|
Post by playerxxcc on Nov 19, 2005 9:17:36 GMT -5
such stuff usualy hapens on small or tiny maps, if biger map usualy even early woodsman cant reach any1s cap when undefended, so if game starts on tiny or small map (if cton) try to produce 1 warrior as fast as possible, no matter if that slows my growth, although i usualy move it out to scout an enemy or sorrounding . many things also depends on pozition, u can quite fast know where r u on map, if ur in middle maybe it pays of being in city, else better to choke closest nerighbour. also usualy before worker, i prebuild warrior to like 1 or 2 t before finished just to be ready if emergency hapens...
|
|
|
Post by themagiceye on Nov 20, 2005 21:58:38 GMT -5
would completely subscribe that ...either maps need to be bigger or game has to guarantee to start at least a min amount of tiles away from opponent i saw this happen quite a few times (and i didnt play much civ4) yet. The worst thing i saw was when Cruise (for those who dont know him - one of the best players around) starting off as a scouter was killed on turn 5 - even turn 4 if i remember right. Im pretty sure if he would have had some plain forest or something to micromange for shields he would have brought his 1st warrior out in time... would be nice to see those ugly flaw being removed! at least make some restart ruling for this situation..
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Nov 20, 2005 22:22:33 GMT -5
he started with no warrior at all?
|
|
Lord_Phan
Settler
Member of the Nation of Domination
Posts: 52
|
Post by Lord_Phan on Nov 20, 2005 23:10:32 GMT -5
he started with no warrior at all? If you have Hunting you start with a scout instead of a warrior
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Nov 20, 2005 23:13:55 GMT -5
yes that's why i suggested the ability to upgrade scouts to warriors for 0 gold
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Nov 20, 2005 23:59:21 GMT -5
I played my first "classic" civ in civ4 the other night - a little confusing after a few weeks of regular civ4.
I started out with a worker, settler, and scout - wasn't paying attention and was trying to figure out why I had 2 "scouts" but I figure what'da'heck - this is the new civ4.
Apparently, no one else was paying attention to it either because I inadvertantly used the worker for a scout (same movement points) and circumnavigated the globe with it finding all the other civs. I finally realized it was a worker and not a scout about 10 turns before returning to my borders. He safely returned home about the time I got iron and built the mine and road on it.
My actual scout was killed about turn 10 by a bear.
|
|
Lord_Phan
Settler
Member of the Nation of Domination
Posts: 52
|
Post by Lord_Phan on Nov 21, 2005 0:55:54 GMT -5
lol, now that's a funny story
|
|
|
Post by Onan on Nov 21, 2005 4:12:18 GMT -5
Yeah, that was me that killed Cruise, I think it was on turn 4. I just went the right way. pure luck. dunno if his scout coulda fended it off... Anyway I knew he had no chance so I said no need to report, we restarted. But I think, technically, it's a loss, SW. I've had the same thing happen to me (almost), and I reported: I had a game tonight where the enemy's scout (agentk) move onto a hill next to my cap. The odds were decent, so I hit it with my warrior. And I died. lol. So then I switch to warrior build and soon enough here come two french warriors. I have one warrior defending (and one on the way the next turn--micromanaged for production to even get this), should be 45% defense with cultural and warrior city defense, I think, I have pretty good chances here. His first warrior doesn't seem to scratch mine and dies. Second one takes me out. We played another 1v1 after that--first unit of his I saw was a warrior with combat 1 (aggressive civ) and woodsman II promotion (a hut). And a bit later it came back with shock, too. Needless to say he was all over me again, eventually with chariots and horse archers. The only reason I lived was because I had the gift of iron IN my capital. I agree, Fried. This could use some looking at. I think the suggestion above that all civs start with nothing, except exp civs get scouts, might be a good fix.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Nov 21, 2005 5:29:34 GMT -5
these woodsman are strong but dont decide game imo - yeah let these worker 1. dudes be killed fast
its so easy to get warriro in 5 turns - just do it - anyway i prefer 100 gold to a woodsman
|
|
|
Post by Random on Nov 21, 2005 16:25:09 GMT -5
Very interesting... The way I have seen these games played. While in a teamer I watch my partners and see almost no one fortify their first warrior or even their second for that matter. And as to scouts they are almost strictly used as scouts. Hell half of the time people do not even build units first turn, seen many build workers, barricks, and many other buildings, even seen one guy start with settler. The point of this post is that many are upset that they got caught with their pants down and the only one to blame has to be the game, not a mistake on their build orders. And I do not blame them I do things like this as well, and when I die from doing so I simply report and go to the next game. We all take risks in every game and therefore could die early. But to stay home and keep said units there may keep you alive but you score and knowledge of your surroundings are at the bottom. So lets enjoy the game, report when you die, and carry on.
|
|
|
Post by themagiceye on Nov 21, 2005 16:39:49 GMT -5
dude...im talking about a kill on turn 4.... for the player that started off with a scout there was no risk to take, no possible improvement of the way he played, simply no decision to make at all...and probably no fun as well.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Nov 21, 2005 17:00:19 GMT -5
As I said you could defend with scout, and may or may not win, I have had many scouts defeat attacking warriors. My point is that everyone who looks at the game will be able to blame the game for something. So lets say we remove the warriors, then we will hear about people who say man my scout got like 100 to 300 gold and techs, and the other side will say man it is so unfair that the ones with scouts get those benefits, so as you see this will be a never ending cycle. Best you can make a warrior is I think 4 turns as that is the fastest I have done so. So what the real argument maybe is that you want to be able to switch with out losing any saved shields on next build, and guess what we get the complaints on prebuilding, it is a never winning situation. So I say yes it sux to lose that way but report and play again...
|
|
|
Post by heroray on Nov 21, 2005 17:38:45 GMT -5
As I said you could defend with scout, and may or may not win, I have had many scouts defeat attacking warriors. My point is that everyone who looks at the game will be able to blame the game for something. So lets say we remove the warriors, then we will hear about people who say man my scout got like 100 to 300 gold and techs, and the other side will say man it is so unfair that the ones with scouts get those benefits, so as you see this will be a never ending cycle. Best you can make a warrior is I think 4 turns as that is the fastest I have done so. So what the real argument maybe is that you want to be able to switch with out losing any saved shields on next build, and guess what we get the complaints on prebuilding, it is a never winning situation. So I say yes it sux to lose that way but report and play again... What a thingyy son of a gun. Please folks, Get it though your Thick skull. Civ4 is the PERFECT game. If you point out anything that might not be perfect, You are a slow. No need to have people questioning the Authority. PS. You only get in trouble when you post negatives about this game, so Please, Feel free to bash even the people with Constructive Criticism as nothing could possibly be wrong with this Wonderful Achievement of Programing called CIV4
|
|
|
Post by Random on Nov 21, 2005 18:22:39 GMT -5
I have yet to see you playing. I will admit this game has problems, and even with many patches will still have some. Everyone seems full of quick fixes, and looks at only their side, not the full spectrum. So while I am being berated for speaking my side, I will here state things that are wrong, and over powered and should be changed or I will quit CIV. Roman UU if iron is in cap is to strong and it is impossible to defend against. Egypt and Persia are the perfect killer CIV and can kill all if have horses in cap. Inca is to good a choke civ and should be nerfed. Man with all these issues along with the bad interface and crappy lobby, and mix that with all the new people. I do not want to play anymore new people as they always mess up the games. Lets see what other negative things can be stated the list could go on forever. The above list are supposedly legitimate gripes I have heard spawned in the lobby and a few other places. Some of which I am sure are truly legitimate and will be addressed in the next patch. I defend this game because I have seen the many hours of work that went into it, and have read the many arguments for and against each side. It is sad to me that with each new title release there has to be so much discontent and complaints. Very few of the complaints have anything offered in return to repair said infraction. And if I was a pessimist I would simply quit and find something new to pass my time. But as I said I very much enjoy this game and will continue playing. So in conclusion, I will continue resetting my stats daily so as not to upset anyone. And will offer no insights. Hope to see you all in a game.
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Nov 21, 2005 19:31:14 GMT -5
dude...im talking about a kill on turn 4.... for the player that started off with a scout there was no risk to take, no possible improvement of the way he played, simply no decision to make at all...and probably no fun as well. I really wouldn't suggest using a map setting that puts a starting civ FOUR moves from a another starting civ (actually, I don' think caps/borders can even be that close - the game would stop one or the other from planting). startpoint=> ONE-firstmove=> TWOsecondmove-MAYBE cross your own border=> THREE-thirdmove(cross enemy civ border?)=> FOURdeathmove into neighbors capital?
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Nov 21, 2005 20:27:37 GMT -5
Just report and play another is no solution.
The "balance" issues need to be resolved or this game will die. And it needs to be done quickly before players drift away. The game "defenders" and the game "bashers" arguing between each other won't solve anything. We need to take a realistic approach to just what it is we have and just what needs to get fixed.
I don't see a realistic approach being taken. The game "defenders" just keep saying "Don't worry, just learn this complex and deep game and it will grow on you". The "bashers" keep pointing to obvious deficiencies that they don't see being addressed. I think both sides are wrong. I think it will take a tremendous amount of work to get the game working properly. I don't know who is going to do that; and I doubt many of us will have the patience. I kinda doubt Take2 will continue funding Firaxis to the extent that is needed to get this thing right. Sales will peak just before Christmas and the focus will be on the bottom line.
Nearly one month from the release date and we still have no patch. And the patch won't fix one of the more serious flaws in that many people won't be able to play it because their systems that meet the "recommended system requirements" will choke in mid-game.
SPM keeps selling the same line "we have a huge number of players playing many matches". Well, if that's true, it won't last. Sure, we have a large group giving it a try; but how long will they last?
The game "defenders" may well blast this post as coming from someone who has not played enough to have a valid opinion. Well, I've heard that one before. Many of the game "bashers" are people who's opinion I respect.
I see the C3C community, which I enjoyed so much to be a part of, falling apart.
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Nov 21, 2005 21:21:16 GMT -5
People need to learn to adjust their playstyles.
Egypt/Persia - this is being fixed.
Inca - too good a choke civ? Huh? Against anything EXCEPT archers, they're just Combat 1 warriors. So build some warriors of your own.
Rome - Axemen are an acceptable counter. Axemen with shock are a very acceptable counter. Sure, Legions with shock can beat axes, but two promotions requires a civic choice for Rome. If they've gotten to Feudalism and have had time to crank out a significant army of 2-promotion Legions before you've gotten to any of the three solution techs (War Elephants at Construction, Longbows at Feudalism, Crossbows at Machinery) then you deserve to get pounded. In a very small map with completely open terrain, yes, a Praetorian is going to have a big advantage, if you lack bronze or iron. News Flash - You don't have to play that kind of map anymore. I don't know if anyone's noticed, but there's even an MP-viable WATER script: Archipelago is a bunch of islands tied together via coast connections, or small enough ocean ones that culture can overcome them. The Praetorian is only a threat in a very specific set of circumstances; the problem is that most ladder games are custom-made FOR those circumstances. Don't complain if you get what you asked for.
Woodsman 2 Warrior - yes, this is a problem. A fix is being attempted; it's not as easy to fix as most people would like to think. See above though; on any map which isn't Pangea, Lakes, or Inland Sea-Duel, this isn't going to be an issue. It's only on direct-access, compressed environments that this is occurring.
You don't like Ring with only one tile access points? Fine, set it for 3. You don't like that there are is only one way to each civ and no cross-civ interaction on Ring? Try Wheel!
I suppose it's completely understandable that people are reluctant to try all the new things that CIV MP has to offer, but it's time to step outside the box, guys. Try Custom Continents, Medieval Start, 1 continent per player - then you'll see some real fun, watching for invasion from all sides.
Maybe I'll make a thread of fun combinations to try. Instead of rebutting, I'll offer better alternatives.
Hope to see you all there.
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Nov 23, 2005 10:33:25 GMT -5
Hehe I love Rome vs the AI on the Great Plains map.... even managed to win once on Emperor. If you're beside Rome in an MP game, just start building those Axemen. You should probably go for BW immediately if you don't have an early UU and you're playing against Persia, 'gyp, Rome, 'tecs, & Stinca.
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Nov 23, 2005 11:26:31 GMT -5
What do people think of the Jaguar, anyhow? I've seen this debate on every other site - kinda surprised it hasn't happened here.
|
|
|
Post by Vermillion on Nov 23, 2005 12:31:54 GMT -5
What do people think of the Jaguar, anyhow? I've seen this debate on every other site - kinda surprised it hasn't happened here. Personally.....I think theyre weak, axemen can tear em up fairly easily( promotions aside). Although if you have no resources(as with most units) if the jags come knockin....your days are probably numbered
|
|