 |
|  |
 |
|
Mercantile
|
|
Westcoast of Canada
Dec 2000 time: 05:12
|
|
Yes i think so, and here's why.
1 The initial trade bonus. Sure early trade bonuses are not too huge, but every bit of gold counts in the early game. Mid game, these bonuses increase exponentially. By the late stages, on large maps the money is ludicrous especially with perfecitonist civs on a different continent.
2 The one time science bonus. Ok here is where i have a problem. Why give a science bonus? Is this really necessary. First you fill my coffers with gold coins, now you want to give me a science bonus equivelant to the amount of gold i received, come on now.
IMO , trade routes should have an initial gold bonus, and then an amount that carries over each turn like it does already in civ when you establish a trade route.
However, the one time science payout is by far the single easiest way to research techs, thus making it way too easy to surpass a cheating ai in the conquest of AC.
Now i am sure many of you will come to the defense of the science payout with arguements like trade increses spending , thus increasing development, thus incresing technology/science growth etc.
Maybe that is a realistic way to look at it, i am not fully convinced (this is your job now people) but i still think for civ, it makes the game too easy to win.
*runs off stage to chorus of boos and rotten fruit*
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
|
a few howitzers take care of perfectionist civs. case closed! 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Mercantile
|
|
Westcoast of Canada
Dec 2000 time: 05:12
|
|
uh DA how does this have anything to do with caravans?
You dont need howies to take out ai civs, at least i don't.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
my point is which will win in a battle of a howitzer (or substitute any offensiv unit here) and a caravan. The fact is warmongers have the advantage in civ. Perhaps one reason I don't play MGE- the other being I don't own MGE . And yes even the sorry AI can build them, so I fail to see the significance. So I suppose they added the science bonus to help offset the advantage of warmonging nations.
[This message has been edited by Dissident Aggressor (edited November 15, 2000).]
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Mercantile
|
|
Westcoast of Canada
Dec 2000 time: 05:12
|
|
DA caravans comeout way before howies. Its not a peacefull vs warmonger issue. The fact remains that caravans IMO are too powerfull. Howies are not.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
no I meant any offensive unit- howies were just an example. It is possible to take over the world using knights. It's not something I do, but many people here do. What good are your caravans if somebody is rushing you with 30 knights combined with dips?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Matthew
|
|
Manhattan, Kansas . USA
Jan 1970 time: 05:12
|
|
There are two types of people who play civ. Those who like camels, and those who deserve to die.
------------------
The camel is not a part of civ.
THE CAMEL IS CIV !!!!
SAVE THE CAMEL !!!!!!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
debeest
|
|
Um ... I'll admit that the game I just finished was only the first time I ever won before 1900, and so far at OCC I usually haven't won, so I'm nowhere near the strongest player around here -- but I know I'm not the only one who thinks caravans are mainly for building Wonders out of. Some pretty good players (DaveV for example) don't seem to use them much at all. So, if you REALLY want this thread to go somewhere, Merc -- convince me that I should devote my resources to building caravans and sending them off into the wilderness. Quite seriously, I'd like to know if I'm as far off base on this subject as the commentary here would seem to indicate.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Matthew
|
|
Manhattan, Kansas . USA
Jan 1970 time: 05:12
|
|
quote:

Originally posted by Blaupanzer on 11-22-2000 10:17 AM
The real historical precedent is the Romans versus the Phoenicians (Carthaginians in Civ). The real Phoenicians were trading giants, and their civilization had a big lead on the Romans at the start. We all know the Romans ate them alive and salted the soil of their capitol. A pretty firm argument in FAVOR of Merc's point. With that lead and that strategy, the Carthaginians should be able to win in Civ II. (Probably more than one scenario on this; I'm not really into scenarios.)
 |
You speak as if the results of the first two punic wars was a foregone conclusion. This is hardly the case. Rome won the first one. which was mostly a naval war, because of a tactic the Carthagenians were not prepared for. The Roman ships each had a cmplement of soldiers, and any time two ships got close, the Roman ship would throw a grapple onto the Carthagenian ship, holding it close long enough for the Romans to board the Carthagenian ship. In this way the advantages the Carthagenians held in seamanship was voided. This is hardly a tactic the Carthagenians should not have been prepared for. It was common among the Greeks, which is where the Romans got the idea. They probably just didn't think the Romans would use it. Had the Carthagenians been more prepared for this tactic and thereby prolonged the conflict, theit greater economic power certainly would have taken its toll on the Romans, who had ben stretched to their limits in building their fleet.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Mercantile
|
|
Westcoast of Canada
Dec 2000 time: 05:12
|
|
Blaupanzer, I believe its more who you play. I too hear that alot of people think the first to leos, mikes or statue means the game is over. True against a superp player this may be. But i think thats when civvers need to learn guile and tactics. Most situations allow for extensive tech stealing therefore allowing civs in the dark ages to catch up. Caravans being as powerfull as they are , allow for science and tech and gold bonuses, so no game is lost, besides people need more experience with the mid and late game. Any fool can churn settlers for five hours
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12. Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|