What can you know? Maybe there is running something about Charles IV/Ottokar II/Wenceslaus II being the leader of Bohemia on some Czech TV, and I don't know about that, because I'm currently writing and posting on CivFanatics
I think each leader in the game rushes "preferred" techs, civics and wonders as soon as they come available if my bit of data diving into the code has shown me anything. So if the devs believe a specific wonder will greatly help a leader, they will likely try to rush it.
I would! And while I'm out there I would try and and have audience with this guy:
I really hope Mongolia's theme is something along these lines; throat singing for the medieval theme or something! I love this!
EDIT: I think I might of found a "alternative" version which sounds a but more fuller with more then 2 "instruments" which could represent a later era (the last piece of music in this video - I don't seem to be able to link the video with the time to start from):
What can you know? Maybe there is running something about Charles IV/Ottokar II/Wenceslaus II being the leader of Bohemia on some Czech TV, and I don't know about that, because I'm currently writing and posting on CivFanatics
This has probably already been mentioned, but the thing that troubles me most is that Rise & Fall seems to increase snowballing and runaway civs through the golden age-system.
Civs that are doing well will earn more era points, thus getting more golden ages (or a permanent one), etc., etc.
Although I do like the fact that they seem to be trying to make tall viable again, which is really nice.
But the game seems still to be favouring warmongering a lot, although the loyalty mechanic seem to reduce it somewhat, it still seems to be the way to go.
I have yet to see the AI build Angkor Wat and Venetian Arsenal. I think the AI just doesn't know how to build these 2 wonders due to the requirements. I haven't noticed any overall trends, but I do notice Monty goes for Potala palace a lot.
This has probably already been mentioned, but the thing that troubles me most is that Rise & Fall seems to increase snowballing and runaway civs through the golden age-system.
Civs that are doing well will earn more era points, thus getting more golden ages (or a permanent one), etc., etc.
Although I do like the fact that they seem to be trying to make tall viable again, which is really nice.
But the game seems still to be favouring warmongering a lot, although the loyalty mechanic seem to reduce it somewhat, it still seems to be the way to go.
I'm not sure if it's fixed age score - i.e. a golden age might raise the number of era points required for next golden (and even normal ages) meaning it raises the bar and increases the chance of a dark age if you have several in a row.
But they've said they've added 'emergencies' to help curb snowballing (without rubber banding), we just haven't seen any demo of them yet.
So, what I've seen now again catching up doesn't seem to promising to me:
- Governors seem like you would be best to move them a few times and they will probably call upon you every so often, f.e. to promote someone. => More micro-management
- The historic moment screen seems cluttered. Way too many things that happen too often, i.e. train your first swordmen or be the first to research x. These would be fine if they wouldn't all be active in every game. Like this the best strategy seems more like ticking off boxes and aim for specific ones at specific times. A truly timeline for me would have half or a third the items as shown on screen => More micro-management
- The era progress is not totally up to you, so you need to re-assess every x turns what you need to do to land in a Dark/Golden/Heroic Age the next era, depending on what's best for your civ at the moment => more micro-management
- Government Plaza again gives you choice to build one of three type of building. While that sounds cool, it's just a building in the end, giving you more policy cards where as we have seen they haven't changed the UI at all. How am I supposed to know which card is going to help me most? I need to calculate and remember in my head how many adjacency boni of type x I have.. ==> more micro-management.
This is the exact opposite of where I would like the expansion to go... I'm rather skeptical at the moment to be honest.... Nevertheless they always get me with the reveal of new civs-hype...
So, what I've seen now again catching up doesn't seem to promising to me:
- Governors seem like you would be best to move them a few times and they will probably call upon you every so often, f.e. to promote someone. => More micro-management
- The historic moment screen seems cluttered. Way too many things that happen too often, i.e. train your first swordmen or be the first to research x. These would be fine if they wouldn't all be active in every game. Like this the best strategy seems more like ticking off boxes and aim for specific ones at specific times. A truly timeline for me would have half or a third the items as shown on screen => More micro-management
- The era progress is not totally up to you, so you need to re-assess every x turns what you need to do to land in a Dark/Golden/Heroic Age the next era, depending on what's best for your civ at the moment => more micro-management
- Government Plaza again gives you choice to build one of three type of building. While that sounds cool, it's just a building in the end, giving you more policy cards where as we have seen they haven't changed the UI at all. How am I supposed to know which card is going to help me most? I need to calculate and remember in my head how many adjacency boni of type x I have.. ==> more micro-management.
This is the exact opposite of where I would like the expansion to go... I'm rather skeptical at the moment to be honest.... Nevertheless they always get me with the reveal of new civs-hype...
If you don't want micromanagement, maybe you should not be playing Civilization. This series is pretty much made to appeal to people who enjoy managing a lot of things.
I also want to ask, if you don't want micromanagement, then what do you want, exactly? Less things to do? Make the game more boring, more pressing "next turn", or something like that?
the same amount of decisions in the late game as in the early game ;-) and I'm a long time casual player of civ, so I don't need to defend myself for what I want and you don't need to agree with it. I am just stating my opinion and my experience that I have practically never finished a game of civ in more than 15 years playing it...
I am too concerned about the Snowballing effect when it comes to the Golden/Heroic Eras, because on easier difficulties, it's not that hard to just snowball into abyss. Often than not my Culture and Science rate quickly overtake unless I'm playing with one of the more broken AIs and that's on Warlord (need to switch it up to Prince next time tbh)
I am too concerned about the Snowballing effect when it comes to the Golden/Heroic Eras, because on easier difficulties, it's not that hard to just snowball into abyss. Often than not my Culture and Science rate quickly overtake unless I'm playing with one of the more broken AIs and that's on Warlord (need to switch it up to Prince next time tbh)
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.
