gunnergoz
Cat Herder
I find it hard to understand the arguments from people who insist that all civs play equally well on all map types. Clearly some are optimized for certain geographic placements...yet no one complained about Inca hill building perks and who would want to play them on a desert map with almost no hills? Yet people insist upon playing civs like Venice and Indonesia, which are both clearly oriented towards trade and going offshore, on pangea maps or on continent maps that frequently cannot be crossed until you have ocean-going capability in mid-game.
If we want truly generic civs that work equally well everywhere, the game would be so lame I couldn't play it. Whatever happened to the appreciation of flavor and diversity - and challenge?
If we want truly generic civs that work equally well everywhere, the game would be so lame I couldn't play it. Whatever happened to the appreciation of flavor and diversity - and challenge?