|
Post by whiplash on Nov 14, 2005 9:54:43 GMT -5
worker turn one is never good Well, it's gunna depend on the map. If it's crowded, sure; if it's not that's another story.
|
|
|
Post by hauptman on Nov 14, 2005 10:40:53 GMT -5
Lions and tigers and bears (oh my!) never get close to your border.
My only 1vs1 loss was because the enemy had both bronze and iron and i had horses and ivory. Pretorians come MUCH sooner than construction so i was screwdzored.
Pretorians them selves are too unbalanced. perhaps if they were only str 7 it wouldnt be too bad.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Nov 14, 2005 13:05:21 GMT -5
Yes I was Rome, in the aforementioned game, it matters not if you have iron a bit of trek through jungle away and your land is lousy. I managed to build 3 praetorians all game. By the advent of construction. And that was pushing it trust me. Agreed Praetorians are good but there also quite expensive especially if you are in a desert/jungle situation. Any of the early UU's can also be guarded against. But I agree Romans are quite overpowered. You could say the same about immortals and war chariots for the time they appear too. If you wanna have a balanced game go all random or full cton as we used to call it, or just make ancient UU civs illegal choices I supose.
|
|
|
Post by lorddragon on Nov 22, 2005 0:52:56 GMT -5
Yes, I know the feeling. Died early in an 8 person cton because I was in the middle of the freaking desert on inland sea, lol. No copper, of course, and by the time I got iron, thanks to an expansion, even though I teched right through it neighbor had horses tearing me up before I could crank out 2 spears.
I mean how hard would it be to give all maps a balanced option so that everyone has copper nearby? Copper is the most important by far, by the time you tech to iron, especially if you have to expand to get it, you are probably dead if your neighbor is good and has better resources.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Nov 22, 2005 7:48:43 GMT -5
I played a 3 person cton with Mali, I had horses next to my capital. Didn't even bother to place my cap on them just, hooked 'em, Chopped for Barracks and 5 chariots, took out one of my opponents second city. Had set up another city and built four Skirmishers in much the same way then took out my other opponents 2nd city about two turns after the first. Et voila I had 4 cities they had one each, pretty much game over. Was I especially skilled, nope, probably could say I used my situation quickly and well to exploit a win by turn 20 or so, but resources like horses on small maps can be way overpowered. putting them on animal husbandry is definitely needed. Best thing to do against Rome with iron is find there iron before they can use it and place a shed load of axeman on it. Better still for a ressource free solution play Aztecs/Inca get a few chizquai or iron working and a few Jaguars and take them out ASAP.
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Nov 22, 2005 8:27:58 GMT -5
I mean how hard would it be to give all maps a balanced option so that everyone has copper nearby? Although many players wouldn't play such a map (I prefer random chance, myself) there IS in fact such a map. It's called: "Balanced."
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Nov 23, 2005 9:24:29 GMT -5
MMM balanced is also the map that places 2 of 8 players in tundra for start
|
|
|
Post by eiffel on Nov 23, 2005 10:09:18 GMT -5
MMM balanced is also the map that places 2 of 8 players in tundra for start True but only if your map is undersized.
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Nov 23, 2005 11:56:31 GMT -5
Eiffel is correct. If you hypercompress the map (as we are likely to do at times) it will respond badly.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Nov 23, 2005 13:51:20 GMT -5
I see, So 6 on small is no good?
|
|
|
Post by Lestat on Nov 23, 2005 14:29:13 GMT -5
Yes it is but 8 on small no... Try 8 on lakes small to and maybe some 1 will have cap in lake I hosted a lot balanced map games and there was no complaints about bad land. Balanced mean that all players have strategic resource near cap but no about climate.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Nov 23, 2005 15:19:33 GMT -5
thank you all for clarification. I stand corrected
|
|
|
Post by Cereal_Killa on Nov 29, 2005 2:41:06 GMT -5
Yeah, the 1st thing I noticed was the fact that some get awesome starts, and some, not so awesome. Many games ppl have quit outright because they didnt get a good start and the game was over before it began so to speak. One game I started in tundra. Building foward would put me in tundra also ;D Strangely, I had lots of trees around and since I was in the middle of nowhere I expected no visitors, so got a few early workers and began chopping like mad. I managed to catch up and score Copper and was on my was to soundly defeating one opponent when I was doubled So yeah, I didn't win, and after all my trees were gone I had nothing left. Sometimes you can turn it around, but it's not easy (especially with good/multiple oponents). I used to play an RTS that would always start you with a bunch of trees and mountains similar to everyone else. There were different resources spread around, but everyone had the same amount nearby (and they weren't as critical to winning). Generally, if you started with only 3 trees, your opponent started with only 3 trees. Everything else in the map was prettymuch up for grabs and sometimes you could luck out further into the game, but you should have explored better No-one ever quit right @ the start because they were 'in a bad spot'. Even if subsequent cities had poor resources, you still had the same start as your opponent to launch an early attack and perhaps raid his 2nd/3rd cities. In civ if you have a bad start, you have nothing to fall back on. You can only hope to be left alone in your corner ;D
|
|
|
Post by Cobra on Nov 29, 2005 6:04:05 GMT -5
I don't mind the randomness of the starts. The only thing that i mind is the fact that sometimes you can get just so horribly screwed its not even fun. I don't quit games in that situation... but its still not even a fun game no matter how long you live.
|
|
|
Post by hamtrigger on Dec 9, 2005 13:00:14 GMT -5
Normaly, you can build a warrior before a bear or lion can get near your territory. On a diffrent note, I have found that mali are a good choice. The skirm can hold off vs an archer rush and it is almost as powerful as an axemen. To sum it up, mali are the anti rush civ.
ham
|
|
|
Post by civerdan on Dec 13, 2005 20:51:05 GMT -5
Every so often you get a game where both neighbors have metal in their capital and your closest metal is about as far to your neighbor than you in a bad location, or you have lots of plains. When that happens I tend to make sure I dont overexpand and just make myself a uninviting target and wait for a couple other people to die.
I do agree that situations do occurr where it doesnt matter how good you are. Swords are often marginally favored against archers even with culture bonus/walls and without bombardment. No amount of skill can compensate for that situation.
On the other hand maps like small mirror presents there own problems. Particularly they are advantages to Inca, other agressive civs and those that start with a warrior. Since The other guy knows exactly what you land looks like and knows what/where to choke before he gets there and has a numerical, promotional advantage from start. The result is other person has to stall his expansion a bit and its game over at that point.
|
|