|
Post by siberianwookie on Nov 12, 2005 18:31:46 GMT -5
I'm new to Civ4, so this issue has probably already been raised and dealt with, but as I can't find a thread relating to it I will raise my question here. I played a random game where my opponent started with a warrior and I didn't. I planted first turn and my first move was to build a warrior. I was killed by about turn 5... i think. Anyway, my question is should I report? I don't believe I should report.. and this happened in my first game I played with experienced civ3 players, whom I won't name, and we all restarted because of this. Because I was playing with new Civ4 players, then their reaction was of bad luck. Is there a ruling for this? I mean I am happy to report if the admins believe that my stance for fairness is of lesser concern than our attempt to try to encourage new players to remain with our ladder. Please advise to this rule or any info on this dilemma. SiberianWookie
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Nov 12, 2005 19:16:27 GMT -5
that has happened to me - and I've killed someone that fast the same way.
Started with a warrior, hit tribal village and warrior became woodsman ; took a chance double-moved/walked through the woods and took someone out.
the exact same thing has been done to me.
I reported my loss when it happened to me, I got a report when I did it to someone else.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Nov 12, 2005 19:44:25 GMT -5
That is a serious game flaw. Nobody should lose due to a situation where they can not have a unit to defend no matter what they do.
|
|
|
Post by yilar on Nov 12, 2005 22:55:12 GMT -5
a scout can defend !
|
|
|
Post by ozmono2005 on Nov 12, 2005 22:58:28 GMT -5
to be fair
it would be a rare occurance if careful because you start with either a scout or worker. (depending on the civilization) but even random
A scout fortified in a city can more than likely hold of a warrior
U can normally build a warrior within five turns
If someone can move into your capital chances are u will either know their close by borders
OR easilier by checking the settings
I am also new to civ4 as I waited agaisnt my will for australian release dat but I found in the majority of cases your first city is built on a forest or jungle therfore making it even easier to build a warrior quickly
As chp12345 told me in such a circumstance. ALWAYS build a warrior first. If it were not a duel, tiny or other type of cramped map and no barbs were set than probably not but hey once I can start playing Mp again I'll be following that advice to the letter
|
|
|
Post by Snarf on Nov 13, 2005 6:15:16 GMT -5
With the frequency of players being put very close together in CIV sending that first scout or warrior out to explore before you get another one built is a big risk now. And depending on your civ it can take up to 10 turns to build that first warrior.
My suggestion is to play a map one size bigger than you normally would have in C3C. Since building 10 cities as fast as you can is no longer a winning strategy the extra elbow room should be a good thing now.
|
|
|
Post by revivalist on Nov 13, 2005 7:59:47 GMT -5
the size of the game maps and the recommended number of players to play on that map need slight tweaking.
The maps i feel are slightly too small. It allows for warriors to find you within 5 turns and due to the the enhanced defensive features of the game, they can be stuck and planted in a forest in your city for a good few turns.
couple this with the age old problem of being resourceless while your enemy is all over you and can hook them up at will and your pretty shafted.
I dont like buildfests on oversized maps, but nor do i like rush-fests on undersized maps.
there needs to be balance in there somewhere
|
|
Midgard
Worker
Captain of LoD
Posts: 103
|
Post by Midgard on Nov 14, 2005 16:06:03 GMT -5
the size of the game maps and the recommended number of players to play on that map need slight tweaking. The maps i feel are slightly too small. It allows for warriors to find you within 5 turns and due to the the enhanced defensive features of the game, they can be stuck and planted in a forest in your city for a good few turns. couple this with the age old problem of being resourceless while your enemy is all over you and can hook them up at will and your pretty shafted. I dont like buildfests on oversized maps, but nor do i like rush-fests on undersized maps. there needs to be balance in there somewhere Ive noticed this to be exceptionally bad on the Miurro Map Duel Size, played my first mirror map last night in a 1v1 duel map, Had no idea what it was (even tho logically mirror should have told me right off, but Ive not been known to be very logically ) my oppnent, was on me by turn 5 with warirors few turns later chariots, and scored an outstanding 1k or more points in 90 turns (Well done, Mem ), but this prolly mostly me not knowing what a mirror map was and not saying he lacked any skill because he played very well, but nonetheless I still feel even 1v1 duel map just might be too small, perhaps Ill give a more educated opinion though once I play it more that once now that I understand it more now.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Nov 14, 2005 16:37:49 GMT -5
I say yes report as if it had been you that scored the kill a report would have been expected by you. Another note is that though micro management is not as required here it is helpful in your situation. And besides this is similar to the old Jag rush of old. We all take risks in this game each time we play, and I am sure we will continue doing so, and as they say what come around goes around. On most starts a warrior takes no more than 5 turns to complete.
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Nov 14, 2005 17:52:11 GMT -5
No promises, but this is being looked at. NO PROMISES.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Nov 15, 2005 3:18:13 GMT -5
hm, I killed sw in some cton
but it wasnt turn 5 but more something like turn 9 or 10 and cap was size 1 - i didnt even use a woodman
imo with warrior 1. there s no way to be killed easy as that - if u use a wood u do it in 5 turns - when u see warrior entering boarder u can even switch to a 2 or 3 produce tile and get it even faster - even a woodsman should be seen 2 turns ahead
the only problem arrise when u build worker 1. - when u see warrior its very likly too late to switch as u are size 1 and cant speed warrior
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Nov 15, 2005 9:50:00 GMT -5
I was thinking about this.... What if you could upgrade your scout to a warrior for 0 gold? I think that would be a simple fix, even easily mod-able. This way a player could choose to keep his scout for rapid exploration and hut-finding, or keep it home as a warrior. I noticed that you don't have to have a unit in your city to upgrade him; I think he just has to be within your cultural borders.
|
|
Lord_Phan
Settler
Member of the Nation of Domination
Posts: 52
|
Post by Lord_Phan on Nov 15, 2005 11:06:41 GMT -5
you have any idea how exploitable that would be Zhe?
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Nov 15, 2005 11:20:04 GMT -5
well maybe scout would need to be inside you cap to be upgradable?
I'd hate to see a scout on my border turn into a warrior.
|
|
|
Post by Vermillion on Nov 15, 2005 11:36:35 GMT -5
maybe start with no warrior all together? Like C3C? Exp civs still get scout?
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Nov 15, 2005 11:57:25 GMT -5
So a unit doesn't have to be within your borders in order to upgrade it? That's scary.... hmm might be a good tactic...... and does it automatically heal when u upgrade it?
Btw Vermillion that's a funny sig. Is that from "Big Trouble Little China?" Good movie. "Two girls with green eyes?"
|
|
|
Post by Cobra on Nov 15, 2005 15:00:06 GMT -5
units do not have to be in a city to upgrade them but they do have to be INSIDE your borders. So you can't walk a warrior to someone's borders 50 tiles away from you and upgrade him to an axeman just before you enter into their territory
|
|
|
Post by Vermillion on Nov 15, 2005 15:57:49 GMT -5
Btw Vermillion that's a funny sig. Is that from "Big Trouble Little China?" Good movie. "Two girls with green eyes?" Ya its one of my favs, The three storms are bad arse!
|
|
|
Post by civerdan on Nov 16, 2005 14:46:02 GMT -5
I had a game yesterday where about 10-15 turns into a game I walked a warrior into someones undefended cap. I suspected he had he was scouting outside his cap and building something (likely a barracks). It is MUCH easier to walk into an undefended city now if the opposing players leaves it undefended for multiple reasons:
1. Slower road movement/not starting with worker 2. Inability to pop rush early on/transfer hammers 3. Movement promotions for units.
Best advice for people is do not leave cities undefended unless you willing to take this risk (i.e. you want to attempt a bum rush).
|
|
|
Post by claudelu on Nov 16, 2005 20:56:22 GMT -5
never happened to me. I did it to others. I never leave capital undefended UNLESS i know for a fact who is where and where they are in terms of building what... It's not an issue if you know what to build, really... I saw players sitting with 1 warrior in capital when I had 2 warriors and they saw an archer of mine approaching their city, and still were stubborn enough to keep building what they were building... a worker, of course.
Guess what - you're going to die this way. Or, a little better, you're gonna lose your worker.
|
|