 |
| |
|
|
Bogdanovist
|
|
The myriad of unit abilities that are apparently being introduced in CIV look interesting, but I'm not so sure about them being accessed by promotions only. This would seem to favour an aggressive strategy. Unless you constanly have someone to fight you'll be stuck with vanilla flavoured units while you warlike opponent has a wide variety of specialised units gained through promotions.
Maybe builders get other advantages so it's obviously impossible to access the overall game balance without seeing the whole picture. The way I've tended to play Civ II, SMAC(X) and in the last week or two Civ II, is to be a peacefull builder for most of the game with a relatively small (geographically speaking) empire, and then later on with tech superiority run amok with advanced units. It would seem that unit promotions work against this strategy, encouraging more frequent wars to keep you stock of jungle fighters or amphibious landers or whatever at reasonable levels, instead of just being able to build them when neccessary.
Of course making veteran players change their styles of play is not neccassarily a bad thing, but I was interested in what anyone else thought about this promotions thing?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:24
|
|
My hope is that a decent builder would have the edge with better basic units, and a better infrastructure to turn them out in case of a defensive war. The tactical war would go to the fighter, the attrition war to the builder.
On the surface, the system makes sense... if you don't fight your units are green.
It means the fighters are better fighters, which isn't amazingly unbalancing like the Great Leaders were in Civ III... the only way to rush a wonder and you HAD to get them by having LOTS of fights.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:24
|
|
Well, I suggested many weeks ago that promotions should NOT just be based on how many fights you win, but also the amount of 'military infrastructure' you possess. This way, a city with lots of barracks could get promotions almost as often-with almost no fighting-as a nation which is fighting all the time, but which has almost no barracks at all!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cabbagemeister
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Donegeal
I think the builder strat will be fixed, to a point. Remember, there are now 5 different types of great leaders, and I believe that none of them are garnered through warmongering... |
It depends how useful the great leaders actually turn out to be. Clearly, leader generation will be the lynchpin of the builder strategy, just like it was the lynchpin of the warmonger strategy in Civ3. But I'm not totally clear on what the leaders all do, or how much their presence (or absence) will affect your position. Will failing to generate a great leader in your science city cripple your chances of getting to Alpha Centauri peacefully? Is the builder relying on the evil RNG for his win?
Of course, regardless of how leaders work, even the most peaceful builder will have to build up his military when a warmonger (hello Ghengis) is nearby. Great trade routes (or whatever) from leaders are nice, but they don't stop advancing armies. The pure builder strategy is probably not viable. And I feel like this is as it should be.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-06-2005 11:34
|