I like the idea of transferring food to areas where it's needed with a little more control than that of the current trade route system. however, I think that only excess food should go into the 'pot.' For example, if a city has two tiles producing 3 food each and three workers, then it would consume all of the food it produced. And this may be what you meant when you said a "minimum of 1 food to the city that works it."
You cannot transport Food in a game where Population Growth is based on stored Food rather than babies. This was already a problem in Colonization where Food was transformed into population when 200 Food met in the same town.
Have a reasonable rate for population growth (and a better one for well supplied population) and it is possible. But then it is no longer a Civilization game ...
You cannot transport Food in a game where Population Growth is based on stored Food rather than babies. This was already a problem in Colonization where Food was transformed into population when 200 Food met in the same town.
Have a reasonable rate for population growth (and a better one for well supplied population) and it is possible. But then it is no longer a Civilization game ...
If I were thinking of ways to redesign the game, I would be very tempted to move away from the current "stored food" model and move to a more global/regional approach. I mean, in essence, food store/availability isn't really much different than "amenities' or "housing" in how it affects population growth - if you don't have excess food, you're not very likely to grow, same way that housing and amenities limit you.
You'd have to design a whole new population growth model, obviously, and have to figure out how much excess food helps you grow. And you'd probably have to set it so that early in the game, food is mostly a local product, but the later you go, the more regional and then global it is. But then it would also help better simulate immigration as well, ways that you can grow cities outside of just having a big food surplus and waiting for buckets to fill up.
I managed to get the 4th religion on deity while playing Canada. I had gotten a relic from a goody hut earlier, so Reliquaries seemed like a great choice. Immediately noticed I was not getting any bonus to my relic at all. Waited a few turns to see if it would kick it late. It did not. Reloaded and chose Choral Music instead. Sad times.
Is Reliquaries broken? I so rarely get a religion in any of my games that I have no reference for this at all.
Am I less cautious or did the AI improve in killing units? I lost several ones I would bet I could have saved prepatch... Which is awesome.
When I declared an early war on Cleo she actually managed to send enough reinforcements to slow down my advance so my first conquered city got lost due to loyalty issues... Good!
Am I less cautious or did the AI improve in killing units? I lost several ones I would bet I could have saved prepatch... Which is awesome.
When I declared an early war on Cleo she actually managed to send enough reinforcements to slow down my advance so my first conquered city got lost due to loyalty issues... Good!
I've lost units vs. barbarians but that seems mostly to reflect the larger number of units I'm coming across (though barbs will actively pursue my wounded units for longer) rather than improved targeting. Haven't been at war with any civ other than an opportunistic attack on Georgia - which wasn't in a position to fight back.
I managed to get the 4th religion on deity while playing Canada. I had gotten a relic from a goody hut earlier, so Reliquaries seemed like a great choice. Immediately noticed I was not getting any bonus to my relic at all. Waited a few turns to see if it would kick it late. It did not. Reloaded and chose Choral Music instead. Sad times.
Is Reliquaries broken? I so rarely get a religion in any of my games that I have no reference for this at all.
Have a reasonable rate for population growth (and a better one for well supplied population) and it is possible. But then it is no longer a Civilization game ...
Of the things I like about the civ series, the "stuffing people with food makes babies" aspect is one of the least. It's a mechanism that should have been gone by Civ 3 in my opinion. And the first civ game without this mechanism will still be a Civilization game to me.
Just found out that this setting now applies to the great works as well as the policy cards. I wish they would have left it the way it was before: drag and drop for policy cards and clicking for great works.
I'm finding barbarians to be fierce. Played two games, and in both I spent the first 30 turns being run ragged by barbarian camps on every side. The first time, by the time I stabilised things I was forward settled on either side by Poland and Scythia. Second time was much better!
I'm finding barbarians to be fierce. Played two games, and in both I spent the first 30 turns being run ragged by barbarian camps on every side. The first time, by the time I stabilised things I was forward settled on either side by Poland and Scythia. Second time was much better!
I really like this, and hope it slows down infrastructure as well, in an average game. Most civilizations struggled with survival, let alone building an organized and stable society. This makes it so that you have to earn your survival, and as a result it may not be as easy to just grow and run through the game unimpeded. Now, some starts will be more isolated, and it will be subsequently easier to develop. But that happened historically, and rather make sense. However, if those civs forget to build a military and focus on that sort of development as well, then you have a chance to overcome them with the military you've refined fighting these barbs.
One cool way, to me at least, to refine this system is to add a mechanic (or better yet, adapt an existing one) that balances the increasing difficulty of managing a larger, more organized, and more advanced society's internal satisfaction with the advantages of growth. Societies that move away from needs to desires often experienced internal strife as a result.
This would create the opportunity for less advanced, smaller civs that are stable to be able to attack a more accomplished civ struggling with internal frustrations on more equal footing.
Corruption, I believe, handled this in other civ games. Amenities are supposed to here, as far as I can tell, but I do not think they are an adequate mechanic.
This would also give another opportunity to refine the differences in the ages (dark, normal, and golden).
Anyone notice naval units unable to protect land units at sea? I had a barbarian crosswbowman attack my courser which was on the same tile as my quadrireme. Seems like that shouldn't have happened.
Waaaaait. We have these images but we can’t get back the the turn-by-turn game replay at the end of the game?
That’s some decent trolling [EDIT: by Firaxis].
(They’re not quite the same thing; the replays showed what you couldn’t see, too, which was the most interesting bit. So that’s how the Civ X vs Civ Y war turned out, before I met either of them.)
@borad
Com'on that wasn't trolling from either me or by indirect Firaxis "decisions" to implement such a cool asset.
In my opinion.. that snapshot process could simply be the initial concept step of some eventual Turns/Replay mystery feature they must have plans for.
Quoting their recent public comment(s) == We're not done yet!
Soooooo.. let's dream outloud shall we -- instead of claiming "Troll" stuff, please?
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.
