Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About TemTemSefekh

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    London, Middlesex, United Kingdom
  1. I think Monarchy would be a given for GB and Elizabeth I too. Other options: Victoria would be a good alternative choice or possibly Henry V. You could have say Feudalism as the starting tech.
  2. The British ought to be included in the next expansion although i was thinking an economic edge would be good - eg a coin to start and a coin per city built. If the Brits started with Sailing that would be a good enough edge to start with without needing to have combat bonuses - maybe also start with Stonehenge? So: Queen Elizabeth, Monarchy, Sailing, Start with a coin and gain a coin per city built (by GB) and Stonehenge. With a start tile with say three water squares, two forest and two mountains next to the start square.
  3. I certainly would like to see the Mongols along with the British and French - maybe in an 'Empires' expansion. I like the idea of the Mongols starting with a great general, but not with the other bonuses you mentioned - thats far too much and no need for the extra +1 combat bonus with half price feudal cavalry. Any news or work being done on another expansion? I'd like to see some new ideas on the Economic victory condition as so far in the games ive played it has been the poor relation. Maybe when Great Britain are introduced we'll see this. Great Britain: Leader: Queen Elizabeth I, Starting tech: Sailing, Govt: Monarchy plus some bonuses on trade and economics - eg start with a coin and gain a coin per new city built and a start tile with a good few hammers and water for harbours.
  4. Religion plays such an important role in the development of both individuals - who may then influence society - and nations, reflecting this in the game is a good idea. The main issue would, i agree, be to include it in such a way that is balanced so that no religion is made 'better' than others ie all are equally valid and they confer a general bonus or advantage regardless of the name of the religion. India is a good example of a nation where more than anywhere else religion forms the core of their society and culture so religion does have its influence.
  5. I agree Great Britain should be included. I was thinking this again last weekend playing Civ with the new nations. I won as India in a military victory vs Arabs (going strong for a cultural victory) with the Spanish also playing (going strong for a tech victory). I was thinking too that of all the ways to win the economic way seemed least likely and has done in all the games we've played to date. Maybe with the overdue introduction of GB economics can be better emphasized. GB. Elizabeth. Monarchy. Sailing. Extra coins when conquering villages and cities and can invest twice a turn? Anyway, I'd like to see GB in the next expansion.
  6. Surprised Great Britain is not included although nice to see India and Greece. So FFG, when will you add Great Britain? either under Victoria or Elizabeth. Cant really have a game about great civilisations and empires without the British now Maybe under an Imperial expansion - i'd like to see Napoleonic France too.
  7. Steve-O said: Personally, I've never found DNs to be underpowered in this game. All the balance complaints I've heard have basically amounted to "if it's not the BEST option then it's not worth building!" Which strikes me as a bit petulant, to say the least. All I can say is that if these people are tweaking DNs due to some perceived flaw, I wonder what other rules they're also tweaking that might be putting DNs at a disadvantage in the first place. I'm not opposed to house rules in general, but I definitely do favour the idea of making sure something is broken (in your personal experience) before you start trying to fix it. Agreed.
  8. I'd recommend playing the rules as they are. In the games i've played strategy, tactics and diplomacy have played the key roles in determining success. DNs are expensive but they are situational and can be worth buying in some situations. Often they are not bought because they're too expensive and slow, but as well as a defensive measure (when movement is not a serious issue) or to build them on the front line (as a prelude to an invasion of an adjacent system) they can be worth it. War Suns are powerful yes, but usually it takes a while to get them into play and they take up a lot of resources - we like them as they are. In a recent game where i won as the Ghosts vs The Nekro and Arborec, The Arborec eventually got War Suns then eventually built one with a GF in a system adjacent to MR. The Nekro had copied the tech but never built one - always something more pressing to do. I had control of MR with my main fleet and i had raced to a 8-4-3 lead and knew if i could keep control of MR i would win because we were playing until a deadline. The Arborec built all 5 DNs and with the War Sun smashed my fleet, but i had enough GFs to survive the invasion attempt in that last turn. The point is yes DNs are usually not worth the expenditure. I only built one in the above game early on as a defensive measure. But there are a number of factors already alluded to here and elsewhere that make them buyable including fleet supply, build limits, sustain damage etc. I'm always more interested in reading about how players overcome 'issues' with tactics etc rather than going down the houserules road.
  9. I like Star Trek and whilst i certainly dont need a ST variant to play, i admit it would be cool to see one developed with new planet tiles. Ive taken a look at the notes as identified and whilst there is much i dont agree with i applaud the attempt. I would add abilities for the Romulans and Cardies to reflect their respective intel services - integral to their empires - maybe for the Roms the ability to block events trargeting their homeworld and viewing opponents ACs and for the Cardies - maybe pay a CC for one sabotage a turn and +1 fleet supply (reminded of the Cardies when i see Letnev in play). The Feds advantages were mainly better research, diplomacy and shields - dont know why Sovereign class would give a combat boost to carriers - better to give a boost to capital ships. The Klingons should also have cloak tech. Anyway, its all academic, but i do like the idea.
  10. solitear said: All good points. My ruling would be that in any case of a stalemate the attacker would be the one to retreat. I don't remember the ion storm ruling...come to think of it no one in any of my games has ever attacked an ion storm so it never came up. By continuing the stalemate the attacker gains nothing and the defender loses nothing..therefore deciding the stalemate in favor of the defender doesn't result in a net change in position....even if the defender possessed a tactical retreat card(i believe they would play a direct hit) it should not be required of them to play it..they could impose a stalemate if possible. The attacker of course may play a tactical retreat if required to save his ship. My position is i believe the most fair. I agree with almost every argument made here and am interested in FFG's take..just thought I'd throw in my two cents I agree. I see no need for changes to the Duranium armour effects. Since the attacker would not win the defender retains control of the system and the attacker should then be obliged to retreat or be destroyed. The Duranium armour wouldnt suddenly become weaker for convenience.
  11. Two games played so far - my Egyptians were beaten by the Russians in the first and my Romans beat the Americans in the second - both saw tech victories quite comfortably. Several battles were fought and were important in both games, but a military victory was not realistic in the first and irrelevant in the second as my tech victory was secured shortly after nuking my opponent - although it was clear that decisive battles were key. Both players in both games enjoyed reasonable culture advances and i was on 8 coins in the Roman win. The military aspect to the game is probably one of the least enjoyable so far - i'd like to see more nations too eg Great Britain, India and Greece in particular. As for nation powers, in the two games, i liked the Egyptian and Roman ones the best, although i utilised the Roman advantage better, The Americans was quite useful in a low industry game, but the Russians wasnt really that helpful.
  12. Of course there should be more nations. Surprised the Germans got the nod over the British. New nations: 1. Great Britain under either Elizabeth or Victoria, monarchy, sailing. 2. India under Gandhi. These would be my prefered next two nations. Then Greece under Alexander and France under Napoleon.
  • Create New...