Originally posted by Inca (DoE)
View Post
And I agree that the English cities in the new world don't compare to those in the British Isles.
There was a real game to be had over colonial possession, a game that wouldn't have ruined either of your empires, and that could have dragged on for a long time, been quite strategic and tactical, and would have made for a ton of interesting and complex diplomacy, RP, and story-telling.
But you went for the jugular. It's hard to reconcile.
But you went for the jugular. It's hard to reconcile.
1. The Israeli capitol was captured/razed earlier in the game.
2. If capitols were off-limits, then we would never need to put units in them (other than for happiness), or build walls. Not quite realistic.
3. The English pushed down a research path that gave them an early advantage in settling the new world, and put a considerable portion of their production effort into creating and defending those settlements. The Vikings pushed research towards rifling and put a considerable portion of their production effort, let alone their population, into building a strong military. Risk versus reward and threat versus opportunity.
4. Historically, capitols have fallen, and major cities have been over-run. Nations rebuild. European history is rife with such stuff.
5. I don't see this as eliminating the "colonial" struggle at all. It pares the English back, but there will still be fights over colonial lands.
I agree that none of those points, taken alone or together rebut the points you have made. I think we are into diplo game grey area here, and I am trying to think this through myself, and keep the dialogue going.
), places I didn't want to bother settling.
)

Leave a comment: