Discussion in 'Gaming' started by Hermiod, Feb 18, 2010.
No more city defections?! I loved taking over cities with culture-bombs....
Seriously. What are they going to replace it with? It's not just going to be combat is it? Because I loved played completely political civs that turtled up and took over via influence. One of my favorite civ memories was taking over a large map with gahndi, never attacking the whole time other than against the barbarians at the beginning.
Culture flips were stupid. No matter how you look at it, a human would react differently than a computer. Computers would passively agree to accept it, which isn't entirely realistic. Humans would immediately start building up for a war if they lost a city to a culture flip.
Yeah, but there were other sides to the dynamic. One time, I was attacking one civ who had previously attacked my vassal state, and systematically taking over their cities.
But some of the enemy cities turned out to have been captured from the vassal, and still were 90% their ethnicity. So after I captured those cities, I got a message saying how the people of those cities longed for a return to the motherland or something. Since I was on track for a cultural victory anyway, I allowed them to return to the vassal state, scoring major diplomatic points in the process.
Well, here's one major improvement - no more messy road spaghetti!
Honestly, the road spaghetti never bothered me. I found them too useful to move troops to care about how they look. My concern is, will this "clean up" hinder my movements over rough terrain? The mention that roads will continue to play a major role in the game, but they didn't really get into much detail.
True, but if not it could make for some interesting changes. After all, roads and rail have traditionally been extremely important strategic tools in wartime. Most countries never had anything approaching a Civ-spaghetti.
Mehhh, I nearly always play for the culture win. I love flipping cities. I nearly never start wars or occupy cities with force (well, except for Barbarian cities somewhere near my civ).
I find I usually need to soundly stomp at least one neighboring civ early in the game to establish my military cred, or else everyone starts getting really aggressive towards me around 1000 AD.
Road clutter doesn't bother me either. Hell, it's something I do when I have nothing better with workers. Obviously, priority has always been connecting cities, but roading other tiles is useful in case of invasion.
Perhaps they might use obsolescence - ie. a dirt track road in ancient times becomes obsolete and you have to build paved roads, then highways.
Probably a silly idea, but I can't really think of another way to do it.
What if all roads have to be built as routes? As in, they need a solid start and end point, like city to city, or city to resource?
I was originally against the idea of getting rid of the roads, but this makes the most sense. Although I do like building roads towards my enemies for attack, it doesn't really make sense in the universe you have roads in every single square, most of which don't actually go anywhere. So if you wanted a railway to your enemy you can negotiate a trade treaty, or build a military fortress on the border.
This actually almost takes us back to the old Civ II days, w/ dirt roads, replaced by paved roads, and then finally railroads.
That'd be a really great idea, actually. I always found fortresses to be a bit useless in the past, but now they could hold strategic importance by being control points for roads.
That is, if Firaxis is reading this thread.
I'm pretty sure the road change was only a graphics change (and, in Civ2, everything was railroaded). The only reason to discourage roads back then is your enemies could use them too (and the AIs would pace back and forth on unlimited railroads and your turns would take forever to end).
I had to share with you this April Fools joke from Civfanatics.com:
When in reality, they're holding that one for Civilization VI: The System Lords.
I'd buy it.
Separate names with a comma.