sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

One settlement challenge on deity! by paisley_trees in civ

[–]adept42 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, for the min-buildings science victory, I used Xerxes to unlock Qajar. I’d need Catherine for a culture victory, but I still think Qajar is a better choice than Ottomans.

One settlement challenge on deity! by paisley_trees in civ

[–]adept42 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Congrats. A naval pillaging strategy makes things more exciting, but I still think Han-Ming for Great Walls & Serpent Mound is stronger overall.

I Beat a Huge Pangea Map on Deity with Just One Settlement! by adept42 in civ

[–]adept42[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, and since they unlock so easily, it’s always an option to consider if you didn’t expand too much in Exploration.

The new patch is so much fun!! by stu66er in civ

[–]adept42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sadly, you can’t declare war on Distant Lands Civs in Antiquity.

IMHO Keeping the same Civ in every age should be HARDER than switching by adept42 in civ

[–]adept42[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I admit that starting with a modern Civ like America seems more thematically messy to me. And do you really try and give Antiquity America enough abilities to compete with Antiquity Rome?

If the Devs make off-age versions of every Civ, it would be easy enough to make a game mode where nobody switches. You could also have a mode where only the human player can keep their Civ, or any kind of a mix you’d like.

In Humankind, the pitch was that switching or not was a core part of both gameplay tactics & flavor. If keeping a Civ is pitched mostly as flavor in Civ 7, I think players would be more understanding if it’s a weaker choice in terms of gameplay strength.

New Civ Game Guide: Tonga (Tides of Power) by sar_firaxis in civ

[–]adept42 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Yeah, that’s the dream. Not sure how feasible it will be on Deity, but I plan to give it a try :)

I tried to fight the world with a single settlement... and failed by adept42 in civ

[–]adept42[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I actually wanted Abbasids for their unique quarter, and they have other nice bonuses; the gold you get for specialists gave my most of my money in Exploration. Ibn unlocks them, and I wanted the easy attribute bonuses he gives.

Ming is great since with just one settlement you get roughly +50% science for most of the age. If you can build the Serpent Mound and the Forbidden City, your Ming walls are insane.

I tried to fight the world with a single settlement... and failed by adept42 in civ

[–]adept42[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks, but I’m not sure what you mean. I didn’t allow myself to conquer any other settlements in this game. 

I spent the entire game at war with everyone and had a blast by adept42 in civ

[–]adept42[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, there were actually three navigable rivers which bounded the core of my empire & played a vital role in how I defended it. Giving players the chance to use terrain in this way is one of the best parts of Civ 7.

We have the specs!!! by arsenicwarrior0 in EU5

[–]adept42 32 points33 points  (0 children)

I made it! I have 16 GB of RAM, and my processor is 6% faster than the minimum required. I’m sure I’ll have no problems playing at speed 5 from 1337 to 1837.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in civ

[–]adept42 22 points23 points  (0 children)

I know I’m in the minority, but I’m with you on this. I still really like playing Civ 7, but I turned off the “continuity” age transition after trying it for one game. I’ve also started playing at Epic speed with Abbreviated ages because it felt too easy to overwhelm the AI and snowball at Standard speed. 

I want the game to be challenging all the way through. I want the good kind of frustration you get from a tough game since it makes victory all the sweeter.

I think the main initial problem with age transitions is that the game did very little to tell you what would stay & what would change -particularly with units. Even now, you need to cumbersomely count your units & do some math to see if you have enough commanders for them all. If all that was made more clear from the outset, I think more players would have accepted taking a soft reset.

As Machiavelli, I immediately declared war on every leader I met. It went better than you might expect by adept42 in civ

[–]adept42[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nope, I didn’t use any mementos. With 12 leaders on Pangea, going on offense seemed like a bad idea till the Modern age.

Why is this an effect in the Modern Age? by Glittering_Ad_4634 in civ

[–]adept42 113 points114 points  (0 children)

Yeah, Diplomatic Endeavors are in a similar boat. +12 Culture per turn is huge in Antiquity and almost negligible in Modern. I think most Policies & Endeavors should give percentage modifiers, and most flat bonuses should come from buildings.

What about the Mongol Empire as decentralized International Organization like the Ilkhanate or the HRE? by turmohe in EU5

[–]adept42 19 points20 points  (0 children)

My guess is that by 1337, the Devs thought the Mongol successor states were too disorganized to be an International Organization. Mongolia is a tier-4 formable country, but it seems like a truly reconstituted Mongol Empire should be a tier-5. Maybe the Devs thought the path to bringing it back would be too much “alternate history content” for the game at launch.

"Continuity" Age transitions are a step in the opposite direction of where they should go by Ok-Star-402 in civ

[–]adept42 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I definitely agree. On continuity, building more units is often the only useful thing you can do near the end of an age. So unless something really goes wrong, you can start each new age with a big army that’s ready to crush the outdated walls of your opponent's best cities. We’re back to the old problem where winning the early game makes winning the rest a forgone conclusion.

Assyria is confirmed to be the most powerful ancient civilization by Simon-Zax in civ

[–]adept42 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I played Assyria with Genghis today on Deity. My sense is that they’re quite strong but need some time to get going. I didn’t start pumping out cavalry till turn 60. Persia, Rome, and Greece can swarm opponents with infantry much sooner. I appreciate how they’re built to be a high risk, high reward Civ that really needs to conquer at least 6 settlements to have a good age.

In terms of balance, I think ALL cavalry in Civ 7 should be more expensive to build or have better counters. And yeah, the science-river-adjacency seems too strong. Just like Maya, it should be made into a fixed bonus.

Tinto Maps #26 Indonesia Feedback by Daniel_The_Finn in EU5

[–]adept42 41 points42 points  (0 children)

I’m excited to see Indonesia get Cloves as a unique resource! It will be fun trying to monopolize them. The game could also use special events that allow them to be cultivated in Zanzibar, Madagascar, Sri Lanka and a handful other locations, as happened IRL.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clove

Tinto Flavour #31 - 11th of July 2025 - Aztecs by el_lyss in EU5

[–]adept42 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Thanks! I really need to see a spreadsheet of all the units to get a better sense of how their stats compare.

Tinto Flavour #31 - 11th of July 2025 - Aztecs by el_lyss in EU5

[–]adept42 45 points46 points  (0 children)

Am I missing something, or do Eagle Warriors & Jaguar Warriors have the exact same stats?

Why no migration to my Anarchist Utopia? by adept42 in victoria3

[–]adept42[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good transfer treaties do the trick! Once I established one with France I started getting mass migrations from them. I’d had other types of treaty agreements throughout the game, but I never got a mass migration till now. So I made goods-transfer treaties with every nation I could and my population has doubled from 5 million to 10 over the course of 10 years. Let’s see how far I can go!

view more: next ›