.
Medieval. Without even getting into the "Is Byzantium the Roman Empire?" debate, Roman culture certainly outlived the Roman Empire to evolve into or be absorbed by other cultures sometime in the Early Middle Ages. Add a millennium if you want to count Byzantium.But in Civ terms, Rome died in the ancient era.
Medieval. Without even getting into the "Is Byzantium the Roman Empire?" debate, Roman culture certainly outlived the Roman Empire to evolve into or be absorbed by other cultures sometime in the Early Middle Ages. Add a millennium if you want to count Byzantium.
A topic for a different thread, but this is why I think ethnicity needs to be a thing in Civ7. But yeah, by Civ6 terms the (alleged*) end of the Roman Empire is literally the turning point from Classical to Medieval.Totally fair point, but I will say that Civ doesn't really have any concept of "Roman culture outliving the Roman Empire." As it now stands, once a city is conquered and goes through a brief period of unrest, it's more or less treated as if was founded by the owning civ and populated exclusively by people of that culture.
Edit: A bit of expansion to make my point more clear.
A topic for a different thread, but this is why I think ethnicity needs to be a thing in Civ7. But yeah, by Civ6 terms the (alleged*) end of the Roman Empire is literally the turning point from Classical to Medieval.
*Even picking an end date for the Roman Empire is a little arbitrary, Gibbon.
I'm still hoping against hope for an Aramean civ led by Zenobia, but I know it's a dark horse.Like what do you prefer Zaarin, Amorites of Arameans?
Amorites are older but I like Arameans for camel cavalry, grouping them with Berbers and Somalis as camelry "minor factions" set.
Title: post your opinions of the game which you think may be controversial or unpopular. But they still jave to be nice and civil
Of course nobody fully knows 'how unpopular this opinion of mine is' but gambling and then arguing is part of fun in such threads
Mine:
- Rise and Fall expansion has completely failed its general theme and task of making the game more dynamic, making runaways fall and underdogs rise, and the next game should take some dramatically different approach to solve those great issues.
- Gathering Storm's climate and disasters stuff were nice and cool but still toys and gimmicks which didn't fundamentally change the game or solve its great issues (especially aforementioned ones), unlike BNW expansion for civ5 which targeted specific holes of that game and filled them.
- 1UPT got really old and exhausted me really much with its tedious micro and inability to design AI for it, please change it to whatever different combat system in the future game.