Jump to content

bucko2

Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About bucko2

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Quebec, Canada
  1. To the makers of Sid Mir's Civ boardgame… Please please change this in the game! You simply cannot win a battle when all your troops are wiped off the map! Army barracks for training your soldiers cannot bring victory to dead bodies lying on the field of battle. Army generals need to be taken into battle with you (and risk dying). The easiest way to resolve this problem is by coming out with a military expansion! You could fix the problem, add new military techs, add espionage (by allowing for something covering and hiding a technology choice until it is needed and unveiled in a battle), add bonus for defending and attacking in different sorts of military terrains, add great leaders - like world wonders - giving special abilities, add the possibility of having several standing armies that are represented by particular army markers, add the possibility of producing or developing veteran troops… so that the clunky illogical rule of winning a battle after being decimated by the opposition can be fixed once and for all! The game is beautiful. I'm a pacifist and prefer any win other than military but this detail irks me to no end. I enjoy the game as it is but I sometimes cringe at certain points in the game where it goes against everything involved in building civilizations - being able to realistically defend against attack. Now that my rant is done I'll go back to playing and enjoying your Civ boardgame!
  2. Bucko said: Here is a final thought on this question. I think now that creating veteran units is too complicated. Instead, the barracks and military academy can give +2 and +4 for military production only (increase hammers in cities). And your great person - the general - doesn't sit on a city square but with your units. He is taken into battle with you. If your units are all lost he is captured. If even one of your units survives he gets away with them. He functions according to the standard rules for battles (as well as the cities and city walls). I'd love to see how these rules play out in the game... any takers? Any takers?
  3. Esperology, great idea about linking the units to army figures - it makes everything a lot more complicated though. If you work the army figures out in reality it might be something like the ability to organize the troops and deploy them (a general and their commanders). It fits then that whenever you lose a battle all your army figures are lost. Your soldiers flee home or to the nearest assembled army figures. To be honest I haven't played my own suggestion yet. I'm still getting to know the game. With work and family obligations I don't have time to try the new stuff. A thought though: the more you play it the less able you will be to think of new ideas. I am hoping to get my new ideas out now and then once I have a better handle on the game to modify it. Here is a place where I am working out ideas for a military expansion: boardgamegeek.com/thread/725504/building-a-military-expansion-version-for-the-game I don't think Civ -boardgame needs a military expansion. I think it would be great for them to offer one though. I have already contacted them and they are not accepting unsolicited game ideas. I think they could learn a lot from the game Settlers of Catan. They've got expansions coming out their ears - and each expansion makes money for them. My comments about philosophy are based on cost. It is too expensive to use. Sure the philosophers choose their path in life... but if you have a military society, the philosophers will most likely be military minded - hence your ability to choose the great person you are wanting. You'll need to limit the military commander to one - perhaps with the explanation that if you ever did get two military commanders in one army they'd kill each other.
  4. Thanks for the correction! I'm not sure how I missed that point.
  5. Here is a final thought on this question. I think now that creating veteran units is too complicated. Instead, the barracks and military academy can give +2 and +4 for military production only (increase hammers in cities). And your great person - the general - doesn't sit on a city square but with your units. He is taken into battle with you. If your units are all lost he is captured. If even one of your units survives he gets away with them. He functions according to the standard rules for battles (as well as the cities and city walls). I'd love to see how these rules play out in the game... any takers?
  6. I think it is crazy that you can win a battle with no troops left. My comments and suggestions have just been put in a new topic in the Forums. This has been the most interesting discussion I have read yet!
  7. I'm a new Civ player but it seems to me that Code of laws is a great early technology to get. You can change your of government (to republic) for free and that gives you the ability to use your scouts in exploring friendly huts and your army figures can build cities. It also enables you to build trading posts - which increases your trade (something essential). If you get another scout built early it is very helpful. For me the gold coins you collect are a bonus that make it even more valuable. Perhaps I have been playing the battles wrong, but it seems to me that if you attack with an army and a scout you have a battle hand of 5. Then you can be attacking the villages early (several civilizations might not have enough hammers in their first turn to build a scout - so they can build units). So the third turn or so you can be easily attacking enemy villages. take care,
  8. Re: philosophy... if you are going to spend one whole research advance on philosophy you still need to spend three resources to get a famous person. A nuke doesn't cost that much. The price is high and the benefit of the research is very little. When the people are picked at random you are risking getting someone that has nothing to do with the strategy you are playing. Another thing I don't like... democracy is weak and wimpy as a government. Building an aqueduct has more benefit than changing the government (and you are not forced into a pacificist position. Apart from these few irritants I love the game! cheers!
  9. Does anybody know how can I send my recommendation to the game maker (along with a few other ideas for saving them money and improving the board set-up)? Thanks.
  10. First of all I like the overall way the fighting works. It is simple, quick, and doesn't require rolling dice. There is still the element of chance - with different levels of units and a random pick of units for use in your battle hand. I don't think it makes sense however that you can win a battle even though you lost the actual battle. How can a military academy miles away from a battle win the battle after your army has been decimated? I can understand the extra scoring when attacking a city (even if you conquer the army in the city the citizens of the city might still defend themselves - and it takes a certain amount of strength to overcome and subdue the city itself). When two armies are fighting in the open field it seems to me that the only way to decide the victory is to see who is left standing. Having a military leader and military academies should boost strength in battle not strength after battle. Here are some ideas for possible home rules (and changes the producer of the game can think about) What if each military academy produced a certain type of veteran units - units that cannot be trumped according to the rules. Each player has a maximum of three cities and can build only one academy per city - you can get three types of academies: Army, artillery, and cavalry. When you build an academy you choose which units are made veterans. Or you build the selected academy based on availability (only a certain number of each type of academy is available) The military commander can make obsolete one of the veterans of the opposition in each battle (or allow you to choose which types of units are made veterans). This makes logical sense - because you have academies to teach a certain type of warfare, and generals who understand enough about fighting that they might use one technique in one battle - that either makes veterans obselete or improves the ability of your own units - and another technique in another battle. Along with this, the philosophy technology should allow you to pick which great person you want - when you are studying philosophy, you would logically choose what type of philosophies you want to study - philosophy of war, philosophy of work, philosophy of trade... etc. Without this addition the philosophy card is a waste of time - if your strategy is military or production and you randomly get the rich old king with culture it is a waste of a city space and technology. Philosophy goes from a stupid investment to something that makes a lot of sense. I'd love to hear about what others think of this proposed change to the fighting set-up.
×
×
  • Create New...