I'm not sure, I can't do multiplayer to my knowledge because I was a bad little girl and pirated my copy but eventually I'll be buying the game on steam.
We'd have to get a bunch of people together and have them agree on a time for it
I'm not sure, I can't do multiplayer to my knowledge because I was a bad little girl and pirated my copy but eventually I'll be buying the game on steam.
Poland was apparently added mostly because Civ is really popular in Poland. Firaxis must have been very thankful for all the business, considering that their UA doesn't even sound balanced on paper.
I also wouldn't mind one where we can choose our civs either, since it's too difficult to learn how to play well with all of them. Also, some civs aren't very balanced , so choosing our own would let us make rules to prevent anyone from playing someone OP.
(Poland, Babylon, Korea)
I wouldn't say that; some people can do rather well with one city and a few puppets. Venetian merchants are pretty handy, too; Venice is a damn powerhouse if you know what you're doing with him.
I wouldn't say that; some people can do rather well with one city and a few puppets. Venetian merchants are pretty handy, too; Venice is a damn powerhouse if you know what you're doing with him.
I wouldn't say that; some people can do rather well with one city and a few puppets. Venetian merchants are pretty handy, too; Venice is a damn powerhouse if you know what you're doing with him.
But nobody in their right mind would let Venice last long enough to do that. Any warmonger will know to crush Venice ASAP because they're an easy target early game. I also pity whoever gets the Iroquois, cause you can always chop down the forests in their cities if you go to war or even without warring early on while the cities they have are develop.
Also, if we're doing this we probably need to think of a time that would work for everyone.