Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[werty892]

Barbarians early game are kind of annoying, but needed. I tried doing some test games without them, and I had to build up a military instantly in every game, because warmongers would have nothing to slow them down, and as such would go on the warpath ASAP.

[werty892]

So, double post, but does it really matter, considering the posts are 3 months apart. Anyways, does anyone want to do some multiplayer? I have had very disappointing experiences in multiplayer, because everyone ends up leaving early. But I figure bay12 can commit. So, is anyone interested? BNW+G&K would probably be required at least, since they add so many important things.

[bulborbish]

I'm up for it. Probably for times sake we want to use Giant Multiplayer Robot to match errant player schedules.

[scrdest]

I have all the DLC and didn't have more than one person to play multiplayer, so depending on the time, yeah, I might be up for it.

[bulborbish]

I have all the DLC and didn't have more than one person to play multiplayer, so depending on the time, yeah, I might be up for it.

Eh, it's why I prefer GMR. No need to coordinate schedules.

[Bouchart]

I'm interested, but I need to buy a new computer first, which may take a few weeks.

Also I only own the vanilla game.

[USEC_OFFICER]

I'm interested, but I need to buy a new computer first, which may take a few weeks.

Also I only own the vanilla game.

Same here. Well... The vanilla game bit, that is. Still definitely interested though.

[Wiles]

edit: I missed that gmr was already mentioned. Anyway I might be interested in some multiplayer depending on the timing.

[Cicero]

I would certainly be interested in multiplayer, but only with the expansions. They are somewhat crucial to the game, it feels very incomplete without them.

[scrdest]

I would certainly be interested in multiplayer, but only with the expansions. They are somewhat crucial to the game, it feels very incomplete without them.

Oh yes. I absolutely love the political element World Congress adds with BNW. I have no idea how to use religion, so outside of spies and rebalances G&K is less crucial, but BNW is essential. Otherwise post-Industrial game becomes a slog.

[Rakonas]

I would certainly be interested in multiplayer, but only with the expansions. They are somewhat crucial to the game, it feels very incomplete without them.

Oh yes. I absolutely love the political element World Congress adds with BNW. I have no idea how to use religion, so outside of spies and rebalances G&K is less crucial, but BNW is essential. Otherwise post-Industrial game becomes a slog.

My biggest gripe with religion in this game is that any civ that's founded a religion can't possibly be converted to another permanently. It's be like if the Fatimids repeatedly converted to Judaism until they lost Judea.
Even then, there's not much to do with religion, even having most the world of your religion isn't particularly beneficial unless you have the pilgrimage belief or papal primacy.

[Niveras]

I hate that you can't extinguish a religion, because you can't extinguish it from the holy city, even one you control. If you use an inquisitor in a holy city, next turn the holy city will still pop up with heavy influence/push/whateveritscalled of that religion. Maybe if you raze it but razing a holy city is generally not a good idea, just because they tend to be large and well established and so capturing them makes more sense economically.

[umiman]

Sounds like the kind of problem the Taliban or Fundamentalist Christians have.

[Niveras]

Yeah, even as I typed it, it occurred to me that the mechanic is a pretty faithful facsimile of real world religions, in the sense that they are pretty hard to snuff out completely.

Still, in terms of gameplay it annoys me that there's always going to be something "taking away" from my intended plan in a manner that I cannot control or even defend against. Doesn't really matter what you do, religion is going to spread and unless it carries effects that you wanted to choose but couldn't because some other player chose it first (in which case you might even want to spread it over your own, especially if you now own its holy city), the bonuses are going to hamper your efforts. It'd be like units just randomly up and losing health for no reason, or gold or science (in a manner separate from expenses/maintenance).

[Satarus]

I hate that you can't extinguish a religion, because you can't extinguish it from the holy city, even one you control. If you use an inquisitor in a holy city, next turn the holy city will still pop up with heavy influence/push/whateveritscalled of that religion. Maybe if you raze it but razing a holy city is generally not a good idea, just because they tend to be large and well established and so capturing them makes more sense economically.

If you use an inquisitor on another holy city, it will cease to be a holy city.  I've done it before.  It's fun to do when you play continents and then completely take over your continent before meeting the other one.

As for uses for religion, I generally grab tithe and feed the world and call it a day.  Tithe gets me some nice GPT and an early GP and some missionaries can start my pressure snowball to keep it coming.  Then maybe throw in a pagoda or mosque and I got the extra happy and faith sink to hold me over to industrial.