|
Post by ironclad on Feb 11, 2007 23:30:54 GMT -5
TBG has the same exact concept as ILS. you know the map before you play, so you can use a strategy before you even play the game. Fractal on the other hand is always different, wish pangea was random like in civ3 but its not. Really should go back to civ3 map system; if any one who has any influence in civ5 make the maps exactly like they were in civ3 but still applicable to civ5
|
|
|
Post by notagoodname on Feb 12, 2007 3:03:48 GMT -5
On Medie TBG main problem is from Shaka. Spot on metal, slave impis and rush. In case you don't have metal on cap you just have to pray and keep your workers home until you discover Feodalism. Ban shaka on TBG and you will have more open games based on developpement (tech, wonders, great artists or scientist......). Ring or Wheel are good maps too for medie teamer games. Why beeing limited to TBG and Inland? You can build catapults right from the start in medievil games so even if you can't build axemen you can still kill the impis in the open and on hills. Classical is the one where planting on resources works really well, medievil on the other hand gives you an explorer, 2 archers and the ability to build catapults from the start. A newb chariot/impi rush can be killed rather easily.
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Feb 12, 2007 3:16:13 GMT -5
Make it 4v4 Small TBG Medi, perhaps. The problem is the popular Medi TBG games are most often 5v5 on standard size.
Also, I have been hosting several Balanced Map Medi games. I noticed it is MUCH better than pangaea, but because it is a little bit larger, it's often wise to raise the sea level by 1 size. EX: 5v5 - Balanced on Standard Map with Medium Seas. If it were Pangaea, you'd want it to be Standard with Low Seas, but you'd still probably have a person or two with a fubar'd start.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Feb 12, 2007 11:55:50 GMT -5
Make it 4v4 Small TBG Medi, perhaps. The problem is the popular Medi TBG games are most often 5v5 on standard size. The problem with adding more players to events is that Sundays are already busy enough as it is. 4 events all crammed in just a few hours apart. It's already hard enough to fill all of the events on Sunday as it is. In my experience, Medi TBG works really well 5v5 on Large TBG. That way everyone is far enough apart to neutralize the cheese rush, and the front is genuinely wide enough that there are tons of angles to attack. Unfortunately a game this large simply does not work in the CCC ...
|
|
|
Post by eiffel on Feb 12, 2007 12:20:49 GMT -5
I agree, can't have a 4v4 event on sunday... 3v3 max please
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Feb 12, 2007 12:28:31 GMT -5
Yeah good point, it's difficult enough to field teams on Sundays with 3v3 and 2v2.
IDK, TBG Large with 5v5 or 6v6 gives you a large area between 2 teammates. It is nice for a change though.
|
|
|
Post by venceslas on Feb 12, 2007 13:20:09 GMT -5
A newb chariot/impi rush can be killed rather easily. Mediev is played by the best eight teams, you have few newbies. chris.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrownparker on Feb 12, 2007 14:11:15 GMT -5
On Medie TBG main problem is from Shaka. Spot on metal, slave impis and rush. In case you don't have metal on cap you just have to pray and keep your workers home until you discover Feodalism. Ban shaka on TBG and you will have more open games based on developpement (tech, wonders, great artists or scientist......). Ring or Wheel are good maps too for medie teamer games. Why beeing limited to TBG and Inland? You can build catapults right from the start in medievil games so even if you can't build axemen you can still kill the impis in the open and on hills. Classical is the one where planting on resources works really well, medievil on the other hand gives you an explorer, 2 archers and the ability to build catapults from the start. A newb chariot/impi rush can be killed rather easily. I'm not saying that you are in danger facing shaka, but it's very hard to develop your territory with 1 or 2 impis arriving every turns on your hills and forest without iron or copper. You have to wait until discovering feodalism to be safe. Catapults cost much more than impis.
|
|
|
Post by venceslas on Feb 12, 2007 14:42:57 GMT -5
For the same reasons that explained by MDR and RAY, we, LKT, will prefer also inland sea.
chris.
|
|
|
Post by everybodysdarling on Feb 12, 2007 16:41:15 GMT -5
pls change the future map to inland sea.
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Feb 12, 2007 22:27:01 GMT -5
OK, I can see this whole map thing from both sides.
Sure, it would be nice to be innovative in the choice.
But it's just as important, or more important, to maintain a level playing field.
Good, old tried and true Inland Sea was designed specifically with MP play in mind. It's not the ONLY map we play - the maps in the CCC are diverse. But for now, I'm going to side with its various proponents as its being a superior map for both the Future and Medieval events.
I do appreciate the desire to have the CCC events keep up with the times - with the current playstyles, as well as traditional ones. I am going to start a thread for the next CCC where people can propose different new game rulesets. And after some discussion, we might put it to a vote and let the best game proposal become a new CCC event.
Best, SPM
|
|
|
Post by charliebrownparker on Feb 13, 2007 6:31:21 GMT -5
pls change the future map to inland sea. Why? Title Axis is fine ;D If I say "please change Ironman map to pangea" do you think SPM will immediately change it ?
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Feb 13, 2007 10:06:58 GMT -5
There's nothing wrong with the current future map - it's good for resources, and all levels of strategy and tactics, including naval.
I think inland sea for future will seriously limit this.
We don't see a lot of future games up (compared to the civ3) and I really don't know why, other than air-power has been nerfed, it's one of the ONLY games where ALL LEVELS of civ tactics come into play from the basically the beginning of the game.
Yup, put an aircraft carrier in the middle of the inland sea and have your teamies cover it with air defense units from other ships and carriers, and it could bomb nearly the entire enemy map.
It will just make it yet another teamer game with "point city" and culture bombs and be the same as a renny or med teamer, just different units instead of horse/cats/pikes/muckets... etc.
We have enough of those kind of games.
No, it's not a good map at all for future and we shouldn't change this.
|
|
|
Post by rokkitlauncher on Feb 13, 2007 10:39:24 GMT -5
If the 1v1 can now have the same leaders, i think we should make a change to the picking order originally the player who got to pick first was at an advantage as the other could not pick zulu however now that they can both pick the same, the advantage falls to the second player who can react off the first players pick. i therefore think that the team who finished higher in the previous ccc should pick 2nd rather than first for the 1v1
|
|
|
Post by tamijo on Feb 13, 2007 11:04:53 GMT -5
Might be more fair with no nukes in Ironman too. Would be crazy if a nuke-war turned the points upside down after a very long game. Last time a gentlemans aggreement, solved that issue but who knows next time.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Feb 13, 2007 12:34:05 GMT -5
Anyone think 1v1 should be vanilla? Or the other guy picks your civ for you, this is kinda like vanilla but with traits, and maybe scouts.
Reacting to other guys pick is kinda lame, if neither of the above is possible then i think you should have to decalre your leader for the entire event before the event is launched. (like MGT's touneys)
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Feb 13, 2007 12:56:20 GMT -5
Anyone think 1v1 should be vanilla? Or the other guy picks your civ for you, this is kinda like vanilla but with traits, and maybe scouts. Reacting to other guys pick is kinda lame, if neither of the above is possible then i think you should have to decalre your leader for the entire event before the event is launched. (like MGT's touneys) Yeah in civ3 we used Maxfin's Vanilla mod for the 1v1. That way not everyone was Aztec and Sumeria. I wish we had a Mod'er here, but I guess they all retired long ago
|
|
|
Post by mansurji on Feb 13, 2007 16:08:22 GMT -5
ironman with 8 was more than enough, as people is subbing in and out rather often, and the lagging is terrible. Hehe, i found this Ironman like a fun party... This could have been WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY more laggy, tamijo edit : also, about nukes comment, ironman is not a tea party, the first ironman i've played i've taken like 15 or 20 nukes from Uastranger, which didnt blocked me from winning the game
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Feb 13, 2007 17:26:23 GMT -5
OMG Mansuji Posted ;D
all good see you soon
|
|
Audrien
Settler
Administrator
Posts: 74
|
Post by Audrien on Feb 14, 2007 9:53:05 GMT -5
Concerning #8 - OCC Cton Industrial
Anonymous doesnt work here, since ppl can pick their leaders. Game wont launch if 2 persons pick the same leader. I did like the idea of an anonymous game, but unfortunalety its not playable, cause there is no way around picking Civs in OCC.
I also suggest to have less ppl on those maps, cause HB maps tend to be even more unfair if the map is too small. Too many players on a map tends to a messed up ressources script. So i'd rather play with up to 5 on a small map and 6-7 on a standard map size.
Thanks, Tobey.
|
|