Tweet
I would really like to hear some more thoughts, and also to hear from some of the other Civs who have not spoken. I want to preserve the spirit of the game but I also want to keep the game enjoyable.
-
-
I will posting the New thread soon. Last chance to get in your votes for the January thread
Spain, check your PMs please.
Comment
-
?? Whatever happened to Rome?
I thought this was not allowed under the current rules??La República de Catalunya sempre en els nostres corsComment
-
What do you mean? Rome does not seem to be eliminated on civstats... Send me a PM about it.Comment
-
France captured Rome. I assume this was done by the consent of both parties however which would make it legal right?Originally posted by Sommerswerd View PostComment
-
It was a formal trade agreement with consent by both parties.Comment
-
IndeedOriginally posted by France (DoB) View Post So no worries about any rules broken
And for anyone who might be confused, we are talking about the city of Rome, and not my entire nation.Comment
-
Sommerwerd : you need to delete messages in your mailbox..La República de Catalunya sempre en els nostres corsComment
-
I deleted some. Sorry
Comment
-
OOC
I don't agree with any restriction against war. Now this is coming from a player who abhors war and sucks at it in civ. In history war was not limited by any DMW ... in fact many civilizations fell because of it. This maybe against the spirit of a diplo game but thats just me. I have no problems with civs that have been abandoned being designated AI if no permanent sub can be found. I am enjoying this game immensely and agree that it is the best diplo game I have played.Comment
-
OCC: I do see the value in restricting war, but I don't like that it is quite as restricted as it is, because right now it is really not smart to declare war, especially early. Capital protection needs to be in place and as an extension of that a certain number of cities should be protected to make sure the player has something to do in the game and more to help spin stories. If you only had a single city not as much happens in your in-game empire. Say 4-6 cities are protected. Enact measured war when a civ has less than that number of cities. If they have more, they have some to spare and reduce restrictions.Comment
-
Another restriction I think that could make sense is only allowed to capture a limited number of cities per turn. Right now the rule is you have to capture 4 to keep one. I think it could make more sense to instead only be able to capture one city something like every 5 turns. Would have the same impact of slowing wars down and remove some of the advantage for attacking 1st.Comment
-
I like that idea. Not sure how many turns is right, but a restriction like that makes sense.Originally posted by England (DoB) View PostComment
-
Removes the risk of being out of town for a weekend and losing 10 cities but is more workable than the must capture 4 to lose 1 rule.
I'd also like to ask if I am correct in understanding if one can also just pay 500gold for a captured city instead of exchanging a city? Seem to recall that being a rule. For rich folks like Greece, Nether, Portugal, myself, and a few others, this makes city capturing very cost effective. It breaks the spirit of the rule, but is a work around that could certainly keep things interesting.Comment
-
One thing I have been thinking about that has a chilling effect on War is the lack of turnorder. What about having a "gentlemans turnorder" meaning everyone in war agrees to take turns, but there is no reloading or pausing for it? I think the possibility of getting doublemoved without mercy makes everyone scared of fighting.
Just a thought.Comment
Comment