Evil DIMwit wrote:No, they don't. There's no way from Earth to Heaven, or to the Underworld for that matter.
A temple can assault that civilization's four gods, which in turn can assault each other and the temple.
Evil DIMwit wrote:Gameplay:
I dig the Trickster bombarding other temples thing. The reason I had it as Sky God is the whole surveying-the-world-from-his-lofty-seat-and-casting-thunderbolts-at-the-heretics thematic aspect, but I suppose the Trickster could do just as well for that. However, just a temple link and autodeploy are a bit little for the sky God, even as a starting god. What if the Sky God gave temple access, and on top of that +1 per whole homeland? He'd not be so useful at the start but would become more so over time. That bonus would replace the +2 for owning one's own homeland, which, as you say, is supported by the temple channels anyway, and thus make Earth's bonuses a bit more dependent on Heaven.
Evil DIMwit wrote:I've considered taking the Sky Gods out of the starting positions, but that may call for some redistricting so that the initial distribution of territories plays well with every number of players. Then again, I could just reduce the starting position limit to 1 instead of 2, which would make 2-and 3- player games territories start at 17 each and 4-player games start at 13 each.
Evil DIMwit wrote:Making War Gods +1 for 3 is acceptable, I think. It would only be worth 5 troops in a fresh 2- or 3- player game, rather than 4.
Evil DIMwit wrote:The celts' divided homeland looks nice, but it's also more difficult to defend. The continental Celts have a lot of border territories, and the island Celts has that one way from Norge. Though perhaps another Viking one-way to Logres might make the Isles appropriately less attractive?
Evil DIMwit wrote:Carthage could go up to 5 bonus and I wouldn't really feel bad. I'd add a territory to Carthage to compensate, but I really would not know what to name it. It was hard enough pulling out this many names for unimportant African regions...
As for the clarity things: Sure, all right, and Varangia does meet with Novgorod.
isaiah40 wrote:Well, on one hand they are graphical, and on the other, they are for gameplay clarity.
DiM wrote:isaiah40 wrote:Well, on one hand they are graphical, and on the other, they are for gameplay clarity.
correct me if i'm wrong, but i think the current image is just a crude draft to support gameplay discussion. once gameplay is set i'm sure dimwit will come up with a whole new graphic presentation.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users