Most under-represented/weakened civ?

the phrase ", but" means to negate what you said previous to that for example (not to pick on anyone, but...) "The Turk might be a peaceful person normally, but he belligerently argues with kochman."

just an FYI (and maybe to poke fun at a pair)

 

That is not true. At this stage, power has nothing to do with the ability to conquer Constantinople. The city is defended too well.

 

Well i would say that the AI isn't smart enough to conquer it.

 

+1

The Ottomans have tons of strong units. But in my latest two games the Byzans have fallen far earlier than the Ottoman spawn.

 

If codable, the starting Great Bombards should bombard Constantinople first and then the other units should attack. It's just a thing the AI should know.

 

Well the final say from the "Byzantine-man" (me), is that Byzantium, not just Constantinople, is currently too weeak to defend itself from external pre-Ottoman threats.

Ottomans is without a doubt very strong, the only reason it doesnt wanna conquer Constantinople on some games (yes SOME games. cos there are also gamees where it does) is becos the AI thinks its not worth the losses given Constantinople's defensive bonuses. But lets not forget, more than half the time we're talking about a Constantinople that is not owned by Byzantium already.

As a result, Byzantium should not be made weaker becos its weak enough already. Weakening it will just further make it even easier for the Bulgarians/Seljuk Turks/Crusaders. Ottomans should not be made stronger becos its strong enough already. Strengthening it more will just further make it even easier for an Ottoman human player (which is why im so angry at someone becos he refuses to admit the job is easy enough already). The only thing that can solve this problem is coding of the Ottoman AI to make it less timid.

 

That reminds me of something that has bothered me about early Artillery in Civ.

I'll try to simplify what I mean. (all excluding modern warfare)

Artillery = throwing something destructive at an opponent from a large distance.
I can't really think of a way how the throwing of an object itself can destroy the artillery unit (unless the catapult collapses during reloading)

If Artillery is under attack however they have virtually no chance at defending themselves.


My logic from this would be:
Attacking Artillery always wins, the amount of damage done is relative.
Artillery under attack always loses, can inflict some damage to the attacker.

The only other option doesn't really fit with Civ since it's based on real-time.
Both sides have Artillery, therefore both sides suffer losses simultaneously (if in eachothers range and both having ammo)
Artillery is all about being able to fire at an opponent without him being able to fire back. If he can fire back, well your position sucks in that case. Changing it would be recommendable

Sorry about the wrong thread, but I don't know in which one it would fit anyway

 

Wow, the Papal states is in third place

 

According to the poll... Germany, Spain and Bulgaria are the most overpowered civs.

 

Poland's researching rate is tragically low. Its Winged-Hussar never would be seen.

 

Not necessarily. Although yes, i agree, but the poll just showed that these 3 civs are not underpowered, not necessarily overpowered. Big difference there

 

The problem with Poland isn't intrinsic, but the AI and the starting location. The direct area of Poland is crap except for a coast city, and the AI is always at war with everyone.

 

Just outta curiosity... has any of these weaker civs been made stronger in beta 3? Cos there doesnt seem to be much difference to me... or maybe its just me lol

 

None. Beta 3 has been more bugfixing and less balancing