Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I don't feel the game...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    There are not so many nations in the game and even now you will find a wonder for every participation nation. Of course no bonuses for the today wonders.

    Bet anyway - this was just a response to the Egyptians wanting the Pyramids for themselves only. Not a real proposition.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Cort Haus


      But if a civ or religion has a benefit on a wonder, other civs must have a balancing benefit, and not all civs may have a Unique Wonder or their own religion. It's why gameplay has to trump realism.
      Not to mention that some civs have more than one wonder attributed to them. Greece would have a big leg up on culture and even worse, the Oracle sling shots. America would have the run of some good modern wonders (Statue of Liberty, Pentagon) and the best chance of three free happiness resources (Hollywood, Rock n' Roll, Broadway).

      I don't agree with tying wonders to specific civs at all.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Handel
        There are not so many nations in the game and even now you will find a wonder for every participation nation.
        Mali? Inca?
        Participating in my threads is mandatory. Those who do not do so will be forced, in their next game, to play a power directly between Catherine and Montezuma.

        Comment


        • #49
          Good god ... leave the Realism alone. If you want to add more flavor to a Religion, you could set preferences to a religion as you found it, setting what bonuses and penalties a civ with that state religion gets.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Badtz Maru
            I'd like to see something modded in to the religion system. They also need to re-order the religions because it's ridiculous that Buddhism is usually the first religion to be researched when in reality it's a much younger religion than Hinduism and Judaism.
            True... The tech for Hinduism should be a prereq for the tech for Buddhism, just like it is for Judaism vs. Christianity and Islam.
            THEY!!111 OMG WTF LOL LET DA NOMADS AND TEH S3D3NTARY PEOPLA BOTH MAEK BITER AXP3REINCES
            AND TEH GRAAT SINS OF THERE [DOCTRINAL] INOVATIONS BQU3ATH3D SMAL
            AND!!1!11!!! LOL JUST IN CAES A DISPUTANT CALS U 2 DISPUT3 ABOUT THEYRE CLAMES
            DO NOT THAN DISPUT3 ON THEM 3XCAPT BY WAY OF AN 3XTARNAL DISPUTA!!!!11!! WTF

            Comment


            • #51
              i agree with the luck thing... and the terrain is not diverse enough! i used to like that fact that u build a city in a place and u r given the terrain to work with and thats what u have! in this civ there is too much u can do with terrain to make it give u watever u need, too much management

              i also despise not being able to terraform.
              terraform=good!

              nukes r useless. historically nukes wipe out an entire small city! and if they dont, radiation will catch up with it!

              Comment


              • #52
                Woah, my babelfish just exploded.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Common Sensei
                  Not to mention that some civs have more than one wonder attributed to them. Greece would have a big leg up on culture and even worse, the Oracle sling shots. America would have the run of some good modern wonders (Statue of Liberty, Pentagon) and the best chance of three free happiness resources (Hollywood, Rock n' Roll, Broadway).

                  I don't agree with tying wonders to specific civs at all.
                  Wasn't the Statue of Liberty a gift from the French?

                  Also some of the wonders that you would associate with a certain civ would also be largely dependent on location, rather than the civ itself. I do think it would be cool if mount rushmore could only be built if there is a mountain in the city radius, then the graphic of that mountain would change to a graphic of mount rushmore once it was built.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Sturdo: Good idea. I like it.
                    But does this mean that Mount Rushmore could be pillaged?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Not really, unless someone does the mod to allow a unit to move onto a mountain.

                      Edit: Spelling

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by JackRudd


                        Mali? Inca?
                        Wasn't Chechen Itsa Inca's?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Yes, what about Monty/Capac/Mansa?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            i've already shelved it for lack of content. i've built cities, buildings, run through different AI attack scenarios, and did this all in each Civ. Probably just me, but Civ as a series needs to start adding more than better graphics to hold my attention. Things like realism in the sense that you can only build a military that is proportional to your city size, and the ability to create a host of different units and buildings all at the same time, with the pros and cons of how thin you want your workforce on each project.

                            i'm just surprised that people accept this as is. The Civ series is stagnant, needs a whole makeover. How about battlegrounds rather than just have every square fightable terrain, like irl. i enjoyed a month of Civ 4, but imho, wasn't worth the money. I could have just DLed the latest mod/map or Civ 3 and enjoyed it almost as much.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X