Why too powerful? As you later posted, it's not like they are 'must haves' to be able to win the game (by whatever means you happen to choose). If they were 'must haves' I could perhaps understand why they could be considered "too powerful", but they aren't.
Nothing is "must have" to win the game. So by your logic nothing is overpowered and no balance change is required. Ever.
I don't even remember the last time I built Interpol. Is it still in the game? I thought it was replaced with Lubyanka?
I already delay building this wonder until I absolutely need the Golden Age effect. If access to this national wonder is made later (by requiring two techs) I would still delay building it. I see no problem caused by the present situation in any case.
I have only built the Opera House in two circumstances:
Most of my Domination victories are won before I research Radio or even Electricity. But again, I mostly go for Domination with Rome, England and Russia.
You criticised another post for not providing justification yet made your own unjustified opinion.
Unnecessary. If I'd wanted your justification I know how to ask for it. I was merely pointing out that you were being inconsistent in your criticism of another post relative to your own similar approach.
It is required to win those victories your way (with the ridiculous scores and early dates), but I got close to conquest as the Japanese once (my game unfortunately crashed, but I had just killed Prussia at 1725 AD) by just razing everything in my path and I have already won Domination as the French by just pumping massive amounts of culture with City States.
It is required to win those victories your way (with the ridiculous scores and early dates), but I got close to conquest as the Japanese once (my game unfortunately crashed, but I had just killed Prussia at 1725 AD) by just razing everything in my path and I have already won Domination as the French by just pumping massive amounts of culture with City States.
I would go as far as saying that it is actually required for any civ with a smallish historical area where there are just too many penalties from expansion to allow for the necessary civic changes in the late game.
Afaik national wonders we added to Civ4 to achieve two purposes:
- more specialization to make specific cities your "science city" etc.
- to offer a nonscaling buff which mostly benefits small civs
The second bit has been turned upside down because most civs have to become expansionist before they can meet their goal. I think "all core cities need the prereq building" would be the most natural rule and fortunately I recently made core plots efficiently available in the DLL so this is actually possible. In this case I would like to bring back the first intention back to RFC as well and enable a science and military related NW again.
That's what I thought too - seems silly that a trading and commerce based civ like the Dutch couldn't build a Stock Exchange until they had founded a load of colonies everywhere, and even then you might not have enough.
I agree with the science and military related NWs, but can they be differentiated from the corresponding WWs? So we don't have a National University putting out 100% science, same as CERN etc.
I've never really understood why the National Wonder bonuses don't just scale (to a maximum 100% bonus) for every instance of the required forge/bank/etc. in your civilisation?
I've never really understood why the National Wonder bonuses don't just scale (to a maximum 100% bonus) for every instance of the required forge/bank/etc. in your civilisation?
It's a great idea, another option would be to simply reduce the number of cities requirements as I think it would encourage people to stay in their cores and not become expansionist to be able to build the nw etc.
It's a great idea, another option would be to simply reduce the number of cities requirements as I think it would encourage people to stay in their cores and not become expansionist to be able to build the nw etc.
What if the nw benefits started to be incrementally reduced after a certain threshold of there equivalent building (assuming we still have an X building requirement). In this way it could still be for the small civs and less powerful for the already strong big civs.
I think we could try to work in a way to change the required number of cities, as I don't see any reason to actually nerf them, only to change the only thing I disagree with, that is to force us to expand in order to build them.
Will there be some sort of another Barbarian overhaul? I know that long ago it's been divided to 3 or 4 type, but it's still hard for me to differentiate which one are what. Perhaps different graphic?
Also I don't know if it's been discussed, but how about removing the "-2" in diplomacy between Human civ and civ A because we trade with it's worst enemies civ B while it's already long time ago when Human civ and civ B traded and it's the first time Human civ meet civ A?
Will there be some sort of another Barbarian overhaul? I know that long ago it's been divided to 3 or 4 type, but it's still hard for me to differentiate which one are what. Perhaps different graphic?
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.
But again, I mostly go for Domination with Rome, England and Russia.
