Whipping has one more questionable aspect. That what you build determines your to-be production, that is, the amount of people massacred in the satanic rituals. If you were only allowed to murder one peaceful citizen at once, then the unhappiness penalty would work quite differently, and it wouldn't matter what you have built or not for murder potential.
never trying for religion again.
- Thread starter dylanmeditates
- Start date
I think I deciphered the above post: If you got a happiness penalty per population sacrificed instead of per whip button being pressed, slavery would be a lot less useful. Ie 2pop and 3pop whips would produce 2 and 3 unhappiness respectively.
That would definitely weaken slavery, especially very early.
That would definitely weaken slavery, especially very early.
Kallikrates
Prince
As I said, I am uncertain about whipping. The most satisfying for me would not be something requiring more crazy micro but a real downside to the slavery civic, more than random slave revolts (which are to my knowledge independent of the frequency of whipping), e.g. that slavery could never be combined with some advantageous civics in other columns or so.
But "building wealth" and failgold were definitely different not only in older CIV games but even in vanilla CivIV!
Of course, as it is *now* marketplaces etc. are too expensive because building wealth is cheap and easy. But one could make them less expensive and have a 50% penalty for "building wealth" (I think this penalty applied in vanilla CIV), one could even make a marketplace the prerequisite for a city being able to build wealth. This would make building wealth a very occasional thing.
For wonders, I think the best would be "failhammers" with a penalty. IND would still make you more productive but when missing a wonder you would have have (50% or so of) the hammers invested for building something else. No gold. Sure, it would still make IND leaders able to build big non-wonder-buildings cheaper by first investing in a wonder. But with 50% or so penalty this again would be very occasional.
For national wonders, as I said, IMO the best would be no consolation price. If you change the city where you build it, you lose the hammers other cities invested as soon as it is finished in one city.
But "building wealth" and failgold were definitely different not only in older CIV games but even in vanilla CivIV!
Of course, as it is *now* marketplaces etc. are too expensive because building wealth is cheap and easy. But one could make them less expensive and have a 50% penalty for "building wealth" (I think this penalty applied in vanilla CIV), one could even make a marketplace the prerequisite for a city being able to build wealth. This would make building wealth a very occasional thing.
For wonders, I think the best would be "failhammers" with a penalty. IND would still make you more productive but when missing a wonder you would have have (50% or so of) the hammers invested for building something else. No gold. Sure, it would still make IND leaders able to build big non-wonder-buildings cheaper by first investing in a wonder. But with 50% or so penalty this again would be very occasional.
For national wonders, as I said, IMO the best would be no consolation price. If you change the city where you build it, you lose the hammers other cities invested as soon as it is finished in one city.
Izuul
Level 86
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 6,941
The gold multiplying buildings could be buffed by changing how gold generation via commerce works so that max research and gold generation from commerce aren't mutually exclusive. Obviously gold generation should be greatly diminished at 100% research, but not to 0. The improvement of this mechanic could go hand in hand with a nerf to wealth building so that commerce cities were contributing a significant portion of gold for an empire rather than hammer cities building wealth.
Or perhaps individual cities could actually be set to research or gold rather than an empire-wide slider. This would allow for a city to specialize in gold generation and it would obviously make sense to build gold multipliers there.
This topic is probably a complete waste of time, but it is fun to think about.
Or perhaps individual cities could actually be set to research or gold rather than an empire-wide slider. This would allow for a city to specialize in gold generation and it would obviously make sense to build gold multipliers there.
This topic is probably a complete waste of time, but it is fun to think about.
Pangaea
Rock N Roller
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 6,390
This would be really interesting, and it would then make sense to build gold multiplier buildings in some cities. Would allow a lot more specialisation of cities. One could then also have a pure
city for instance. Guess it could get abused a bit in culture games if you could run 100% culture in those 3 cities and something else in the rest, but it would be an interesting way to go about things, and it's always fun to specialise so more options here would have been good.When I first started playing, and saw that you could change the slider in the city screen I thought you were only changing it for that city.
Simply losing any hammers when removing wonders from the queue would resolve most of the abuse. A simple are you sure pop up could be used to avoid the remove by accident.
Simply losing any hammers when removing wonders from the queue would resolve most of the abuse. A simple are you sure pop up could be used to avoid the remove by accident.
Kallikrates
Prince
Individual city sliders would make some things too easy, I think. In any case, I do no think that these are all just idle musings. Because many of these things WERE different in older Civ games, even in vanilla Civ IV, so they are up for reasonable debate.
I am not familiar with all games of the series but in my experience before BtS it was never the case that one could profit from NOT getting a wonder. The best one could do e.g. in CivII (and this was too easy/exploitable as well IMO) was to built some wonder and than switch to another one without penalty if the first was missed. But it had to be a wonder, otherwise 50% of invested hammers were lost.
I am not familiar with all games of the series but in my experience before BtS it was never the case that one could profit from NOT getting a wonder. The best one could do e.g. in CivII (and this was too easy/exploitable as well IMO) was to built some wonder and than switch to another one without penalty if the first was missed. But it had to be a wonder, otherwise 50% of invested hammers were lost.
Pangaea
Rock N Roller
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 6,390
I don't have a problem with failgold. I like that there are different ways to convert hammers, food and gold. It makes the gameplay more dynamic and durable. If for example you lost a wonder and all hammers were also lost (and not converted to anything else), it would make wonder building almost obsolete.
Okay, so it means you can take good advantage of Industrious, stone and marble, but on the other hand, if you don't have these resources, building wonders is a real pain, and I do like that there are clear upsides to certain traits and resources.
Quite frankly I think the game is fantastic, and if there is anything I would change I'd look more at the laggy GUI.
Okay, so it means you can take good advantage of Industrious, stone and marble, but on the other hand, if you don't have these resources, building wonders is a real pain, and I do like that there are clear upsides to certain traits and resources.
Quite frankly I think the game is fantastic, and if there is anything I would change I'd look more at the laggy GUI.
