Tweet
It has been told that CIV3 will be harder for players with a "warmonger" strategy. From the new details given by Firaxis, I think that´s not quite so true. You now need a culture (frontiers) and economic (units are payed in gold per turn) background, but some additions in my opinion balance that:
- You can capture workers, catapults and cannons, so the prize for taking a city or fortress, or winning a batlle in open, now dramatically increases. In Civ2, in a campaing against an enemy civ warmongers could capture cities, some gold and techs, but they had to have enough settlers to build roads to effectively control the land. Now, they can capture workers and as they are slaves, they don´t have to fed them (in game terms). Also, captured catapults and cannons could help a lot to continue campaings without that badly needed reinforcements, and skilled combatants could advance a lot with few units.
- You can upgrade your units in exchange for some gold (halved with Leonardo´s Workshop). Also helps a lot in campaings, in CIV2 you have to build new units and make a long trip to the front.
-Some special units mean great advantages at the beginning of the game for that civs historically more primitive (I know that doesn´t sound politically correct) like Aztecs, Zulus,Iroquises,... They have a big advantage at the begining (if you want to win the game as warmonger you need to start your conquers early in the game), and as they could have their Age of Gold so soon, you could build a good army (for the time) in relatively few time.
-The militaristic caracter of some civs means advantages for the warmonger players that choose them.
-The new combat rules, more complex, make skilled combatants to take bigger advantages from their tactical abilities.
- Finally, the armies, that militaristic civs could build sooner, gives warmonger the posibility to build a "superunit" without very advanced technoligies.
So, what do you think? Do you think that´s enough to make a powermonger strategy still playable?
- You can capture workers, catapults and cannons, so the prize for taking a city or fortress, or winning a batlle in open, now dramatically increases. In Civ2, in a campaing against an enemy civ warmongers could capture cities, some gold and techs, but they had to have enough settlers to build roads to effectively control the land. Now, they can capture workers and as they are slaves, they don´t have to fed them (in game terms). Also, captured catapults and cannons could help a lot to continue campaings without that badly needed reinforcements, and skilled combatants could advance a lot with few units.
- You can upgrade your units in exchange for some gold (halved with Leonardo´s Workshop). Also helps a lot in campaings, in CIV2 you have to build new units and make a long trip to the front.
-Some special units mean great advantages at the beginning of the game for that civs historically more primitive (I know that doesn´t sound politically correct) like Aztecs, Zulus,Iroquises,... They have a big advantage at the begining (if you want to win the game as warmonger you need to start your conquers early in the game), and as they could have their Age of Gold so soon, you could build a good army (for the time) in relatively few time.
-The militaristic caracter of some civs means advantages for the warmonger players that choose them.
-The new combat rules, more complex, make skilled combatants to take bigger advantages from their tactical abilities.
- Finally, the armies, that militaristic civs could build sooner, gives warmonger the posibility to build a "superunit" without very advanced technoligies.
So, what do you think? Do you think that´s enough to make a powermonger strategy still playable?
).
Comment