Post by atombomb on Jan 1, 2006 23:38:03 GMT -5
For the most part, very good, very fun, but a few points I would like to make about my multiplayer experience:
1. The combat. It's worlds better than previous civs, but still too random. I find myself, although rarely, in positions where I might lose 10 times in a row at equal odds fights, or vice-versa. Again, this happens rarely, but it seems to me that perhaps the combat system should up the amount of "checks" it has per battle, to more closely approximate true outcomes. This would mean that at the end of a close battle, the victor will be more likely to have very little life left over, while in cases where the battle should not be close at all, the victor will have higher life total. Overall this would fix the tank vs warrior problem while simultaniously making the game more fair (less luck involved - who really wants to win a strategy game with luck?).
2. I would like to see the civs more balanced across the board for multiplay. Perhaps each civ should have a UU for each age, instead of 1 overall? Many civs just aren't that playable in almost all mp situations simply because their UU is so far down the line that it will never be seen, and their attributes do not make up for the UUless handicap.
3. Axemen. I think anyone who plays multiplayer knows exactly what I mean here. Its a little silly to have a unit whose only counter is itself for a good chunk of the game. Just rework the counter system a little so that axemen can counter something else - archers really come to mind here, since nothing currently counters archers that is not a UU. Perhaps horse archers could be considered a counter for melee and given a 25% bonus vs melee. I don't think this would disrupt their battles against spearmen since the bonus for spears is 100%, and spears cost much less, but that bonus could be improved to 125% vs horse if it is felt imbalanced.
1. The combat. It's worlds better than previous civs, but still too random. I find myself, although rarely, in positions where I might lose 10 times in a row at equal odds fights, or vice-versa. Again, this happens rarely, but it seems to me that perhaps the combat system should up the amount of "checks" it has per battle, to more closely approximate true outcomes. This would mean that at the end of a close battle, the victor will be more likely to have very little life left over, while in cases where the battle should not be close at all, the victor will have higher life total. Overall this would fix the tank vs warrior problem while simultaniously making the game more fair (less luck involved - who really wants to win a strategy game with luck?).
2. I would like to see the civs more balanced across the board for multiplay. Perhaps each civ should have a UU for each age, instead of 1 overall? Many civs just aren't that playable in almost all mp situations simply because their UU is so far down the line that it will never be seen, and their attributes do not make up for the UUless handicap.
3. Axemen. I think anyone who plays multiplayer knows exactly what I mean here. Its a little silly to have a unit whose only counter is itself for a good chunk of the game. Just rework the counter system a little so that axemen can counter something else - archers really come to mind here, since nothing currently counters archers that is not a UU. Perhaps horse archers could be considered a counter for melee and given a 25% bonus vs melee. I don't think this would disrupt their battles against spearmen since the bonus for spears is 100%, and spears cost much less, but that bonus could be improved to 125% vs horse if it is felt imbalanced.