No tech trading in Civ5?

[rah]

Broken. No point being a peacemonger if the warmonger gets all of those benefits whilst conquering the peaceful entities.

Basically, any argument that involves realism won't ever fly. You need to use an argument that it benefits gameplay, or you just get laughed at by Firaxis and ignored.

The opposite is equally valid.
No point being the warmonger if you don't get any benefits.

"Incentive to take out your neighbor before he backstabs you" benifits gameplay in my opinion. And Firaxis must agree because the game is quite slanted to benefit the warmonger.

[Krill]

The opposite is equally valid.
No point being the warmonger if you don't get any benefits.

"Incentive to take out your neighbor before he backstabs you" benifits gameplay in my opinion. And Firaxis must agree because the game is quite slanted to benefit the warmonger.

rah, stop being retarded, I know you are smarter than this. The warmonger gets, worst case, the land, and pre-existing terrain improvements. If you capture the cities as well, you get the population and some city improvements, as well as one less enemy to deal with later in the game. Gets you closer to domination and conquest victories.

Not exactly lacking in benefits.

[rah]

Ok, slightly extreme but the peace monger is getting benefits also. More tech trading, usually teching better due to lower maint. costs, all the peace bonuses.
But I'll stand by my opinion that Firaxis encouraged warmongering.

Beyond the sword really wasn't beyond the sword.

[Krill]

Ok, slightly extreme but the peace monger is getting benefits also. More tech trading, usually teching better due to lower maint. costs, all the peace bonuses.
But I'll stand by my opinion that Firaxis encouraged warmongering.

Beyond the sword really wasn't beyond the sword.

Peacemonger is getting benefits from a warmonger capturing cities? Or were you referencing the no tech trading, but tech deals still existing point? NOt commenting just yet because I think we might have our wires crossed.

Oh, and BtS favoured defending, not attacking. The introduction of flanking, that cats can't kill and are more expensive compared to Warlords, the new spies, siege that can't attack from boats...defending is stupendously easier compared Warlords.

[rah]

Yeah, wires crossed a touch. I was being a bit flipant.

ABOUT Bts, yes, as long as it's against a human. Against the AI it really doesn't matter.
The AI is equally bad at both.
They tried but I didn't consider it successful

[rah]

And it would have been nice in BTS if they had remembered to program the AI about the changes in Siege engines. Despite not being able to kill units the AI will still send them unescorted up to a city that it can't take.

[Ming]

Or even worse, land a few next to an island city with no other support units