I've found myself doing the same thing.I found I was building theater district not for cuture victory, but for clearing the antique site so that my worker can farm or mine that tile.
I found I was building theater district not for cuture victory, but for clearing the antique site so that my worker can farm or mine that tile.
It's just obnoxious that you could have built a mine on this tile before discovering this civic, and now you can't. your progress has obstructed you.I have no problem with the sites blocking development. It even reflects real life situations where development projects are slowed because something historic is uncovered.
One thing that might help (or at least could make the game more interesting) would be having the antiquities sites appear gradually. For example, a large handful of civics in the industrial era and later would each reveal a subset of all antiquities sites when researched.
0ne tile in a civ map in fact represents hundreds of square km or even more. I honestly don't see how discovering an antique will force the government to shut down all routine activities of such a big area. A farm and an antique site should be able to coexist to start with.I don't see why the system needs to change. As it is, antiquity sites are normally good, but sometimes can be bad. What's wrong with that? Not every single that happens to you needs to be positive, it's good for gameplay to force you to adapt and change your strategy as circumstances evolve.
0ne tile in a civ map in fact represents hundreds of square km or even more. I honestly don't see how discovering an antique will force the government to shut down all routine activities of such a big area. A farm and an antique site should be able to coexist to start with.
You had me until this...Scale arguments make no sense in Civ. Period.
I would argue the same thing for Antiquity Sites. 99% of the time they're good.
Germany's CH gets a "resource" bonus when adjacent to an antiquity site if I remember correctly.
Well... one issue is if civs can just destroy them / build on them then it does damage victory possibilities a bit. I personally thing you should be able to build on them but an archaeologist can still dig them up.
Yes, civ is not a simulation program, but there are elements of realism that give this game a feeling of immersion. If there is a strong gameplay argument then this immersion can definitely be ignored, but there isn't.Scale arguments make no sense in Civ. Period.
How can an army only move a few hundred miles in a century? Why can't I fit more than one unit in several hundred miles? Why must my market and library be built several hundred miles away too? Why do my warriors stand still for 40 years while getting shot by slingers? Why can archers shoot further than riflemen? The list goes on.
I could give a detailed reason based on abstraction, game concepts and suspension of disbelief; the take-home message is that these things make the game better.
I would argue the same thing for Antiquity Sites. 99% of the time they're good, but sometimes they're bad. That's life. It makes for an interesting, non-static game.
Convince me why making antique sites and improvements mutually exclusive will make this game significantly more interesting then. I am all ears.