(March 11th, 2013, 22:01)NobleHelium Wrote: Okay...so you were saying we are in OR then? Yeah. Why do you think that they think we can't build missionaries? Their statement doesn't say that.
oic, I read it as "if you should happen to develop meditation one day" instead "if we should." ok so meditation is a more achievable goal for them that monotheism, but still requires them to build monasteries on top of the tech. they aren't spreading any religion quickly.
Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you.
I was kidding. Mostly. If we're going to give them a religion, we should scout with the missionary. We aren't blanketing their territory with military units, so every unit that can uncover a tile is helpful. Two birds, one stone.
Wow, this discussion veered off into a strange place quickly...
1) We have a chariot that moved into German territory this turn to scout.
2) The Germans are not running Organized Religion civic, and almost certainly do not have Monotheism tech.
3) There is little benefit to us and potentially a great deal of harm from concocting some sort of fake alliance plan with the Germans. I would strongly advise not going down this route.
I genuinely don't see this offer as holding out anything we would want. I think a polite refusal is the best course of action. Any foreign missionaries we would build are better off going to WPC.
C'mon, give them one missionary at least. If they spend hammers on monasteries and missionaries to spread it themselves, that's fewer spears we have to worry about.
But agree with no fake cooperation with the Germans. We'll be explicitly self-serving with the people we intend to invade.
I agree. Sending a missionary or two might not be a bad idea. The Germans will probably approach CivPlayers if we turn them down. Better Hinduism than AP Buddhism in cities we intend to capture. Besides, accepting one proposal is far less suspicious than rejecting all three.
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
I agree with Azoth. It also gives us an excuse to send another missionary to scout them out before we send our invasion stack.
"We see you guys haven't managed to spread our religion around very much. We have a spare missionary because we got a free spread to one of our cities, did you want it?"
Run it through their civ scouting their unit deployments, convert some random city, invade?
In Soviet Russia, Civilization Micros You!
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”
