While all the while allying everyone around and basically camping for tech with your buddies?
The fact that you hate it doesn't mean that it's senseless, game-breaking or, for that matter, anything to do with this particular topic. It only means that, when you grab a grudge, you simply can't let it go. I've been listening to you whine about this alliance of ours for weeks. Do you ever stop? I mean, really? And it's not even like we attacked you, *you* attacked *us* (or, one of our members) and now you are squeaking because you can't have your fun with him on your terms.
Hallmark of what is known in RTS games as camping, which promotes boring and random game.
Well, I never stop . Not as long as I play the game and want to improve it. I'll stop when I ether get bored or decide that civ franchise is "unsalvagable".
Its not game breaking at all, I'll grant you that. It is however senseless. It might be ok in single player game, where you play on whatever time constraints you want. But in multiplayer game, where every turn takes one day its a different matter. Things can be pushed forward and things resolved much faster utilizing full game. Instead some people go onto to, yes, camping. They sit there and try to techup avoiding any conflicts. What this does is pushes the outcome of game months to the future, while making midgame incredibly boring (been there done that, this is precisely why I I'm not doing this now, and why I'm playing as aggressive as possible). Second, in addition to that it basically throws half the game out the window. Tell me if not for my aggressive attacks, how many early military units you would have built? I bet that my interactive play at least doubled the number of early units you and Rango had to build. If everyone will sit and thech up, why da hell should we even have that stupid step? Bunch of units are basically unused, and loads of time basically pass for almost nothing. Just start game with planes and continue from that. Thirdly, yes it does make game more random, you might think that you have some grand strategy to "develop in peace", but when everyone does that, it means nothing, its nether great nor does it accomplish much or get you ahead much. You are sitting in a middle of same campers, and the question is, from where randomness basically comes, is who will pull backstab on whom first (as that game has no allied victory). In short this makes game indecisive and progress very slowly, taking more months than it could.
Nope. I said that diplomatic warfare is broken.
Also expecting to hold distant location in enemy territory is a bit naive (even though for now you have OP units). Such attacks shouldn't be made expecting to gain territory, treat them as what they are - raids, used to damage your opponents economy and infrastructure, come in do damage leave. Come in at other location, now thats some nonlinearity. Also additional advice, with number of units you had you could have easily moved them out, again as they are so OP, and face 0 threat, and retake revolted city. So in short, you could have done much better and cry me a river.
Partly true. The problem is, you are now trying to dictate what should be the only possible way to do things. Well, as the things are now, yes, that is the only possible way of doing things (and you have a point here). However, wouldn't it be better to have some more options at hand?
In other words, yes. Taking a city and holding it is impossible (or very difficult) at present terms. But is it good that this is so? How much does it add to gameplay?
So you say diplomatic warfare is broken, and then admit how you basically had all the means to counter my maneuvers? And I'm trying to dictate something (yes I admit I push for a lot of stuff, but don't take me overly strongly).
What it ads is that you have to move your ass more and do more warfare if you want to push your borders. Not simply come in and then have another city to sit in. You once again talk about options. I'll once again repeat, theoretical options do not translate to practical options. When you can't do diplomatic pushes, what happens is that even more camping and randomness ensues, you have to build up larger armies, that again do nothing, but sit in city, and wait for the time to - move to another city. And the there is basically changes who moves where first. The points that as it is you can defend from diplomats, especially with civ2civ3 courthouse special ability. And that you can and would have to do that, would only mean that there are more things to do, more ways to do it well, or suck at it. Instead everyone switches to diplomat immune govs, and build and build and build forces, wondering if they will be enough to crush their enemy in one go. And you are forced to do this, as game strongly favors defensive play, so against good player you can basically forget raiding, and similar tactics. You try to build up forces and find a spot where to dump them so that enemy would not see and counter stack kill them instantly.
Well, not many examples of direct resistance in history. And infinite examples of the opposite. Besides, that's what guerilla and partisans are here for. If you think that, before 1800, people generally cared which power is controling their city, well, you should learn some real history.
As a matter of fact I'm doing that in recent days. And you are right, that common people did not care much about who took there shit. However not so with say roman generals, who had troops that were more loyal to general than rome itself, and so general could march back to capital and announce himself an emperor. It's not really that hard to imagine that other rich king could persuade such generals and their legions to work for them. Ether way history is quite full of various uprising and power squabbles between more and less powerful people. And borders changed a lot through history, but so far it seems border changes in civ games are way less common... Instead you get trains 500BC!