increasing science cost

You want the game to be one-sided instead, with just one OP strategy that is viable?

No danger the developers would agree.



These are limitations that add to gameplay, and you can work arround them by some priorities on happiness, and developing your cities so their value becomes greater then the penalty also in research.

The cities just need to grow larger and contain some more buildings then in the terrible ICS style of exploits. You will also need to do harder priorities now when choosing what kind of CS to ally, policies to pick etc. It all comes together making it a better strategy game with these limitations.

This is what good strategy is all about.
of course not.
but i dont like that there are no big empires in the game. all civilizations stays small
exept the warmongerers.
 
I don't quite understand this change either. It's not like wide empires were OP before BNW, at least here on Civ Fanatics tradition and 3-6 cities was a far more popular strategy since G&K.
 
^
Think of it as a change to the AI, not the player. Prevents massive runaways while really not hurting the player all that much, since the player (is usually) smart enough to counter the minor penalty.
 
^
Think of it as a change to the AI, not the player. Prevents massive runaways while really not hurting the player all that much, since the player (is usually) smart enough to counter the minor penalty.

It always will be:

Brain > AI

in every possible sense;)
 
This isn't really a major detriment to expansion. Your capital would have to produce 100 times the average city science in order for fewer cities to improve the science progress.
 
Back
Top Bottom