Again, there are ways around such an issue. Clearing a barb camp could give you an instant claim over a city site which would mean AI couldn't just march in an settle it without earning their own claim on the site through whatever means. In fact, such a system would allow you to nuance the system a lot, so that it's not just the person who takes out the camp who holds the spot, but so that a player earns more claim on the area, the more fighting the player has done. This would mean you can't just swoop in and snipe the camp and claim the spot when the other player has almost fought it down, as sometimes happens in the current system.
You mean like the site keeps track of who does the most damage to its defenders and the player with the most damage done gets to have the rightful claim?
Well maybe we are moving off topic here, but the thought I was trying to explain was some sort of, let's call it "influence" score that each player would have on a region. So you could earn influence over a certain region by different mechanisms:
I feel like there are a couple of problems with this approach. First is that the game already requires a lot military units as is and the number of additional units you would need to do something like this while doing all of the other things you would be normally doing in the game feels like it would push over the edge to too many. Then you have all of the extra orders needed to move units into several sites while still moving towards new city sites. You can't really just leave more than one unit around city site if you want to keep claiming more sites because you have to keep moving from on to the next to make sure you can grab as many as you can. Having to leave units behind to keep influence means you are less able to claim further sites, especially if there are already a lot of barbarian/tribal units at future sites. You could bring new units to a location to increase influence but then you run into the orders problem since you then have to either prioritize influencing old sites or claiming new ones. Then you would need to get your settlers to the city sites and then hope you get there fast enough to claim the site all the while hoping the tile you want to settle on isn't taken by an unit from another civ. So now you have multiple races, two or three depending on how you want to count, to win instead of just one on top of all of the other things you have going in the game.
Well I'm not going to say what I suggest here is a perfect or finished system, and no such change can be seen in isolation, but I just want to add that your argument can be turned around to argue that my suggestion would exactly have the intended effect: Instead of having to rush to "secure" as many city sites as possible in the first - howmany, 30 turns? - you'd have to prioritize on securing maybe one or two city sites for your first cities, and then once you have those settled, you can move on to focus on new city sites. Which is kind of the effect I was aiming at: A game where map is settled and claimed more gradually rather than the instant mad rush we have now, and where you have to actually choose and prioritize the city sites that are beneficial for you for tactical reasons or for resources.
That's kind of the problem though. The game is designed with the fast pace of the early game so slowing that down would mean having to rebalance the rest of the game. My biggest problem with the game right now is the real lack of a proper end game so unless some new mechanics are adding to help differentiate the late game from the rest of the game I don't think slowing down or prolonging the game is right direction to move in.
I heard that too, I even agree with it.
I have yet to be able to launch my spaceship in OW regardless of the makeup of my military
What do you think Pyramids really are?!I have yet to be able to launch my spaceship in OW regardless of the makeup of my military
I do think peaceful play is possible in Old World, but I don't think it's particularly fun. Coming from Civ6, I must admit I really miss the city planning element of that game - I know you can get some benefits by putting down some buildings next to each other, but between the huge number of buildings you have to place and the various map obstacles, I find that most times I just plop down buildings whenever they become available without much further thought to what goes where except following the in-game suggestions at a given time. Civ6 districts certainly had a huge advantage here.
The only ones that really matter are that the Oden and Bath line of buildings get bonuses for adjacent Hamlet buildings and then Barracks and Ranges get bonuses from the Garrison line of buildings. Resource improvements (Wood, Food, Stone, Iron) have adjacency bonuses from the same improvement as well.
All four religions have specific requirements to be founded that are kind of annoying to get. For example, to found Zoroastrianism, you need to have unlocked Divination and then have two Acolyte specialists. Its kind of a pain and I just use the Cleric family if I really want a religion. Anyone can add a tenet to any faith so long as it is their state religion. You use religion units to convert cities, add new tenets, and building religious buildings, which aren't half bad all things considered. I like the fact that the game represents pagan religions but overall I find the system kind of boring and not terribly great but, honestly, I can mostly say the same for Civ6 and CK3. I've yet to play a historical strategy game where religion doesn't feel vestigial and like it is only in the game because religion has to be represented on some level.
One thing missing from Civ is having specialized cities. When playing OW, I generally spam buildings in every city. There is no reason (or even mechanic) to make a specialized research or financial city.
I partly disagree here. You can get away without specialization and yes, the nature of OW's ressource system allows you to get everything everywhere on the map (or at least almost everything if it comes to quantities, with wood being an edge case in some vegetation-poor areas. But you can compensate that by trading), similar like in Colonization. There are mechanics though that reward spezialiation - not enough to actually enforce it, but I think you can get more out of your cities, if you pay attention to terrain, the families you have access to and the buildings you construct. Some of the latter don't only offer flat boni, but also a percent bonus on city output. And when building units, I found it useful to specialize cities of one of the warlike families for it. Not only because of the free ability or concentrated barracks and ranges speeding up recruitment, but also because you are more likely to find a lot of potential generals among the family members. Governor traits are another reason to focus (I'm refering to the ones boosting the output of improvements)
Right, I don't care for the notion that it's the player's fault because they "were too slow". Especially when peaceful relationships with tribes are actually possible. In practice, that's simply allowing somebody else to come along and encroach. And that settler that gets planted there can come from way across the map to take a spot within the heart of the player's territory. Nothing deters this other than war. Nothing makes this a bad idea that will only result in getting the foolishly-planted city taken away from them. Otherwise, first come, first serve.
Well-said. Maybe some way to plant the initial outpost that costs training based on the other cities within proximity. Cheap if within one's "eminent domain". Expensive if encroaching on some other nation.
I'm the opposite. I find combat very deficient in OW. High-Charisma ambassadors are a priority, and will drive heirs into being diplomats if necessary.
