I propose that the red cross national wonder be given another bonus, that way it's more worth it to build it. Make units heal twice as fast when they're in the city that has it.
This reminds me of when a friend of mine asked me if Paris was near France. After I finished laughing I told him that Paris is a city in France. He then said "oh, is that next to Europe?"
Anyway, I have a suggestion.
I remember somewhere in this forum (mabye this thread, I don't know) reading a suggestion about making certain wonders only possible with certain religions. I think that takes too much away from the players ability to change history. How about instead giving a bonus? And not just because of a religion, but the city and civ itself.
Here's an example of what I mean:
Let's say that you're building the apostolic palace in rome (the city), as rome (the civ) and with christianity as your state religion. For each of those 3 factors you would get a 10% reduction in building cost. Maybe it should be higher, or lower. You get the idea though. This would make it more likely that history plays out more similarly to real life while still allowing the player to change it.
I don't think this is all too important. Maybe Firaxis should have thought of a universal sign instead of the red cross, but as it is I really don't mind it and I don't think anyone else would mind it as to the point of asking Rhye personally to code it and find graphics and all the work that's required.
I don't think this is all too important. Maybe Firaxis should have thought of a universal sign instead of the red cross, but as it is I really don't mind it and I don't think anyone else would mind it as to the point of asking Rhye personally to code it and find graphics and all the work that's required.
@America, America is almost as big as Europe... I can name the locations of all western, some central European countries (though most Americans only think Europe has a west and east)
@America, America is almost as big as Europe... I can name the locations of all western, some central European countries (though most Americans only think Europe has a west and east)
I graduated from one of the best public high schools in the country and even we never did any history of Scandinavia except the Vikings. Its as if the whole region didn't exist.
I graduated from one of the best public high schools in the country and even we never did any history of Scandinavia except the Vikings. Its as if the whole region didn't exist.
bah who cares about Scandinavia, all they did was have these insane lunatics run around raping and pillaging everywhere, not like they were successful traders or anything
From what I've observed, America is still held in high regards for its relative freedom (especially from bureaucracy) and personal possibilities, at least in Germany. Not so much for its wealth, nor its status as a superpower. And sadly the general view on America became more negative over the recent years ...
I graduated from one of the best public high schools in the country and even we never did any history of Scandinavia except the Vikings. Its as if the whole region didn't exist.
Well, I also didn't hear anything about Mesoamerica except the Maya and Aztecs in school. Aside from the Swedish Empire in the 17th/18th century, Scandinavians have mostly stayed comparably outside of world politics. Clever people
Edit: Sorry for double post, I intended to edit this in
It always has two sides, but Japan would not have been Japan as it is now if they didn't isolate at that time. The European colonial powers where very strong in Asia and if they had the chance they would have tried to make Japan some kind of puppet-state at least, maybe even a colony like the Philipines. Or worse, they may even had chopped it up into a Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish and British part making them loyal by converting the population to Christianity.
Maybe then it now was a province of China or an American overseas territory, who nows?
Well, thats a good opinion on the matter. The other question is, how would Japan be without the Meiji era? (well, at first we would have no gadgets, since they would be isolated ) In reality, they would be, in our eyes, an uncivilised nation, unwilling to agree with the modern standards. But in their eyes, they would have kept their proud traditional values, and not get corrupt by the other nations, which wanted to establish their rule....
So, I guess that it is, as everything, a 2-side matter.
Well this is really getting off topic. Also Berlusconi isn't that bad, I guess. Don't forget America had G. W. Bush just two years ago.
Back on topic:
I wonder why the Roman stability map doesn't include East-Africa.I know that East-Africa wasn't a Roman province , but it was an Italian colony so shouldn't it be included?
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.
