|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Frugal_Gourmet
Ok, this is not a radical disease model...
|
My original idea of a desease-model suggested several months ago, was that normal (optimal) foods-, shields-, coins- and lightbulbes-production only could be achieved if you invested in city-improvements like granary, bathhouse, aqueduct, sewersystem, hospital and so on, and avoided prolonged wars (= trade-restrictions, famines). Beneath "full health" meant that all these areas suffered gradually and accordingly.
I havent read anything about any health/disease-factor being implemented in Civ-3 so far, though.
|
Quote:
|
How about the ability to impose city-build-limits on any game? Just a configurable check-box when you start a new game. [...]
The reason being: When my friends and I play a multiplayer game, we often impose "house rules" -- one such being the limits of how many cities each player can build. There are no limits on how many we can "have" mind you, but each player can only build a predesignated set of cities.
|
Well, why not?
Im all for unconventional (but optional) house-rules added to multiplayer-games. The player who initiates a new multiplay-game could then choose (or not choose) to checkbox this or that special house-rule. And if he does, these rules is automatically enforced for all participating players.
|
Quote:
|
- Faster games: Less Micromanagement
- Greater attachment and love for ones cities
- No "Cheesy" tactics, such as ICS (actually, we find that the person with the most cities always wins anyway and that's kind of boring)
- More focus on other (more fun) game tactics besides massive expansion.
|
Above is exactly the reasons why I never guite have understand the "fun" of voluntarily managing enormoes 50, 100 or even 150+ cities HP empires, with at least 2-3 times as many units. I just dont get it. Such an gameplay approach just becomes so obviously inflationary in the end. I am a "quality-before-quantity" man myself.
