|
|
|
|
|
|
by dragonwriter
484 days ago
|
|
|
> The problem with the way they've done it is that as you progress towards the end of the second age, as a player you have very few incentives to actually build most improvements. Outdated buildings lose adjacency but have a yield of +2 (if from antiquity) or +3 (if from exploration) yield of whatever their base yields were, so they aren't worthless. > The settlement limit as you go into the second age also tends to penalize early expansion, another balancing measure. You find the "new world" but you can't just go ahead and do the massive landgrab because doing so comes with a set of penalties which you'll have to offset by building things that'll compensate and in turn stunt growth. I'm not sure that "things you might want to do require you to devote some of your limited resources and sacrifice something else" is really a bad thing. > A particular game I played I ended up with Rome next to the sea, which grew and grew until there was no room for expansion anymore until the end of the age. Having big cities grow to (very close to) footprint-filling urban conglomerations supported by fishing/farming/mining towns is quite clearly an explicit design intent. |
|
|