安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
3 
举报此帖
Everything in between doesn't sound attractive out of my view.
And I also like the idea of having one theme that is completely without war (and no barbarians). sound attractive to me, will be a completely different civ experience without the military option.
@AugusTIN Some players in the T12 games I played said that they were not expecting military assault on them. So, even if we leave the T12 as is, I thıink we should add more explanation in the Theme Rules. However, if most players want the changes, then it would probably be better to ban T12.
@AugusTIN, Skifans, Hoagie looks like there is some interest in a no war Theme. Then we should decide on:
a) barbarians or no barbarians (no barbs will make it a pure no war game)
b) allow just Science Victory or also allow others (Culture, Diplomatic)
c) which era to start? In my personal opinion, an Anceient Era start no-war game might be too uneventful for a very long time. However, later era starts should be thought through carefully (ex: Theme 4 Modern Era no war game for Cultural Victory got banned as it was possible to win the game in 10-15 turn by getting a Great Person and use Futurism Autocracy tenet, which gives +250 Tourism with every other civ and at that point no one has enough Culture to defend against that much Tourism).
a) no barbarians
b) allow just Science Victory
In the theme 12 i had lost to war, even if i was leading in tech.
War can be used in other themes, but it should be a pure science victory.
Also we should ban civs Babylon and Korea, or at least Babylon.
Maybe war with city states could be allowed, maybe you want to generate some Great Generals so you can use to get some land.
Also, similar to the usage of military might scenarios I described in my initial post, a Civ with a significant military can go on a conquest of all or most of CSs and no one would be allowed to intervene. I am not sure conquering all or most of CSs would mean that that Civ will win the Space race, but can be significant in same ways (denying happiness and resources to other civs for example).
Would this be OK?
i was asking myself initially how the game is changing if there is no reason to think about / pay attention to any kind of military aspect (units, buildings, ...) as player. it might be interessting to have at least a minimum reason to build some military items.
so, if we deny PvP wars and PvCS wars, but allow barbarians (maybe even aggressive barbariens) than there might be a need to build at least some military units to defend against pillages, protect caravans.
to spice it up a bit and not to worry about planning big wars and the like but to be able to focus primarily on the space race instead.
How does that sound?
Yes it was a bad idea to propose war with CS. Instead ranging barbarians seems fair, but will introduce a bit of randomness in the game.