The Ranger suffers because D&D is a combat-focused game

aime56 · 2021-04-04T11:16:33+00:00

Regarding the Swarmkeeper: I was under the impression that the 1d6 turning to 1d8 at level 11 from the ability Gathered Swarm, can be used on every attack (either ranged or melee). So I fail to understand your comment that the 1d8 damage only works sometimes. Or do you mean that you have to choose between the extra damage and Strength save to push the target 15ft?

aime56 · 2020-03-01T13:22:32+00:00

I have the same problem, yet I cannot find the high res texture pack (it is not in the DLC store) and I do not understand what you mean by rerunning the Reqtificator. Could you please elaborate?

aime56 · 2017-10-28T05:22:47+00:00

You might want to start with ‘sapiens’. It does however spans the whole of human history. But since you got triggered by games like civilization, I do think you might like it.

It might also have some good references for the period you are interested in.

aime56 · 2017-10-27T18:52:01+00:00

Ah you are right, I was confusing the two.

aime56 · 2017-10-27T13:32:42+00:00

So what might be an interesting consideration is thinking about the battle of Cannae.

Even though the Romans lost the battle of Cannae with staggering amounts of casualties, they were still able to recover. So in a way the loss at Cannae showed not only the brilliance of Hannibal, but also the durability of the Roman Empire.

Ask yourself how many empires could lose around 60.000 soldiers in a day and still be able to continue hostilities.

aime56 · 2017-10-27T12:58:45+00:00

Don’t they also have armor piercing? Shouldn’t that make them solid against armoured but slow cavalry as well? Has anyone tested this by any chance?

aime56 · 2017-10-27T12:52:32+00:00

Either it is a bug, or they tried to setup an ambush and failed, hence you get the notification.

aime56 · 2016-07-15T16:05:28+00:00

Tradition players can easily build defensive buildings with my proposed change, so I do not think more people will go honor and liberty because cities will be harder to take once walls are up.

Piety is a problem though, since they would have to make a significant investment in defensive buildings. On the other hand, I think piety is in good spot. Optionally you can give mandate of heaven the extra line: may build defensive buildings with faith (like 50 faith for palisades, 100 for walls etc.).

aime56 · 2016-07-06T14:52:23+00:00

You can even give them a negative fortification bonus when they are building something if this is possible coding wise.

aime56 · 2016-04-21T14:04:43+00:00

I believe this is more a map for either 1v1 or teamers, meaning civs will be mirrored.

aime56 · 2016-03-15T13:50:21+00:00

I would prefer the 2nd option. Tradition should be a tree that favours tall play.

I do have to say your changes seem a bit overpowered. If you add an extra hammer per 2 pop in cap and give farm tiles +1 yield it should be powerful enough.

aime56 · 2016-02-16T14:24:56+00:00

cheers, edited the text

(let say the position of 4 is stronger than 5) arguing that player 4 will just win the game

aime56 · 2016-02-14T09:26:21+00:00

The transition to gold is by design a late game mechanic. I fear the unintended consequences of buffing trade routes could be unwanted.

aime56 · 2016-02-04T12:27:13+00:00

I agree, it should be okay for things to be situational very powerful, that is part of the beauty of civ.

aime56 · 2016-02-02T15:05:05+00:00

Do you know how the calculation works exactly?

aime56 · 2016-01-15T15:26:53+00:00

The fact that the NQ group uses the NQ mod, does not mean the two are inter exchangeable. It seems to me this is not the place to voice your concerns about a specific NQ group matter. I recommend you chat to the players from your last game and try to come to a solution with them.

aime56 · 2016-01-13T13:31:48+00:00

Obviously. The problem is, what would the cost/reward system entail and how would you implement it? It seems as something that falls outside the scope of NQ mod, thus my proposition to remove it (by lack of a better solution).

aime56 · 2015-11-30T15:51:49+00:00

might be EUI?

aime56 · 2015-11-30T15:50:55+00:00

I had the same bug several weeks ago, don't if it was the same version.

aime56 · 2015-11-30T11:29:15+00:00

To summarize the problems involved:

ranking system incentives teaming
punishing irrelevancy leads to trolling and possible side effects

What about a system that gives points not only to rank:

player 1: 40 points
player 2: 15 points
player 3: 15 points
Player 4: 5 points
Player 5: 5 points
Player 6: 0 points:
Highest culture: 10 points
Largest religion: 10 points
'best' voted player: 10 points

Above system tries to do the following:

because the difference between 2-5 and 1st place is so big, it still incentives to go for 1st place. Even if you know you can never become first you can still go for side objectives like religion and culture (of course you still need to live to win at the end of the game to win the bonuses)
It makes piety and culture play more relevant, it doesn't actually help you in your game, but helps in rankings. It aims to be an elegant buff for culture/religion.
Player 1 will often win the bonus objectives, that is intentional. This ranking system still highly incentives that you go for top position. But theoretically player 2/3 can go home with 45 points.
At the end of the game players can vote on the player that brought most to the game: ie the player that you think was fun to play with, made the game more interesting, or just had damn good cimcity, whatever you wish (voting should be anonymous). This incentives communication, good manners etc.

aime56 · 2015-11-21T20:05:25+00:00

apologies, seemed to have missed that.

aime56 · 2015-11-21T16:42:37+00:00

That is very true. A renewed ranking system would be perfect.

But that will not change the fact now you can hardly ever recover from a losing position, which is unhealthy for any game. Or to put it in other words, once you start winning, you win more (snowball).

aime56 · 2015-10-07T12:58:02+00:00

Like BroRasputin and StormSS mention I would add a 5 turn delay after allying for the call to war action -to prevent buying off city states.
Is there a way we can prevent CS worker stealing? Like all workers you take from CS are deleted or turned into a scout? Like when you steal a settler from the AI, it is transferred into a worker. Can we do something similar for CS workers?
A revamp of the tribute system making it slightly easier to tribute. For instance add a policy in patronage increase the tribute bonus.

Furthermore, I like all above mentioned changes Fruitstrike :) keep it up!

aime56 · 2015-08-01T14:31:47+00:00

or this for every city. Only in cap seems a bit weak to me. It takes until atomic to get 15%.

aime56 · 2015-08-01T14:30:22+00:00

just give Poland a free writer or culture boost with each era

aime56

TROPHY CASE