|
Post by whiplash on Dec 8, 2005 9:32:14 GMT -5
It's probably good input from the Betatest Team.
|
|
|
Post by yilar on Dec 8, 2005 10:32:54 GMT -5
I really don't understand the "arguement" as both options are now available to those who wish to play either one. Since we now have a choice as to which we play (where we didn't before), yes, I'd say that's good programming. Lol? In civ4 you can set it to either keep city forever or raze the city instantly. At least in Civ3 you could set it to keep city forever or keep city till you raze it. That's a step back if you ask me. It can't be that hard to add the same thing as we had in civ3 where you can raze the city whenever you want.
|
|
|
Post by drspike on Dec 9, 2005 8:35:33 GMT -5
I'm not playing in CCC so what I say I say with no vested interests. It is quite clearly a bad idea to force people to keep cities in at least duels. Anyone that has any experience of playing duels can see this - you will expend considerable effort taking a city (which, let's face it, isn't easy) then possibly face a situation where (because the city is in your opponent's land, next to his other cities) it can soon be taken back at seemingly no cost. You also have to pay for it. The only option would be to only attack when you so overwhelmingly have the advantage that even after taking casualties you have enough to permanently hold the city. This will discourage attacks even more. Experimenting with settings is a good idea. Mindless experimenting with settings is not - some standard settings are standard because they are the most sensible.
|
|
|
Post by civerdan on Dec 9, 2005 8:53:36 GMT -5
After playing a 5v5 last night I am definitely in favor of No City razing in large teamers. Makes the game more interesting than "who kills one player first". Makes it actually feasily for a team down a bit to come back.
|
|
|
Post by eiffel on Dec 9, 2005 9:21:03 GMT -5
I disagree ! Losing in the late turns to a crazy stack after leading all game is not fun ;D Just kidding... i agree it's more interesting (but longer and harder to kill). Yesterday it was 2 cities elim 5v5 with no razing.
1 city elim with no razing is interesting too since it gives bonus for killing a player : a free new city.
|
|
|
Post by donaldkipper on Dec 9, 2005 10:12:32 GMT -5
one problem is it does take a lot more force to kill when u have to hold a city - primarily when scrambling units can retake
as long as games dont turn into huge buildfests because its too big a risk to try and kill someone and fail unless u have to
|
|
|
Post by Sly_time on Dec 10, 2005 12:17:49 GMT -5
i am a big supporter of the no razing setting... a game that i played with spm i had tkaen out 5 cities but came in last of the 5 players still left in the game if not city razing was on i may have actually won that game...i think a nice option to that would be to have an option after so many turns to raze capture cities...
this could add to even more strategies do you keep the city say after 10 turns and continue to point or do you raze the city so the person cant retake it... but i would think you would need to show control first...hence the ten turns
all just ideas!!!
|
|
|
Post by civerdan on Dec 10, 2005 19:06:53 GMT -5
I simply think with city razing on too many teamers end with the first person getting killed.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Dec 14, 2005 14:26:45 GMT -5
I prefer no city raising personally, pity it seems unfashionable at the moment. Taking a city or two and holding them is a much more rewarding victory strategy than building a couple of late wonders or slapping down a few cities or the artistic bomb.
|
|
|
Post by lorddragon on Dec 15, 2005 5:12:37 GMT -5
I agree that an option to choose should be implemented. There are multiple ways to code this, from giving you a raze option in the city window, to making you decide what you want before attacking, etc.
As it is, I prefer Raze most of the time, simply because against an equal player taking and holding a city is damn near impossible. Your troops are battered and broken after taking the city, then he beats them to hell with reinforcements.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Dec 30, 2005 14:22:45 GMT -5
I think people should have the choice and do have the choice to play whatever you want. Personally I don't like city raising because if you attack your score suffers so the games often tend to be build fests with the occasional kill at the end. If I wanted to build a score of 1000+ and do nothing the whole game I'll go play the computer Whatever game you like, play. IMO the best improvement to civ are the multi players, so much more intuition now that you can see what players are doing, no spending four hours waiting for the map lag to stop or talking for an age. optional raising would add spice to a game, and make it more flexible. I'd like to see this personally.
|
|