|
Post by markweston on Dec 16, 2005 18:43:51 GMT -5
Did someone say you might need a sub?
*raises hand*
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Feb 1, 2006 10:58:37 GMT -5
Yes, I always play cton's (at least, city-razing ctons) with the 20-turns-to-go deadline firmly in mind. I do feel that if I haven't planted at least one city/Great Artist at that point, then I'm not in contention.
And I agree with Sal about the value of population growth in your big cities. The only thing I'd question is whether it's safe to go maximise-growth with 20 turns to go. An awful lot of military threats can turn up in the last 20 turns - everyone has built their One Big Stack and they all want to use them - so maybe you don't want to hurt your production quite that early.
With No-city-razing capturing other peoples' large cities becomes a viable method of winning, and can make for some very exciting cton finishes. I wish people would play it more often.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Feb 22, 2006 12:14:36 GMT -5
It takes different strokes.
Personally I think the challenge of trying to survive and recover from a really bad start is an interesting one. A test of skills and character. An awful lot of thinking can go into a couple of archer moves when you're on the edge! And hard-won achievements are the ones you most enjoy. Coming back from behind is a great feeling, but obviously you'll never experience it if you can't be bothered to try!
And when the turns get long, have a book handy.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Feb 21, 2006 12:25:04 GMT -5
Situation is this: you are on small map with 6 players you just discovered that you dont have copper, iron and horses near your capital. Next few turns you see what you dont want to see in this situation : 5 chairots heading your way. Now this was real istuation from cton game. My question for you guys: Is there any real strategy for helping not to be raped and isolated. Civ taken is aggressive one, but im not sure what promotions can be of use when such rush is heading your way. Please respond how you handle sthis situation from start This is a cton, so your first priority is to stay alive. If your opponent is trying to win, he can't afford to build and maintain a huge army to besiege you. Firstly because he needs to expand and build infrastructure and do some research, and secondly because he has to worry about his other neighbours. So deny him the quick kill and make him worry about what's going to happen if his army is still surrounding your cap in 50 turns time. To do this, you build archers. Then you build more archers. Then you build a few more archers. Slave them if you have to. Promotions at first should be city-defence to stop any attack and then first-strike so you can do some attacking of your own. Get your worker out of sight and do some guerrilla tree-chopping if you can. What happens next depends on your opponent. Best case is that the first few chariots were just intended to pillage, or get a quick kill if they could, and he doesn't reinforce them. Once you have enough archers, human-wave assaults (2 archers to 1 chariot) will kill them off, then you get out a Settler as fast as you can and get your metal. Medium case is that he wants the kill, and follows up with more chariots and then axes. Now you have to settle for a long siege. Do as you did before, and fill your city with archers. Once you have too many for him to hope for a quick kill, think about building a wall, a barracks or a Settler (ready for the breakout) or even a library. Still, every time you see him reinforce make sure he sees you build another Archer. If you have a chance, start stationing promoted archers on adjacent hills and then mining them. Research towards catapults with which to launch your breakout. Keep making him think, keep making his life difficult, always ensure that he can never take your city. In 30-40 turns he will either realise that he can't afford this effort, or will notice that another neighbour is building an army, or both. A combination of cats and archer-wave assaults should be able to clear the units he leaves behind and let you expand. Even in the best or the medium case you've still probably lost your chance of winning. But if you play it right you'll get reports from the less careful players who did get eliminated, and you might even be able to expand enough to build a score and compete for 2nd or 3rd. The worst case is that you run into a player who gets so focused on killing you that he doesn't realise how badly he's hurting his own position. He keeps on attacking, and keeps on reinforcing. The tactics are the same as before, except this time survival not breakout is your only priority. Research towards Feudalism for Longbows, and keep doing the other things I mentioned. You won't be able to breakout until he finally gives up on the kill, and by then it will be too late for both of you. Still you can work for the satisfaction of surviving the game (thus getting the reports of the players who do get eliminated), and of dragging this idiot down with you. Hope that all makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Jan 3, 2006 10:21:48 GMT -5
I know it's a normal syndrome amongst internet posters to make definitive statements while realising privately that there are more shades of gray in reality. Still, this one gets particularly high marks for silliness; U wont kill me or any other experienced player after turn 100 So it falls basicly down who got point lead till then or proly who got a noob nieghbour to get more land Nonsense. I've seen experienced players knocked out in the last third, and (more often) I've seen them lose game position because military pressure prevents them from scoring points. (Sometimes they've been me ) I wonder why people bother playing this game if they think it's that deterministic?
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Dec 19, 2005 7:32:30 GMT -5
Tt means the benefits extend to the whole team if one player builds it. Don't understand. That's the same for all (non-National) Wonders, isn't it? So what's the diff between a Wonder and a Project? Are Projects also supposed to be unique?
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Dec 18, 2005 20:20:14 GMT -5
Not sure this really counts as a strategy question, but it is a question I've only just spotted that SDI is a "team project", not a Wonder. What does this mean exactly? More specifically, does it mean that more than one player/team in a game can build it?
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Dec 18, 2005 14:24:00 GMT -5
To set a waypoint, you need to be in the city mini-manager screen (the one where you click on the city name to manage production without getting the full city screen). From there, Shift+RightClick to mark your waypoint.
Edit: Sorry, sloppy wording here; when I said Waypoint, I meant Rally Point.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Dec 17, 2005 8:31:19 GMT -5
I was hosting a game last night, and one player in the game pointed out that another had "This user has unreported matches on files against them" marked on their Ladder entry.
What does this mean?
Does it mean that a non-report has been filed and not yet dealt with, or that a non-report has been filed and the admins have ruled against the indicated player? And if the latter, is this the only "punishment" they get?
Are players entitled to refuse to play against someone with this indicator? I was certainly being asked to kick the player in question, which I was reluctant to do, as excluding anyone from games seems to me to be against the spirit of the rules and purpose of a Ladder. On the hand, this kind of indicator on someone's record is going to inevitably lead to players questioning them about it, and refusing to play against them.
Do the admins expect this indicator to make it harder for someone to find games? And if not, what's it for?
I've had another read through the rules and can't find a specific mention. I'd be grateful for any answers.
Thanks
Mark
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Jan 8, 2006 19:13:12 GMT -5
I enjoyed this tournament, (and would have enjoyed it a lot more if our first game hadn't run into a nasty dispute). Any chance to play a game that isn't an Ancient start is great.
But, it might have been a good idea to advertise it earlier (or set it later), so that people would have a chance to hear about it and book it in their diaries (or whatever people with real lives do). I know at least one player who would have been keen to play, but didn't know it was on until too late.
Anyway, thanks for organising this Sparta.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on May 11, 2007 20:15:15 GMT -5
Round 1 prelim result was 1. MDR-Julot 2. Mark Weston 3. Vox[SU] 4. Zhennon 5. [FUN]Soud 6. LKT-Biz Edit: doh, Vox got there first.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on May 1, 2007 13:48:30 GMT -5
I vote for Balanced for exactly the reasons CS gave. I don't think the Ironman should be dominated by building and teching, and I hate playing Ring where your tactical options are limited to marching up one of two 3 tile wide corridors. Yes, there's the risk of getting bad land. In Ring the risk was getting stuck between two strong players and having no chance to expand. Either way, chance will play a part in the game.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on May 11, 2007 17:37:02 GMT -5
Well apparently it is impossible to make everyone happy, a few people now are saying "don't change" when last CCC's thread said "playing the same stuff is boring" why can't we change some of it? QFT, I thought some of the map changes were really interesting, and was disappointed to see them voted down in the polls CS put up. Let's not turn the CCC into a chess tournament; I think it's far more fun to have to come up with new ideas and think on your feet than it is to try to perfect the opening you've played 100 times before.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Mar 30, 2007 6:17:59 GMT -5
Mark_Weston for RaY
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Mar 19, 2007 7:05:25 GMT -5
A) Standard TBG, Low Sea, Cylindrical Wrap On B) 3v3 C) 65 Turns, Medium Timer D) No Germany, No Nukes, No Commandos E) No Spys A) I have tried the TBG format and wasn't all that enthused. And Modern without boats is like gin without tonic - it does the job but it's not nearly as much fun. I would personally play Fractal because I like randomness and I can live with losing. But, some of the Fractal team games I've played have been really harsh (2v1s, one team getting 50% more land, etc). I don't think it's what you could call a fair tournament map. I Like Pangaea/Balanced (small/low for 3v3?) with cylindrical wrap. You usually get a nice wide land-front and lots of room for naval action. (There are a couple of other map variants that will do the same job of putting all the players on one continent with lots of sea room) B) More then 3v3 probably means lag and very long games. 2v2 might be interesting. C) Yes D) Panzers are only over-powered if your strategy is to just rely on big stacks of tanks to win with. Panzers are not like Cossacks because there are effective counters available. Please don't ban. I think I agree on nukes though. If they're in the game, you can't possibly afford to let the other team get them first. I don't see how we could avoid the event becoming Race For Nukes, winner takes all. The Commando problem sounds specific to TBG, I wouldn't ban if we're not using that map. E) Agreed for as long as they're bugged.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Feb 27, 2007 9:14:23 GMT -5
I think the problem here MMV is that nobody else actually understands what the problem is that you're trying to describe. I don't care if Tommy registers and Germania plays; I'm just there to play against MUD, whoever they send.
Perhaps you need to spell out what abuses you see happening.
As far as I'm concerned the value of the CCC is the competition for its own sake, and the reports are really an irrelevance.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Feb 27, 2007 8:57:56 GMT -5
I too think it's long past time we saw a Modern event in CCC, and people have made a pretty good case to show that we can add it without losing the OCC cton (though I wouldn't mind if we did lose it, personally).
My choice of map would probably be Pangaea, and I wouldn't mind Fractal (though I haven't played that enough to know how unbalanced it might be). Playing it on tbg would be sad - boats should really always be an option in late-era games. Maybe even Islands or Archipelago for that high-adrenaline is-there-a-boat-drop-coming-next-turn? experience.
The problem with nukes in Modern is that ecology and SDI aren't going to be available. If one team can nuke the other team's uranium then they have a monopoly on nukes for the rest of the game, and win for sure. The result of that is that both teams race for nukes out of self-preservation and every game becomes about just that. In other words, one strategy is completely dominant and that's surely a bad thing.
I don't see any reason to ban Germany. There are counters to the Panzer. Yes, if you insist on building big stacks of tanks the Panzers will eat you alive. So don't do it!
There are many players in other timezones Mookie.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Feb 19, 2007 6:42:47 GMT -5
Yay for Cylindrical. I'd say it promotes teamwork and allows more options for attacking. Are there any down-sides?
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Feb 18, 2007 17:25:44 GMT -5
I hate to say it, but classical should be played on TBG or some other map that is more fair than balanced map. It's not much fun when a Zulu settles on metal and starts 10 tiles from an opponent. Well, as the guy who was eliminated by that insta-Impi, I have to disagree. I mean, it was frustrating, and I didn't have much fun today as a result. But... Firstly, I think Balanced is a more interesting map and gives more varied team/player setups then tbg. Secondly, either you'd play it on tbg Standard which would be far too big really, or on tbg Small which is much more likely to put opposing players close to each other than Balanced does. Thirdly, losing is not inevitable if Zulu plants on copper ten tiles away. Losing my city was inevitable from the time we saw the impi, but that was simply because I'd set myself up to lose. I'd pushed my initial archer forward and started building a worker. So I had no defence and no pop growth to slave from (I would have been able to slave an archer one turn too late). Nearly all of us take certain risks at the beginning of games (everyone in my team built worker first and pushed their archer out) because we get away with them nine times out of ten. But when it all goes wrong for the tenth time, we shouldn't pretend that it's evidence that the game conditions are broken.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Nov 18, 2006 11:17:32 GMT -5
I'd like to hijack this thread to ask; was there any match in this event not determined by the Space Race?
Surely a CCC event should have more challenge to offer than a simple spaceship component building competition?
|
|