Steamboat Willem
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2018
- Messages
- 174
Civ7 should come with an online ranking system where every ranked game you start but don't finish counts as a loss.
[GS] The Ottomans Discussion Thread
- Thread starter bite
- Start date
Civ7 should come with an online ranking system where every ranked game you start but don't finish counts as a loss.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Civ VII should strive to be a game where ranking means something, and people actually feel compelled to stick out a close, intense game.
We don't need a ranking system for Who Can Decipher the Really Easy Puzzle of Bum-Rushing Defenseless AI Cities, Beelining Essential Civics & Techs, Spamming Cities With the Same Districts, and Taking the Candy from All the Babies in the Fewest Turns.
Really need to slay some holy cows and get back to the drawing board on victory conditions.
I've played it. It's a game to graduate from.
Last edited:
acluewithout
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 3,470
I like that Jans can be upgraded from Swords. Sort of like Renaissance Impi. Remember, upgrading may be a little different in GS, because you'll need to pay the iron cost of the swords (so going the upgrade route means iron + niter).
But I do think the upgrading path makes the -1 pop thing a dead letter, which is a bit rubbish. Perhaps you just flat out shouldn't be able to build them in settled cities?
If Ibrahim's unit bonus applies to settlers and builders then ... well, I think that may be lame. Just too powerful. But I guess wait and see.
But overall I like how a unique Governor is also sort of a malus, because you have to forego other powerful Governors (or, if you don't, forgo your unique power).
But I do think the upgrading path makes the -1 pop thing a dead letter, which is a bit rubbish. Perhaps you just flat out shouldn't be able to build them in settled cities?
If Ibrahim's unit bonus applies to settlers and builders then ... well, I think that may be lame. Just too powerful. But I guess wait and see.
But overall I like how a unique Governor is also sort of a malus, because you have to forego other powerful Governors (or, if you don't, forgo your unique power).
Well isn't that saying having an option nobody else has is a malus?
Sure you have to make a choice, but its one that only available to you so it can't be a malus.
edit: no, I get it now :duh: you're giving up Magnus at least for a while, yes a malus, but 1 I could live with
Last edited:
MarigoldRan
WARLORD
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2011
- Messages
- 2,349
Then you're not very good at Risk.
My gaming group has always classed it as entry level
Too bad. Although Im thinking I will take Ibrahim first and try to team it will agoge and and possibly an encampment. Use the next two on magnus.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,901
Then they are not looking hard enough. You can do amazing things with joint wars alone.
Forward settling ends up giving you positive modifiers ... and so on.
MarigoldRan
WARLORD
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2011
- Messages
- 2,349
For Risk, just grab Australia or South America and sit in it.
Moderator Action: Please come back to topic, Risk is not the topic.
The more I look, I'm not really sure that Ibrahim is worth it early. To really get full power from him, you need 2 governor promotions (for the +10 vs districts), and especially early, I don't think I could really justify giving up the Magnus chop + Amani era score/suzerains just for his bonus.
I think his biggest edge would be after those initial 2, when you can start getting the promotions from the government plaza online, to plan for the slightly later invasion. I don't usually try a "catapult rush", but I could definitely see that as a potentially very strong option for the Ottomans. If you time it right, I think Ibrahim+Ottoman Bombard means that catapults would be +15 against districts. At that stage of the game, they should absolutely destroy cities. Catapults+Swordsmen, and then that moves well into a Janissary+Bombard medieval/renaissance to finish things off.
King Rad
Warlord
We don't know how it will play out yet, but the all-powerful chop may be reduced a bit with the effect on weather. So Magnus may lose some of his status. Probably like a lot of players, I generally chopped all my woods and rain forests, especially on hills where i was building mines. Now I might look at logging camps a little more and try to save any chops for really important [beat whoever to that wonder] things. Again, until we start playing, it's all speculation. There will probably be comments about the game's not lasting long enough for climate change to matter, but as several others have indicated for their games, I don't play for the shortest win time. And who knows how the chopping of forests is going to affect dust storms for example. We know it will increase their likelihood and probably their damage, but again, until the game comes out, we won't really have a feel for the effect. So chopping, at a minimum, will almost certainly be more of a tradeoff than it has been. Of course, there's always the possibility of planting 2nd growth woods, and I assume they will have the same effect on climate change and dust storms as original forest will.
Because its fun?
I don't even play with any victory conditions enabled. I have no intention of finishing my games. I want to play them in perpetuity.
I didn't mention an early rush fest.
It does seem odd to me, though, that people who can only find fun in the challenge of a game would be drawn to Civ VI. There is nothing challenging about it (except MP I guess). I would expect that most people who like the game like it for reasons other than the challenge (of winning). Drama. Suspense. World building. Reenactments. Exploration. Seeing how things play out. Creating epic sagas. I view Civ VI as more of a story-telling game.
So I guess, then, what I'm saying is I heartily disagree with you - I don't think that because the game is decided early on that it begs the question of why someone would play it. A good chunk of people on this forum know they are going to win before they even turn their computer on.
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,308
I like the mechanics.
It's the most complex of the civ series (which is also probably also why the AI seems worse). The civIV die-hards that decided that 5 was "for children" are probably loving it. Not a min/maxer or number cruncher here--I just like how everything fits together. But there IS a challenge to working all of those things.
Man...
Okay, I certainly never suggested that an early victory is the 'correct' or 'true' way to play the game. I would never do that.
I'm not going to quote myself, but what I said was that if you are playing to win, the game is decided early, in the ancient age. I guess I can amend that to 'unless you really make some bad choices, and the ai is on a path to victory, you can still pull out a win later.' But regardless, because the game *can* be decided early, those civs that have significant early bonuses are much stronger civs than those that have significant mid-game bonuses. See Aztecs vs. Ottomans. Which was supporting my statement that the Ottomans are not as strong as many people are making them out to be.
I really think you suffer from tunnel vision:
Maybe I really like Candyland?
Last edited:
MarigoldRan
WARLORD
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2011
- Messages
- 2,349
What they really need to do is to make the mid and late game better. Right now it's just so boring.
My experiences:
1) inland starts. Not even close to water. Is that a bias? I really gotta work to get a coastal city.
2) Jannisaries rock. You can keep building swordsmen while waiting for nitre to reload, and with the 50% card its extremely cheap to upgrade, and no pop hit.
3) In GS, I'm finding luxuries much more scarce - maybe 4 types per continent. So the grand bazaar is pretty handy.
4) Vizier. Really don't need the attack bonus, but 20% production on units is great. He also moves in 3 turns, which is handy. Also makes a good spy. I like him.
The amenity bonus is by far their strongest trait... if you want a grand empire, this is the civ you must play.
edit: haha! just watched my suzy kabul raze halifax! eat turkish delight pal!
edit: oh, its mexico city! and they just razed another! holy heck!
1) inland starts. Not even close to water. Is that a bias? I really gotta work to get a coastal city.
2) Jannisaries rock. You can keep building swordsmen while waiting for nitre to reload, and with the 50% card its extremely cheap to upgrade, and no pop hit.
3) In GS, I'm finding luxuries much more scarce - maybe 4 types per continent. So the grand bazaar is pretty handy.
4) Vizier. Really don't need the attack bonus, but 20% production on units is great. He also moves in 3 turns, which is handy. Also makes a good spy. I like him.
The amenity bonus is by far their strongest trait... if you want a grand empire, this is the civ you must play.
edit: haha! just watched my suzy kabul raze halifax! eat turkish delight pal!
edit: oh, its mexico city! and they just razed another! holy heck!
Last edited:
BarbarianHunter
King
I'm presently playing an Ottoman game and haven't made much use of the Janissaries yet. I agree that the +1 amenity bonus from conquered cities and the Grand Bazaar are strong indeed! I went with standard cav rush @ game open as it's fast. One target to the next, quick. Pillage & attack. In the game I'm playing I have allot of niter (start bias?). I am thinking that for longer games with large maps you could send main army cav to engage technologically savy opponents while mass producing Janissary armies to send with a few artillery pieces for the lower tech civs. The 20% governor with the military academy bonus to production with the already low production sounds to me like it could be unstoppable. Just avoid replacement parts.
