Declaring war without the diplomacy panel should be easy, no? Just attempt to move a unit into the target's closed borders and it will ask if you want to declare war right?
Yeah - this would legit be a way to bend the rules, I love it! I chose not to because I ruled it to be "diplomacy" but I respect the diabolical points here
Considering how horses and consequently people who used them had been the scourge of China and Europe for thousands of years, yeah... horses are the enemy of civilization.
Hey Ursa, are you aware of the "somewhat secret" extra gold adjacency that Royal Navy Dockyards get from being built on other continents? I recently noticed it in one of my games. The bonus isn't described as an gold adjacency bonus, but it is! This means that it can be buffed further by cards like Naval Infrastructure. Just another sneaky way to get more gold out of England! Enjoying the pain game thus far. It might be a wise moved to levy city state units in order to clear the barb camp to your west.
Yes! This is a real amazing thing = ) I talk about it later but it's a mega way to get some amazing early game science if you can swindle a golden age!
I like this concept. Florryworry did a Europa Universalis IV campaign once called YEpirus in which he had to accept any deal the AI send him. It was a lot of fun to watch, but at the same time I felt so so much secondhand frustration. 😅
Since the series with cyp wide and tall mod, i cant play without it!! Thanks ursa for bringing such amazing content, would love to see a comeback of that mod❤
Tradelocked Lizzy: “Would you like a (non-consensual) trade deal with England?” “Because I certainly don’t want it this time, but I can’t do anything about it.”
Feels like you play the reverse - "do you want a trade deal with England?" - UNO (or "Ena", as the Slovenian version I used to play as a kid was called) card today. These rules are mad! Seems like the AI might annoy you with trade deals, not the other way around this time. ;) I wonder how your economy will be able to cope with that.
You know, after watching a game of PotatoWhiskey (not the most recent game, about a month old) where not one, but TWO, different city state scouts stood on the exact pins of where he wanted to place a city for dozens of turns, Im pretty sure there is something hardcoded about AI ruining the pins of the player as much as possible.
this is brutal, I put it together the turn before that if your neighbor was Gilgamesh you wouldn't be able to friend him and he HATES that, then low and behold it is Gilgamesh, absolutely brutal game
Elizabeth Regina definitely gets overlooked, maybe because England is just an excellent civ, but that early trading from her ability really helps get the ball rolling. faster.
I've been playing on Deity++ a lot recently, and always wanted to ask - which setting do you play on Ursa? No free units + bigger bonuses, or less free units + big bonuses etc.
Here is an idea, play without building a holy site since most of your games you play with religion, better yet, it would be a nice challenge to play that game with a civ which is supposed to build holy sites and go for a culture victory without generating faith
So I had my own idea for a challenge/gimmick run: win a domination victory using *only* anti-cavalry and siege. No melee, no ranged, no cavalry, no bombers. Naval units are allowed, but cities must be taken by anti-cavalry units. Fighters are allowed. Forgive me if this is actually a miserable idea, I thought it'd be an interesting restriction.
Ive been playing with a mod that allows removal of strategic resources. I figure if i really want to give up a limited resource for better placement i should be able to, especially because if i had put the district down early i would be collecting the resource and have the good placement
@abbemartensson3850 .....that makes no sense? If I removed access to my own strategic resources I'd either not want them or be more likely to attack other players for having them in a space I didn't want to use.
@@vesve I am saying that other people who might need iron, coal, niter or even horses would be able to take your city for them. If you removed them it would be unfair and people who simply got better strategic resources would win.
@abbemartensson3850 if you don't have access to those resources and the other person does, you're not taking that city anyway unless you beat them to the technology to see it because more powerful units require those resources anyway. I think that there should be a restriction where you can't harvest them while at war or under siege, so you don't have people burning it down before they lose a city but otherwise it doesn't actually change anything.
