![]() ![]() ![]() This also makes historical sense: no city before classical era had more than 100k (maybe 200k?) people, no city beforr industrial had more than 1m, and no metropolis before late 20th had more than 20m inhabitants. This system makes yields of a city tied to its population, which is a soft cap on how great city yields can get on different stages of the game, due to the fact there are many boosts to pop growth coming with later eras. This does make realistic sense: a newly colonized land is useless until you actually have people to use it to produce goods. You only get tile's output when you put a citizen on that tile. In civ games in order to actually use terrain yields you need population units. AI also randomly hits the hyper snowball against other AIs and human player if its lucky, so its not a matter of "good human player vs dumb AI" but a n issue of general game design.ฤก) The exploitation of tiles and population mechanics The difficulty level I have played is 5th out of 7, and I have in no way optimized anything, mostly I have stumbled in the dark and hit game - breaking stuff accidentally. So I don't think this discussion is necessarily barren. I don't think it would be entirely impossible to fundamentally change this system, seeing how many strategy games have reworked their fundamentals during their life cycle with a benefit to gameplay. I have decided to post this because I think a lot of the greatest issues of this game boil down to central IMO very flawed designs of the very basic economic system, and that connection is rarely made among various discussions about the game and how to improve it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |