I was just wondering if anyone else here was feeling the same way I was. I just think that the border treaty, and other things which I can't remeber right now is just to conservastive. I would have liked to see a more reckless phase of expansionism with 'jungle rules.' With all the great players on our team, I think that this unpredictibility and the chaos would benefit us. Right now, we are slowly eliminating the variables which the other team faces: they no longer need to choose between say expansion or granery, because their borders are guaranteed.
I think that it is safe to assume that the civ we are closest too has a civ on their western border and they are sandwhiched between us and them. Meaning that this border treaty has just freeded them up, given them less game elements to juggle, and has reduced the chances of them making a mistake.
I also think that all of those workers we have are slowing us down. This is the early ages. We don't need many city improvements. We should be pumping out settlers from every hole except for one city where we build a wonder (colossus in my opinion)
Anyhow, I just had to get that out of my system. Does anyone else feel like this, or am I just being too dangerous?
I think that it is safe to assume that the civ we are closest too has a civ on their western border and they are sandwhiched between us and them. Meaning that this border treaty has just freeded them up, given them less game elements to juggle, and has reduced the chances of them making a mistake.
I also think that all of those workers we have are slowing us down. This is the early ages. We don't need many city improvements. We should be pumping out settlers from every hole except for one city where we build a wonder (colossus in my opinion)
Anyhow, I just had to get that out of my system. Does anyone else feel like this, or am I just being too dangerous?
Comment