I also switch on raging barbs every time.which on immortal the AI are just as proficient at fighting. Also, I get worse early trade-route options as usually 1 or none CS are near enough for early trade routes.say goodbye to early gold. The lack of CS's means everyone is fighting over them and early luxury options are limited since for some reason AI take forever to develop second copies. If there are a lot nearby I find myself tempted to go patronage and end up dominating too easily with all the extra resources. At least with my general strategies, I find myself way better at getting and keeping CS's then my neighbors. And having less means the players is competed with more.
How is this true? i would think that CS are more abused by players than extra space. 1) What would happen to the WC? Would the original host and/or builder of the Forbidden Palace be forever more influential than everyone else, by virtue of those early achievements? (Would give a big advantage to Polynesia, and for taking a Great Admiral when closing Liberty.) 2) More importantly, would some of the AIs handicap themselves by wasting SPs in the Patronage branch, even if there are no CSs on the map? More diplomacy, more competition for land/resources/wonders, less dilly vote-bribing in the modern era.īut, has anyone played like this? It seems there could be problems. Instead of 15 civs and 20 CSs, maybe ~24 civs. So, I'm considering eliminating all CSs in my next game. I turned off diplomatic victory, but the broader gameplay problem persists. I can maintain 2-3 times more CS alliances than any AI, which results in lots of extra food, happiness, happiness & science, and pretty much any WC proposal I want. A couple spies, a few well-timed donations, and it quickly becomes uninteresting. Toward the modern era and later I can get decent money flowing, and then start to just dominate the World Congress. I have lately been dissatisfied with the way city-states are handled.
0 kommentar(er)
