I'm starting a new thread for a topic that sprung up
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that you can always beat just about any turn based strategy game with a rush strategy.
The one thing that I really wish CivIII had done that I can't think of how to do myself with the editor is getting rid of that square worked for free in all new cities.
If they did away with this then I think that would really kill ICS once and for all, as it would be more worthwile to expand an existing city than it would to found new ones.
Right now you are often far better off with 3 size 3 cities than with one size 9 city.
Austin
I was thinking of making some of the bonus things like wheat and cows a little more common. Early urbanization was a LOT more difficult historically than it ever is in this game. The effect that I'm going for is that in the very beggining you have a lot fewer sites that make for good cities, so in the early game you cannot simply spew settler diarheea all over the place and ICS your way to victory.
This puts the emphasis more on having fewer cities in the early game and developing them better. It also actually makes colonies a hell of a lot more usefull and relevant to the game.
And yes restricting despotism in that fashion was deliberate. The big land grab part of the game should be at the end of the middle ages, not in 1800 B.C.
And if your civilization doesn't advance itself technologically, it SHOULD remain stuck at a low level (see historical American Indians among others).
There should be large swaths of land that are'nt useable right away, but that start opening up for colonization mid game once your society is advanced enough.
Austin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that you can always beat just about any turn based strategy game with a rush strategy.
The one thing that I really wish CivIII had done that I can't think of how to do myself with the editor is getting rid of that square worked for free in all new cities.
If they did away with this then I think that would really kill ICS once and for all, as it would be more worthwile to expand an existing city than it would to found new ones.
Right now you are often far better off with 3 size 3 cities than with one size 9 city.
Austin
Originally posted by PerpetualNewbie
Get rid of the central tile? Wow. Unless you start with some bonus food resource, that city is dead. If the best tile you had was grassland, you sit at pop 1 until you change from Despotism, which would be sometime in the 1900s, I'm guessing. If you start on plains or desert, you are dead in a turn. Or were you planning on boosting the production of your other tiles in response?
Get rid of the central tile? Wow. Unless you start with some bonus food resource, that city is dead. If the best tile you had was grassland, you sit at pop 1 until you change from Despotism, which would be sometime in the 1900s, I'm guessing. If you start on plains or desert, you are dead in a turn. Or were you planning on boosting the production of your other tiles in response?
This puts the emphasis more on having fewer cities in the early game and developing them better. It also actually makes colonies a hell of a lot more usefull and relevant to the game.
And yes restricting despotism in that fashion was deliberate. The big land grab part of the game should be at the end of the middle ages, not in 1800 B.C.
And if your civilization doesn't advance itself technologically, it SHOULD remain stuck at a low level (see historical American Indians among others).
There should be large swaths of land that are'nt useable right away, but that start opening up for colonization mid game once your society is advanced enough.
Austin
Comment