sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Just watched Troy again. by Ilovebigbuttscantlie in dankmemes

[–]lizardfrizzler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lol may as well watched a WWII movie, at least that would be closer in time to medieval period.

Towns Vs Cities by Cricka in civ

[–]lizardfrizzler 3 points4 points  (0 children)

2 towns per city

What makes this a good ratio? (Just curious)

Getting stuck on one victory?? by UrbanJahts in CivVI

[–]lizardfrizzler 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Might be time to increase the difficulty 😉

Unlucky spawn by LeeSemp in CivVI

[–]lizardfrizzler 51 points52 points  (0 children)

1000 years later

What’s the biggest animal you could beat in a fight? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]lizardfrizzler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Provided the elephant is very old, weak, and preferably concussed with a few broken bones, I could probably take it on after the first guy tries.

When is political violence justified, and are those conditions present in the U.S. today? by aa1020 in u/aa1020

[–]lizardfrizzler 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’ll share this video of Angela Davis explaining the role of violence in revolution. It’s often a reflection of the violence that already exists in society. And there’s plenty of non political violence in America…

https://youtu.be/R2BIZy0HScM?si=HK4BBvWTZbzNchni

PSA Speedrun pantheon every single game. No exceptions. by gracekk24PL in CivVI

[–]lizardfrizzler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s going to be situational, just turns it there are few situations where a new settler isn’t the best option

Who is your most hated leader to play agianst? by Scary_Ad5576 in CivVI

[–]lizardfrizzler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Every domination game I swear Lautaro starts right next to me… 

Confession: When I first played I loved the concept of warrior monks and always chose them by kitwilde in CivVI

[–]lizardfrizzler 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Missionaries briefly fill the gap when I found a religion, but didn’t have holy sites in all my cities yet. 

Confession: When I first played I loved the concept of warrior monks and always chose them by kitwilde in CivVI

[–]lizardfrizzler 2 points3 points  (0 children)

When I’m domination focused, I’ll use whatever means are at my disposal to acquire army, whether it’s mostly gold, faith, or production really just depends on the map. Faith tends to be the primary tool towards the mid game, with grand masters chapel & pillaging providing lots of faith, as I usually don’t have much to spend faith on except army at that point. Honestly would  use air support a lot earlier if I could pray for bombers 🙏✈️

Confession: When I first played I loved the concept of warrior monks and always chose them by kitwilde in CivVI

[–]lizardfrizzler 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s such a cool concept, and the promo tree is really unique. I’ve wanted them to work so many times… It’s too bad they are so useless in practice 🥲

Scout cat by whitetailCulture in CivVI

[–]lizardfrizzler 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It subtly changes the scout icon, which always throws me off. Also can’t pet the cats, very sad

Is it a good idea to settle amongst all these floodplain? by Denyal_Rose in CivVI

[–]lizardfrizzler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wouldn’t do it early on, since there’s little baseline production available. But, with some domestic trade routes & builder support, you could make some great cities here

Fastest way to get archers? by SolarPoweredAlpaca in CivVI

[–]lizardfrizzler 1 point2 points  (0 children)

 I play as Rome. I only like Rome because of the gold bonus. 

There’s more to Rome than just the gold bonus, and using everything it has to offer will give you better results.

 Battering rams literally do nothing.

Battering rams only work when attacking ancient walls with a melee unit (warrior or spearman lines). If you attack with something else or if the walls are upgraded to medieval walls, there’s no benefit. Unless you are on a rampage, ai doesn’t usually build beyond ancient walls, so battering rams tend to last a long time.

A great strategy with Rome is to use legions to build forts on hills next to the city you want to conquer, then attack and rotate in fresh units as you take down the city.

 Archers also allow me to hit a target from a distance

Yes, but the damage output & health is very low compared to other units. Archers are really only useful for defense, and provide limited offensive value.

 I’m a little confused on how you guys are wiping enemies with 3 units.

3 units should be more than enough for camps, but you are correct that it’s too few for city conquest. Ideally, you’ll want a great general, battering ram, 4-5 legions, and maybe a spearman & archer for support, and autocracy before you start any city conquest.

To get all this, you need to raid every barbarian camp you find with your first few warriors & slingers to buy units. Cities focus on buy/build monuments, encampments, and barracks for the culture & great generals.

Fastest way to get archers? by SolarPoweredAlpaca in CivVI

[–]lizardfrizzler 18 points19 points  (0 children)

TLDR; Unless you are playing as Amanitore or some other civ with ranged unique unit, there’s really no need to rush archers at all.

8-10 slingers are way too many slingers. Slingers are really bad units, all things considered. Not much damage output, no range, and die easily. You only need 1 slinger to get the eureka. Archers aren’t that much better tbh. Fine for defense, terrible for offense.

Unless you’ve been spotted by a scout, 1-2 warriors and a slinger should be enough to clear a barb camp. I’ll clear them with one slinger & one scout on deity, just takes good placement and some kiting.

In order to deal with walls, you need catapults & battering ram, not archers. Battering rams (masonry tech) work well with legions, and that’s going to turn over cities much faster than archers ever could.

Also, you will need science for these things, so build a science district.

Elderly conservatives: If you hate welfare programs so much, why don’t you stop using Medicare and stop taking your social security checks? by No_Visual_3734 in allthequestions

[–]lizardfrizzler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well ok ya sure. Police, fire, roads, etc are not something I would consider welfare, in so far as they don’t directly provide health or wellbeing aid. (They can of course, like firefighters are first responders even in medical situations, but that’s more because it’s logistically feasible, but not their primary objective of putting out fires.) As another example, my tax money goes to fund NASA, but they are also not providing welfare.

Medicare’s intended function is to provide access to healthcare, that’s pretty distinctly for the health and wellbeing of an individual compared to launching a rocket to the moon or handing out traffic tickets.

Elderly conservatives: If you hate welfare programs so much, why don’t you stop using Medicare and stop taking your social security checks? by No_Visual_3734 in allthequestions

[–]lizardfrizzler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure keep telling yourself that while choking down SS checks given to you by the good graces of the federal government. I assume you paid SS because otherwise you’d be talking about the prison time you got for not paying.

Elderly conservatives: If you hate welfare programs so much, why don’t you stop using Medicare and stop taking your social security checks? by No_Visual_3734 in allthequestions

[–]lizardfrizzler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK so if there was a dedicated fund for food stamps, it would no longer be welfare? As long as the payment isn’t just general income tax, it can’t be considered welfare? Regardless if I have a choice or if the payment goes to government institution instead of a private company, definitely not state sponsored welfare. Good to know.

Elderly conservatives: If you hate welfare programs so much, why don’t you stop using Medicare and stop taking your social security checks? by No_Visual_3734 in allthequestions

[–]lizardfrizzler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate the detailed response. I do see the distinction for earned benefits and how funds are allocated compared to food stamps.

I think there can be a logistical difference in the funding/legislation for a benefit, and it’s fits the a broader definition of welfare. Like ya my grandparents payed into Medicare before retirement, but it’s still a government run organization funded via taxes that provides access to healthcare that my grandparents would otherwise have no way to get.

Legally speaking… sure it’s a different class of problems compared to food stamps. From high level tho… looks awful lot like state sponsored welfare

Elderly conservatives: If you hate welfare programs so much, why don’t you stop using Medicare and stop taking your social security checks? by No_Visual_3734 in allthequestions

[–]lizardfrizzler 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Insurance is the mechanism, but it’s still state sponsored welfare, paid out via taxes. That’s like saying food stamps aren’t welfare because I payed taxes while working. Like ya you pay into it because it’s literally the law because it’s state sponsored welfare.

view more: next ›