|
Post by umbra on Jan 22, 2006 19:35:32 GMT -5
well i dont know why pepole play 2 city elim in a 120 turned game, kinda seem stupide to me,
gee its harder to take citys, and oh yes lets make it 2 city elim, so you can have a stupide build game with unit wars and no kills, sure you can see someone killing , but not Killing, you aint no killer befor you kill the hole game
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 23, 2006 0:44:28 GMT -5
agreed 1 city elim makes more sense. And I'm glad I'm not the only one to think the games slanted towards builders atm. Everyone else appears to be in denial
|
|
|
Post by Magzi on Jan 23, 2006 3:06:24 GMT -5
I've played lots of 1 city elim, and yes been killed too Fun games, more fighting.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jan 23, 2006 4:43:21 GMT -5
Civ is a game of managing a empire - empires arent lost if 1 city falls - also for me playing civ is fun and watching every city every second is stressy - so i prefer 2 city or nolimit at all - as I think that for tourney games like ccc - 1 city elm isnt that a bad idea
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Jan 23, 2006 10:47:11 GMT -5
1 city makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by eiffel on Jan 24, 2006 11:15:41 GMT -5
2 cities elim is ok with late eras like renaissance. 1 city elim is fun in ancient/classical era... with no city razing on ;D Double motivation to try a kill... removing an opponent and get his city score.
This is the way ancient ladder games are played in the french ladder and there is far more action.
|
|
|
Post by Atomation on Feb 10, 2006 13:50:13 GMT -5
If you think its a builders game, you haven't played good players. The best players know the value of expansion - but expansion also causes you to have more troops. An aggressor always has a very large advantage here, because it can threaten several cities at once with a large stack (2 move units only), causing the defender to be too thinly spread out without an enormous amount of units. If the game didn't include 2 move units, I would agree that it would favor builders, but how it is, horsearchers/warchariots/knights/cavalry/etc really make it difficult to do what claims the most points - expanding. I feel the loss of a city in and of itself is enough to make city elimination too much of a double negative. I prefer no city elimination, but 2 is OK.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Feb 10, 2006 17:11:21 GMT -5
Its a tricky one, in later eras it must be more then 1 city elim, otherwise its just silly.
But in ancient it a difficult question, often its the case that if useless attacking in a cton, when you know you have to take 2 cites, its expensive and damaging. So in that sense 1 city would be a great idea.
But the thing about CIV is without a resource you are pretty much screwed, i dont care how many stories are posted in the surviving without metal post. So you have to place city a little out to aquire resources which could be a double bite in the bum.
Balance versus making ctons bearable, currently they are ZZZzzzz buildations.
EDIT: I played on a hub map last week, which i won, i saw the first enermy unit 30 turns from the end LOL
|
|
|
Post by doppleganger on Feb 11, 2006 11:25:48 GMT -5
It amazes me that players complain that with the patch ctons are zzzz buildfests there are plenty of mods out there which take the 20% extra build costs out, why not download them and play with the old costs instead of complaining? There are V2.0 of just about every scenario out there you know? I've played these scenarios myself and they are a hell of a lot more fun than v1.52 boredom fests. I'd forgotten just how much fun the patch took out of the game.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Feb 11, 2006 21:42:56 GMT -5
Well its partly due to the patch and partly due to the fact that a pasive style of play is the most effective in a cton.
Yes if you can take a neighbour out early you have a crazy amount of room to expand into, and gives you a big advantage.
But generally if the person next to you knows what hes doing your attacks will end in vain or it will be a long ass costly war, you may kill him in the end, but as a result you have cost yourself the game also, if its not done in a decent time frame. I played a cton about 2 weeks ago and 2 strong players tore the nuts out of each other one of them died the other came last in score. So its a case of what you want from the game, aggression...be prepared not get your maximan amount of reports, or a buildaton and youll generally fininsh top 2 when 8 players. But obviously passivness has to be done with common sense, if you can stop him gettng a resource for example make sure you do, then you can control him with very few units.
If you have too many units away from home your science has no chance, so agian if you want to do well in a cton, try to screw your neighbour up as much as possible,but only strike hard if you think you can pack a KO punch.
EDIT: Back on topic, MAYBE a solution to all this is 1 city elim, then killing is easier and the infinate amount of land with no enermy is a lovely advantage.
LOL why is sh1t changed to nuts??
|
|
|
Post by doppleganger on Feb 12, 2006 6:23:05 GMT -5
OK but try the mods and you'll notice how surprisingly viable war becomes again. Do you remember how many kills happened pre patch and how many do now. People set things up to encourage build fests then complain about them even though there's a perfectly good solution to their woes out there? And that is on topic because you don't have to make the decision of 1 or 2 kills just change the parameters of the game and you'll find inner peace
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on May 7, 2006 21:35:15 GMT -5
tony, i am not surprised about your hub game hub is a total buildathon as is islands. i dont agree that ctons in general is a buildathon killing neighbours is a major major advantage. or almost as good is keeping them weak ( which involves war like strategy too). ] but balancing aggression with good building takes skill (some nice land is pretty helpful too ) which makes cton great
|
|
|
Post by tamijo on Jun 10, 2006 2:26:36 GMT -5
2
|
|
|
Post by Atomation on Jun 13, 2006 14:46:57 GMT -5
Actually hub is the *most* aggressive map possible in later eras. Ships move alot faster, and you can land someone with a ship straight from your city - this is EVIL. Even on early settings, killing gallies with other gallies is tough with a shore involved, and a stack of gallies is almost impossible to kill until caravels, so I would say that the advantage still goes to the aggressor here....especially if the aggressive player is smart and expands his borders so that his gallies can cross all the water without question.
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Jul 4, 2006 7:54:49 GMT -5
If you prefer 1 city elim why not just play occ mod then? I vote 2
|
|
|
Post by civerdan on Jul 4, 2006 20:27:20 GMT -5
I agree with the patch attacking late in the game is hardly worthwhile. Many times even if I have a player choked w/no metal access its better for me just to expand, wonder build, etc and ignore him. If I could take his land it would make a difference,
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Jul 7, 2006 5:57:08 GMT -5
If you prefer 1 city elim why not just play occ mod then? I vote 2 yes i quote myself Ive changed my mind 1 city would be ok
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jul 7, 2006 17:17:29 GMT -5
depends on what type of game u want - try killercton (killer get +400 points) with 1 city elm and no city razing on a kinda small map and u might have some fights and kills
|
|
|
Post by ironclad on Jul 9, 2006 2:27:41 GMT -5
anc-med ctons should be played on one city elim, because 2 city elim is of course a buildfest in early game.
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on Jul 9, 2006 16:44:58 GMT -5
anc-med ctons should be played on two city elim, because 2 city elim is of course a buildfest in early game.
|
|