|
Post by Gogf on Jul 13, 2006 15:49:27 GMT -5
I think Tony means that if both teams lose a player, then it's like neither team lost a player.
|
|
|
Post by ironclad on Jul 13, 2006 17:20:42 GMT -5
one city elim would easily solve that problem and games would be alot quicker
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Jul 13, 2006 18:30:49 GMT -5
yes the point nullifie tony but.....
As is one kill ends the game, not necessary because of land score but because of faster teching. What I am saying is if you know you get the 500 bonus for getting a kill yourself then its 3v3 again and one more kill can win it for you.
The way it is now even if you manage 2 late kills you lose if your player dies early. Make more sense to you now?
|
|
|
Post by civerdan on Jul 13, 2006 19:04:40 GMT -5
Re: 1 City elim in ren
I agree It would help with the cav to cav stand offs you often get if no early kill, but you have greater risk of cheese kill w/ 2 longbows vs 1 etc. If used I would only use on Inland sea.
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on Jul 13, 2006 19:11:20 GMT -5
If there's a cav to cav standoff, it's because both sides have even production and fairly equal skill, in which case neither deserves to die.
|
|
|
Post by eiffel on Jul 13, 2006 21:32:37 GMT -5
Mmm, yes, maybe 1 city elim is the solution to never ending and boring renaissance teamers. Don't know why, but i find they're lasting very long lately, maybe beause of some level raising for most players playing them. A lot of "More than 4 hours" games... too long.
|
|
|
Post by lporiginalg on Jul 13, 2006 21:36:39 GMT -5
^
This is kind of the attitude i'm talkin about, personaly I enjoy longer games as long as they don't lag excessively, I like to win civ by outeching rather than overpowering, that's my steez.
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on Jul 13, 2006 22:00:52 GMT -5
I wouldn't personally have any interest in 1-city elim games.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Jul 14, 2006 3:24:39 GMT -5
Mmm, yes, maybe 1 city elim is the solution to never ending and boring renaissance teamers. Don't know why, but i find they're lasting very long lately, maybe beause of some level raising for most players playing them. A lot of "More than 4 hours" games... too long. Another solution to the 4 hour plus games is to try playing under the CCC rules -- 3v3 Inland Sea small map size, 90 turns. These games tend to go a lot quicker than the 5v5's do.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jul 14, 2006 3:29:44 GMT -5
these bs game happen usually only on inland sea map - i see 0 reason why so many people think it d be a good map for large teamers.
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on Jul 14, 2006 3:54:22 GMT -5
I just don't see the problem. 75% of the inland sea 5v5 teamers I play end in a kill, at least, and we usually have impressively evenly matched teams. The whole draw of renaissance is that between very strong doublemove units, rapid city development and production, weaker city defense units, and boats being discovered, it's the easiest era to get city kills in for balanced, good teams (far as I can see.)
Well, maybe besides future.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jul 14, 2006 6:30:55 GMT -5
ya elledge the few teams where i end up on Front end in fast kills all other are stalements - people hide in their triple culture bombed hill cities - doublemoves on back cities are most times impossible due the huge culture radius. and sea kills are only possible if 1 team sleeps
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on Jul 14, 2006 6:59:34 GMT -5
Thing is, the threat of a sea attack forces the other guy to keep extra units in his coastal cities all over, and if he does it well enough to prevent a boat drop, he won't have as much to spare for the front.
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Jul 14, 2006 7:06:19 GMT -5
ya elledge the few teams where i end up on Front end in fast kills all other are stalements - people hide in their triple culture bombed hill cities - doublemoves on back cities are most times impossible due the huge culture radius. and sea kills are only possible if 1 team sleeps Hehe. That's not quite true. There are some early kills. But yeah, culture bombs can make it almost impossible to try anything clever. I know they are part of the game, but i wonder if they take something away from it. On maps with multiple fronts it is less of an issue, so really i prefer maps like TBG. And aren't sea attacks pretty easy to put out a sentinel net for?
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on Jul 14, 2006 7:12:57 GMT -5
Culture bombs make it difficult. I'm not sure if there is a good way to solve that.
You can only put out a sentinel net if the other side doesn't already dominate your ports. In most games, the team that gets to astro first and chem first generally has full sea control before long if they have good coastal production cities.
|
|
|
Post by longhorn on Jul 14, 2006 8:12:33 GMT -5
Firstly, I am also not a fan of spending 2 hours in staging just so we can have a 20 minute game out on the battlefield. But-- in answer to your question- 5 factors have contributed to the 'lengthening of games' in ren teamers.
1- The INCREDIBLY LAME WHIMPY banning of Russia -- cossacks shorten game length (plain and simple).
2- Shifting the map to inland (boring) sea
3- Shifting the strategy from tech based race to liberalism to manufacturing based 'my stack is bigger than yours'
4- Again shifting GP from tech to artist bombing for rapid explosion of culture
5- Familiarity.., playing same map, same style, same civs, same strategy with the same people all the time.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Jul 14, 2006 11:07:12 GMT -5
You can only put out a sentinel net if the other side doesn't already dominate your ports. In most games, the team that gets to astro first and chem first generally has full sea control before long if they have good coastal production cities. In a game last night my team generally had control of the sea for the entire game and we never even researched Astronomy. The other team failed to build coastal cities -- they only had 2 (and 1 was a frontline city of a civ that had already lost a city). So even when they got to Astronomy our Caravels still far outnumbered their Galleons.
|
|
|
Post by lporiginalg on Jul 14, 2006 11:54:49 GMT -5
haha longhorn speaks the truth, next time you have 10 experts staging for ren inland sea why not make it 2v2v2v2v2 instead? (90turns) I love this format or 2v2v2v2 or 3v3v3v3 add raging barbs and no city raising winning this type of format is just as much about teamwork as any other type of teamgame, but i think it is much more strategic like the game civilisation is meant to be, with multiple powers struggling for dominance.
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Jul 14, 2006 12:49:41 GMT -5
2v2v2v2 would be madness its take long enough to pick teams as it is 3v3v3 would be ok i guess or 4v4v4 but them kind of games would surely run longer than a 4v4 or 5v5 in hour terms
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jul 14, 2006 13:36:56 GMT -5
haha longhorn speaks the truth, next time you have 10 experts staging for ren inland sea why not make it 2v2v2v2v2 instead? (90turns) I love this format or 2v2v2v2 or 3v3v3v3 add raging barbs and no city raising winning this type of format is just as much about teamwork as any other type of teamgame, but i think it is much more strategic like the game civilisation is meant to be, with multiple powers struggling for dominance. Ive done this before, and IMO, it feels like a cton to me, but instead of having 2 fronts you have 1, and i gues players are more agressive, becuase in ctons no one ever sttacks anyone. But checking other people power other then your immediate neighbours not worth it. I gotta say im not a big fan, but something like epic 4 islands and 2 on each island is the best way to play an epic IMO, lots of small teams makes diplomacy interesting, but in always war, it just feels like a cton.
|
|