|
Post by Bantams on Dec 7, 2006 10:50:01 GMT -5
tommynt(150) defeated God(132) tommynt(141) defeated Feyyaz-Turkey(97) tommynt(119) defeated tamijo(124) tommynt(119) defeated Namejs(145) tommynt(120) defeated Willburn(7) tommynt(63) defeated styggestygge(103) tommynt(63) defeated [JFF]Bantams(132) I wonder how many made is til the end in this one tommynt with Zulu - on my left, (with no metal/horse before 3th city, so never got the chance to hook that) I would prob. have got killed anyways, but this was a slaughterhouse, uuuuuuhhh blod all over my screen was scary !!!! I Stayed till the end was 4th ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Dec 7, 2006 11:28:08 GMT -5
bleh u didnt stay till the end, u was the mouse when i was the tiger ^^
I actually think that expensive is nice but it s not like a sure win, espacially in a ctons it s much more important how your neighbours act, being attacked all game from both sides no trait ll help u win game
also it s not like u get workers 50% faster as only shields are multiplied, but usually u have food flowing into worker production aswell. It s just best trait in early eras atm but i dont think that it s something like a sure win
|
|
|
Post by ironclad on Dec 7, 2006 12:29:05 GMT -5
Tommynt killed all those??? Beast!!
|
|
|
Post by ironclad on Dec 7, 2006 12:32:54 GMT -5
exp is powerful, not overpowered. All the traits dont have to have same power, some can be better than others in different eras.... Much less powerful than agri in civ 3. There is a vanilla civ for those who want all civs have the same strength
Only things i find too powerful Culture Bomb Maybe Cossacks
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Dec 7, 2006 13:05:42 GMT -5
and we are only now realizing that this boost was probably too much. Ahem. Some of us predicted this before the patch was even released.
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Dec 7, 2006 13:12:14 GMT -5
Mali can stop the snowball if it chokes zulu with skirmishers. On a close anc or classical start, there is no doubt in my mind that the effective choking uus - Quechas, protective archers, jaguars, but especially skirmishers - will have the upper hand. However this is an isolated circumstance. You don't have to be very far apart (as long as you have a resource in cap or close by) for the expansive advantage to tell. Having said this, blaming a loss on the leader your opponent has, whether it's expansive or not, is weak imo.
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Dec 7, 2006 13:15:20 GMT -5
Expansive being on civs with great uu or other great trait is too powerfull though. Theoretically shouldn't every trait, UB and UU be equally powered, rather than using a weak UU, for example to balance a strong trait? As for other expansive leaders not being chosen. I certainly wouldn't cry if I got washington or mehmed on random. Only things i find too powerful Culture Bomb Yeah I would definitely do away with the culture bomb, before the change to the expansive trait. Apologies for the multi posting. Civfanatics created or borrowed a tool to make multi quoting easier, may be we could steal this.
|
|
|
Post by tamijo on Dec 8, 2006 6:01:56 GMT -5
"Having said this, blaming a loss on the leader your opponent has, whether it's expansive or not, is weak imo."
But better sportsmanship than blaiming it on your teammate Allways blame myself, that it the only one i can punnish anyways.
|
|
|
Post by willburn on Dec 8, 2006 6:07:11 GMT -5
Tommy beating me wasnt a big example as he beat me on points, due to me not grabbing great libary. Wasnt really because he was zulu, We both killed our closest naighbours (on both sides) and expanded.
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Dec 8, 2006 6:25:17 GMT -5
I was thinking more of ctons. You can blame your teammate I just don't think it's very polite to be too vocal about it. If he's anything like me he probably feels sh1tty as it is.
|
|
|
Post by icelion on Dec 8, 2006 10:48:57 GMT -5
expansive is always good trait,expansion pack really balanced all the civs,they are all good now,except rome maybe;without praets its crappy civ.
|
|
|
Post by diadem on Dec 9, 2006 15:30:59 GMT -5
The bonus to hammers for expansionists only works for the hammer-hammers, not the food-hammers. So the bonus usually is not a real 50%.
I don't think expansionist is overpowered. Spiritual is at least as good. And philosophical is über as well. Zulu and Spain are both mainly played for their UUs.
I would play Shaka more if he was agg/spi or agg/phi to be honest. And give Gandhi conquistadors and noone would ever play any other leader anymore.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Dec 9, 2006 21:14:23 GMT -5
Think about Expansive more in terms of Ancient / Classical / Medieval than Renaissance -- when you get quick Workers in combination with quick Granaries, it's by far the best trait you can find yourself with.
|
|
|
Post by willburn on Dec 9, 2006 21:16:47 GMT -5
The main reason its overpowered is because chopping gives you 1.5 the amount of hammers. 30 hammers in 3 turns with mathemathics is absurd. That alone allmost finishes a worker.
Same goes with slavery it doesnt give 20 hammers but 30 hammers. (even without mathemathic..guess if this can be abused in ancients or not..hmmmmmm....)
|
|
|
Post by diadem on Dec 9, 2006 23:34:43 GMT -5
So would you pick it over spiritual or philosophical or aggressive, when you don't look at the UU or UB?
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Dec 10, 2006 0:20:02 GMT -5
I thought traits were suppose to be powerful to give the game variance and depth and an advantage to the person who knows how to play all traits to the maximum benefit. Expansive trait was weak before XP, now it is worth playing. That's great imo. The last thing I want to see is traits weakened.
Aggressive can equal swarms of triple to quadruple upgraded melee units in the right hands. Is it that much stronger than that? Philo can equal GP's out the wazoo. Is it that much stronger than that? Finical can equal over 50 extra commerce per turn toward the end. Is it that much stronger than that. Industrial can equal getting nuts load of wonders. Is it that much stronger than that? Creative can equals #1 land era for sure in the right hand. Is it that much stronger than that? Imperial can equal more cities than you can count and much improved military in the hands of the right player. Is it that much stronger than that? Organization can be strong and combined with other traits becomes even stronger. Is it that much stronger than that? Charismatic can equal bigger city which can equal faster everything else. Is it that much stronger than that.
If I was to create a post regarding traits it would be to complain about how weak protective trait is. But maybe I just don't know how to use it, that I think of it as worthless.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Dec 10, 2006 0:54:55 GMT -5
The last cton I played I had the second highest GNP and Great Library with Greece. Still found myself 300 points behind the 3 Expansive players in the game. Thankfully I know how to exploid slowedly overpowered Catapults and kill both my neighbors . Expansive better than Aggressive? Yup. Philo? Yup. Industrious? Yup. Creative? Are you kidding? For sure. Imperialisitc? Faster Settlers or faster Workers? I'll take the Workers. Organized? LMAO of course it's better than Organized. Charasmatic? Yup, much stronger. And Protective ... of course, pretty crappy trait all around.
|
|
|
Post by knupp on Dec 10, 2006 0:58:09 GMT -5
I thought traits were suppose to be powerful to give the game variance and depth and an advantage to the person who knows how to play all traits to the maximum benefit. Expansive trait was weak before XP, now it is worth playing. That's great imo. The last thing I want to see is traits weakened. Aggressive can equal swarms of triple to quadruple upgraded melee units in the right hands. Is it that much stronger than that? Philo can equal GP's out the wazoo. Is it that much stronger than that? Finical can equal over 50 extra commerce per turn toward the end. Is it that much stronger than that. Industrial can equal getting nuts load of wonders. Is it that much stronger than that? Creative can equals #1 land era for sure in the right hand. Is it that much stronger than that? Imperial can equal more cities than you can count and much improved military in the hands of the right player. Is it that much stronger than that? Organization can be strong and combined with other traits becomes even stronger. Is it that much stronger than that? Charismatic can equal bigger city which can equal faster everything else. Is it that much stronger than that. If I was to create a post regarding traits it would be to complain about how weak protective trait is. But maybe I just don't know how to use it, that I think of it as worthless. Have you played Civ recently? Yes it is way more powerful...
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Dec 10, 2006 2:13:44 GMT -5
Well its called expansive, so shouldn't it be able to expand better than other civs? Duh!
Maybe imperialistic should get cheap worker and expansive get cheap settler. That would make more sense anyway for expansive to get settler cheaper hence letting it expand faster.
Question for you all out there. Through the duration of an average game would you say you use more hammers to train settlers or workers? And how much more often will the bonus overflow go into something less beneficial? If workers, how many more would you guess?
Anyway, I would still say make other traits stronger not weaken expansive, for the more specialized the traits, the more dynamic the gameplay. Traits and UU's should be powerful, making you need to use different strategies with each differing civ.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Dec 10, 2006 4:55:39 GMT -5
depends
|
|