Arent11
King
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2016
- Messages
- 996
Ok, I get that if you have builders like in Civ IV you can build inifinitely much stuff & roads everywhere. So, of course, you will do just that. And that might get a chore.
On the other side, having builder "charges" & not being able to build roads or railsroads whatsoever is highly restrictive. If you think about how important railroads were for army movement in later centuries, then you realize you actually sacrifice a huge part of the game.
Now, giving builders charges & allowing road building also doesn't work because placing improvements clearly is much more important than roads. Although you could, maybe, make roads just use up "half" a builder charge or something.
You can, of course, argue that building something requires materials, which are used up at a certain point, aka "builder charges". But wouldn't it be better to have some currency instead of "builder charges"? You could, for example, simply use gold for that. If you want to create a mine, you have to pay your workers money. Same with roads.
Your thoughts?
On the other side, having builder "charges" & not being able to build roads or railsroads whatsoever is highly restrictive. If you think about how important railroads were for army movement in later centuries, then you realize you actually sacrifice a huge part of the game.
Now, giving builders charges & allowing road building also doesn't work because placing improvements clearly is much more important than roads. Although you could, maybe, make roads just use up "half" a builder charge or something.
You can, of course, argue that building something requires materials, which are used up at a certain point, aka "builder charges". But wouldn't it be better to have some currency instead of "builder charges"? You could, for example, simply use gold for that. If you want to create a mine, you have to pay your workers money. Same with roads.
Your thoughts?