|
Post by Avogadro on Jan 12, 2006 23:08:44 GMT -5
acutually early rushes can be quite effective in civ4 future scenerio. You have 2-3 teamates all with a few units. Send 1-2 units each towards the center, I promis you will take 1-2 towns from some unlucky opponent.
Interesting. And what do you do with such a strategy if your opponents do the same at a different location?
Well it's a teamer and we all know how important that first kill is. Be it ancient, classical or future. Be it C3C ancient aztecs jag rush, or Medieval Indian Elephant stomp or future Netherland tow draft.
But yes location and map used would obviously affect whether a rush is to be used of not. But if you notice you are on the border or outside margin of map....probably quite safe to send those first units hunting.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 13, 2006 2:33:12 GMT -5
Of course you can play ctons too with future, doing that in a cton would be suicide. also with the right map you can usually build a defensive unit before anyone gets near you plus you can take your 3 mech and use them to defend your 3 cities. If someone does this in a teamer there comitting suicide anyway, I just say so and so 3 mech on me and so and so gets killed by my team mates.
|
|
Midgard
Worker
Captain of LoD
Posts: 103
|
Post by Midgard on Jan 13, 2006 3:34:37 GMT -5
agree avo, but the map should be set so this can't happen too often unless the fool was doing one strategy I wont name. I look forward to the futures when they start but I am glad they have not yet. I'm enjoying the earlier era's and you can be sure once I start playing futures I won't go back to playing ancient. Ancient is a 2 dimensional battlefield and future is a 4 dimensional battlefield, so much more stimulating. Also, future play requires team play and as of now I doubt there are enough skilled players out there to make the game enjoyable. The higher skill level of all the players in a teamer is usually equal to the higher enjoyment factor of the game. That's why I have avoided teamers like the plague so far. Whoops, hope that doesn't make me an antinoobite. Give me about 6 to 8 months and then I'll become a one trick future pony. I fear that not being able to colonize res./lux will make futures slightly less enjoyable but maybe the three settler start and either or resources for tanks will make colonizing unnecessary. That is the one thing I miss the most about CIV vs c3c. The first time I couldn't colonize a luxury a tear fell from my eye and I starting crying like a baby without his bottle. You'd be surprised VVV play little else, and there damned good at it too. I play ancients but I'm the only one in my clan. Let's wait for the CCC, I reckon we might get a few points for a change, finally we out experience the vets Yes 9 out of all 10 futures Ive played have been with VVV members, they are damned good at civ4 future.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Jan 13, 2006 9:58:24 GMT -5
one more week then we get to play for bragging rights!!! ;D CCC almost here.
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Jan 13, 2006 10:49:11 GMT -5
while i haven't played to many futures in civ4 but its not hard at all to get your civ up and running fast. 1st you start with 400 gold. all you have to do is turn sci down to 0% and watch that money come flying in 2nd you get 3 mech inf which means you have 3 2 move units from get go. 3rd getting 3 size 5 cities off the bat with garnary and other things in city. getting to size 7 isn't very hard plus getting 3 workers and acouple exps. 4th all u need to do is change civics early to being able to buy improvements/increase worker speed/getting great people/and being able to draft 3 units per turn and you have yourself a good civ even without resouses close. futures in civ4 is less skilled balance then c3c futures. first in c3c u got to start from scratch and build everything in your cities!!!! plus u can't see what the map looks like from start.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 13, 2006 13:35:27 GMT -5
agree avo, but the map should be set so this can't happen too often unless the fool was doing one strategy I wont name. You'd be surprised VVV play little else, and there damned good at it too. I play ancients but I'm the only one in my clan. Let's wait for the CCC, I reckon we might get a few points for a change, finally we out experience the vets Yes 9 out of all 10 futures Ive played have been with VVV members, they are damned good at civ4 future. It think LOD and VVV will always be buds sharing so many members from other clans such as LOD and VVV etc. Avo there's no harm in starting to brag a few weeks early, anyway I'm sure we'll get thingyed by some upstart I disagree ghost without exception. CIV is a lot more complex than you give it credit for and in a teamer with all members sharing at least some usefull units it's precisely more about skill, no longer can you say ah we had no oil, it's just not going to happen, or be incredibly rare. And even if you do you can nuke the bejesus out of the with uranium. CIV futures are about skill more than c3c futures ever were. Balance=equal if everyone can do what your sugesting ghost how is that unbalanced? No c3c was unbalanced cause without oil and an oil rich neighbour close you were dead unless he was a noob. I don't see that as being fair, nor having uranium in your cap and building 4 cruise off the bat after granary,sodd all you can do with a couple of tow and that. This wont happen in CIV therefore it is more balanced(I think you might have to go look up balanced )
|
|
agent_x7
Settler
Agent of Truth
Posts: 65
|
Post by agent_x7 on Jan 13, 2006 14:36:23 GMT -5
Okay people, just remember to host future games. Also, never host open futures, because everyone will quit in 5 minutes guarenteed if it is not a ladder.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jan 13, 2006 18:05:37 GMT -5
Sidhe i couldnt disagree with you more, your analysis of C3C future is very inaccurate IMO. Those future games were team battles, 9/10 there was always something you could do to improve your teams situation, the reason future was/is so popular is; its team play in its purest form, team coordination had to be spot on, and intelligence (Gained via team mates or personally), was very vital. Very rarely, although sometimes it did happen, your team gets totally resource screwed, even then often you can get oil or alu. Decissions such as shall i build a granary in here, or shall i build a temple were made on a city by city bases, you cant plop down 3 cites and have half an empire made, so your what you left with is X identical civs. The simplicity of the game made it so complicated, almost like chess. I dont even think the game desingers knew potentially how much depth that game had, even after 2 (3 if you include PTW) years die hards still playing it. I think those that dont like it, dont understand it, I introduced it to 5 people and they all loved it! Making a empire game after game took alot of skill !!! In CIV i have played 4 renasiance era games, 2 industrial, and 1 future, so by no strech of the imagination am i pro. But im finding them all the same, instead of horseachers you have knight/cavs instead or spears you have pikes/rifflemen, etc. Prehaps im missing something!!
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Jan 13, 2006 18:46:04 GMT -5
Or perhaps you simply haven't played enough of them to understand the finer points? (Not an insult, honest suggestion.)
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 13, 2006 19:01:11 GMT -5
no insult, just doing that devils advocate thing again, agree totally. Only in 1 in 20 games with map screw can you lose if you are with the right team. My point is that futures are now even more unlikely to produce map screw, and that can only be a good thing. occasionally you will get a game you can't win in c3c, and I make that clear it is occasionally. EDIT: and industrial rules IMO all the initial units are no resource so with some clever civic changing and good trait picking you can really excell regardless of what resources you have. I've played 14 straight cton games of having no early resource so I know how frustrating that is; last night I got all of the resources within a manageable distance of cap to hook up, what do you know I came second out of 7 and would of won if I had been in striking distance of the leader, unfortunately he and another lower scorer were the only player I didn't attack because of distance(was toying with the idea of sitting back and defending but too close to several neighbours so decided to exploit the resource abundance) Having Praetorians and Elephants late game may of helped I'm admitting nothing . Resources are absolutely vital in some scenarios, you can win without them but it's damned hard work and requires alot of clever play or a map that leaves you breathing space to get a late resource hooked before the horsearcher/knight/ axemen rush comes in. I place my sudden newly aquired luck to my use of Voodoo.
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Jan 14, 2006 2:57:40 GMT -5
I disagree ghost without exception. CIV is a lot more complex than you give it credit for and in a teamer with all members sharing at least some usefull units it's precisely more about skill, no longer can you say ah we had no oil, it's just not going to happen, or be incredibly rare. And even if you do you can nuke the bejesus out of the with uranium. CIV futures are about skill more than c3c futures ever were. Balance=equal if everyone can do what your sugesting ghost how is that unbalanced? No c3c was unbalanced cause without oil and an oil rich neighbour close you were dead unless he was a noob. I don't see that as being fair, nor having uranium in your cap and building 4 cruise off the bat after granary,sodd all you can do with a couple of tow and that. This wont happen in CIV therefore it is more balanced(I think you might have to go look up balanced ) umm sidhe u couldn't be any wrong then what u just posted. i've seen plenty of c3c games won without teamates haveing any of the big3. or even haveing just aluim/rubber.while other team had big3 my opion oil isn't the best resouse in c3c. ALUIM BY FAR IS KING RESOUSE IN C3C. a smart player who has a enemy close with oil will build sams/flaks to couter there bombers. during wartime with half way decent land u should be able to build 2 sams to there 1 bomber they build. and with them sams u should place them 3 to 4 tiles apart and eat that bombers for lunch. c3c is more skilled based then civ4 futures. i will give u alittle example here to show you why it is. in civ 4 u start with 3 settlers that will be size 5 when planted. then u also start with 3 workers and with the right civic u should be able to place farms/ mines down in no more then then 2 turns if u stack your workers. now with the nationhood civic you can draft 3 units per turn(not a 100% but i think u can start drafting as soon as u get into the civic and have a pop of size 2 in a city) now u have 3 units that can protect your 3 new size 5 cities which start with everything but the kitchen sink. now in c3c futures u start with 1 worker/1king/1 settler/1 scout if exp civ. then when u plant your city u start with just a palance in your city. then u got anywhere from a 2 to 7 turn anarchy and can't build a thing in capt till out of anarchy unless u chop trees for exp. now once out of anarchy u hurry to get a garnary( and smart futures players will have there garnary done by turn 9 the latest even with a 5 to 6 turn anarchy seen players get it done by turn 4 also) next u explore the map for 2 reasons. 1 to find your enemys and 2 to find them resouses. so tell me sidhe wheres the skill at in civ4 futures. civ 4 futures r more based on land luck then c3c futures. i think u think c3c futures r more resouse based cause of acouple reasons. 1. you never got the hang of future in c3c so the gap of skill far out wieght your own skill. 2. with your lack of skill in c3c futures u got scard when u seen your closest enemy and started to rush to size 7 asp without building acouple cities before hand. 3rd. u never understood how to use each unit in c3c futures. pretty much i look at civ4 futures like i look at people who r to lazy to get a job but still collect food stamps and whatever else they can get for free.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 14, 2006 3:16:40 GMT -5
Do you even know what Devils advocate means? OK it means taking a deliberately ironic stand on an Issue to provoke a discussion. In other words saying the opposite to start an argument, usually followed with agreeing whole heartedly with whatever anyone posts in response. There you go I do disagree with you that it is just land luck. Try playing alot before you make this judgement especially ctons. But I will concede this scenario needs some serious moding ala wtiberon to make it work as good as the c3c scenario was. You could of course program a c3c style wtiberon 2.0 mod that was identical which is the beauty of this game I think the problem with futures was the pro aspect unless you played futures exclusively and got in with the right people it took forever to learn the game(unless you were in a clan of course). Some players did this kudos to them, and elrad posting his tips helped balance it out a bit. but c3c futures scenario is just too dull to play over and over again for four months so I played maybe 35 games got the general idea then CIV came out and I thought bye bye c3c, till I've played this game to death ;D pretty much i look at civ4 futures like i look at people who r to lazy to get a job but still collect food stamps and whatever else they can get for free. That's quite an ignorant comment, alot of people didn't have the luxury of having a clan web site to do there learning for them. I know our clan spent a long time trying to find out how the players were doing what they did, some of them became very skilled at this scenario. But it too alot of hard work, work which some people just don't have the time for. If your a part time student or unemployed ya have that time good on ya. But not everyone plays 60 hours a week. CIV will be moded by you I expect to some sort of playable version then the pros will flock back and we'll have some real good games again. But they got to be pros by playing alot, try not to foget that some people play this game occasionaly so calling them to lazy to get a job is a bit rich. I'm between courses atm so have plenty of time to play, at the end of the month I'll start a new one,so will be around alot less. Which I guess makes me one of those people that are to lazy to learn the new wonder moded scenaios I did get the hang of futures anyway, it's just too late to uise it now, rather play CIV for the time being. Unlike many future players I still played mostly anc ctons so the learning took alot longer. Besides some people are just lazy, Look at the dude in the Big Lebowsky now that was one cool lazy workshy guy
|
|
|
Post by archon on Jan 14, 2006 22:57:05 GMT -5
Spot on ghost on c3c future.
I haven't played CIV future yet, but is it true that bombers cant bomb roads - just improvements??!!?!?
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 15, 2006 3:36:12 GMT -5
Bombers were overpowered in c3c(especially stealth bombers) I think all they've done is make bombers good city softening units, but taken away there ability to totally destroy a civ which IMO was way to much for a few bombers to do(the counter units are actually half decent now too).
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jan 15, 2006 11:36:50 GMT -5
SB are very expensive, it no easy task to get a fleet of SB's in future.
Even if you just build bombers, and only bombers, you might screw your neighbour but youll have no infastracture, and very easy to kill.
On the other hand if you get 2-3 jets, bombers will go down like flys.
Its no coincidance certian players make monster empires game after game.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 15, 2006 12:13:16 GMT -5
If you use your team properly you can have one going for carrier and stealth and the rest building or tow rushing or whatever. Stealth were way overpowered and if you can hook rails your gonna do serious damage to someone without them being able to do much. I'm glad the effect of bombers has been nerfed it was way way overpowered to the point of being ridiculous.
There is no way someone who hasn't got early oil someone can take out someone with oil if he's not a noob, it doesn't make sense to me, that should be the case, yeah your team might be able to help out but by the time you get there he'll probably have hooked alu too and you'll soon be dead. Probably the only thing I don't miss from futures.Early Alu kills sucked too. OK two things.
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Jan 17, 2006 16:07:28 GMT -5
i like said before sidhe bombers ain't as strong as u let them on to be from c3c. if u see he has oil close build sams and flaks. u can build 2 sams 2 there 1 bomber have plenty of workers for cleanup . as i see it u don't build engough workers. i myself in c3c futures have 4 workers from my capt before i reach size 7. 2 sams will kill a bomber easy. steath on other hand r harder to kill but most players don't build them till later in the game cause u need oil/aluim to build them plus during wartime it takes 3 to 4 extra turns to build steath bombers after building a wartime unit u get the extra shields from. speak for your own lack of future skill in c3c saying bombers r to over powered. i'd rather face someone with just oil who is building bombers then someone with aluim who is sending cruises to u. cruises r so cheap and deadly can wipe out a whole stack of units with just one.
|
|
agent_x7
Settler
Agent of Truth
Posts: 65
|
Post by agent_x7 on Jan 18, 2006 19:08:00 GMT -5
Sams were wayyy underpowered in civ 3. They gave little more then psycological defense. Basically, in c3c, if you didn't build fighters you were defenseless. I hated it when you spent 10 turns building a unit early on, and having it destroyed in a fraction of a second by the player lucky enough to start with oil. In c3c, if a bomber attacked a tow infantry, you could expect it to take out 2 or maybe 3hp in 1 shot. In civ 4 bombers are still useful, but no longer able to destry an entire army in 1 blow. If you are able to wipe out an entire "stack" of units with a single cruise missle, then that means you are cheating. A cruise missle attack was only about as powerful as a stealth bomber bombard.
However, I did kill an oil player who had bombers without oil. The player was using his bombers to harass my border city, and he killed the defending tow. I decided to take him out before he could get tanks. I sent a galleon with a single tow in it to the city where the player's only 2 bombers were based. The city was empty, no land units. I hid my galleon outside his waters so he couldn't sink it, then 5 seconds before the turn timer ended I moved the galleon to a spot adjathingy to his capital, unloaded the tow, and pressed enter. The next turn I immediatly atatcked his capital with my tow before he could bombard, and killed the bombers. I captured a nearby worker, used it to build airfield to airlift in more tows, and after 10 turns or so the oil player was dead. It was one of the greatest kills in my civ mp history.
|
|