|
Post by MookieNJ on Jul 26, 2006 3:09:42 GMT -5
I still don't see any units that can kill a cossack effectively. Pikes, Muskets, knights and other Cavalry all lose. Triple upgraded grenadiers come close i guess. Catapult a stack and then hit with Pikes. At strength 15, after the collateral damage you should have decent odds with the Pikes, whereas with the old Cossacks at strength 18, the Catapults may bring the stack down to strength 15 or so, which would still give Pikes trouble.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Aug 8, 2006 2:58:39 GMT -5
I dream of a day Mookie. A day where you have not 1 smiley in one of your posts. Haha, I'm sure I could find any number of posts where I didn't put a smiley face!
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Aug 8, 2006 2:48:37 GMT -5
First bug. When playing 1 on 1 vs AI (Not sure if it works in MP haven't tested) if you have always war on and you run into the AI civ before you plant your city and war is declared, you lose if you end the turn. I guess it's because we are at war and I have no city. I don't think this is a bug. The AI gets to move first every turn of a single player game. If your unprotected settler runs into an AI Warrior, game over! This is annoying, but it's nothing new in Warlords. You can fix it by switching to another map, changing the sea level to low, then changing back to TBG. You can play with 4 on tiny or 6 on small by opening up more slots. If you want to make sure the resources are more fair, turn on the balanced resources option. Each player should start with Iron, Copper, and Horses near their capitals.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Jul 31, 2006 12:05:44 GMT -5
some ctons in fact most the ctons i have played so far 2 people have been settled 6 tiles or less away from each other anyone else seen this happen i know lestat has The map scripts were designed to handle a certain number of civs per size -- 5 for Small, 7 for Standard, etc. If you play with more than this number, the map script essentially "breaks" and the spacing of the players can become erratic.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Aug 2, 2006 18:32:49 GMT -5
that depends on who the host is i guess The only thing the host does is set up the game options. Everything else is run through peer-to-peer networking. There's really no such thing as a "good host" and a "bad host" except for how they set up their games and whether or not they've got their router and firewall configured properly.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Aug 1, 2006 3:12:11 GMT -5
Two more crazy annoying bugs:
- City governors starving your cities when they become unhappy -- ignorning farms and continuing to work mines! - Super lagginess of games in general, much worse than Vanilla Civ4.
I'm thinking that it might be best to wait for a patch to clear up a lot of this crap and just play some more Vanilla Civ4 in the meantime.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Aug 25, 2006 2:04:50 GMT -5
Hi I play TBG almost exclusively. One thing I hate is how resource distribution usually gives one team huge advantage in ANCIENT TEAMER. I was wondering if there were any plans to change the way resources are dealt out. Maybe have it so that in a 3 vs 3 game (Usually on small map), one player on each side starts with copper, one starts with horse and one starts with iron. Something like that would make it better. I mean the way game is designed, metal is always better than horse, so even if one side has 2 horses and the other side 2 copper, the copper side has an advantage. Not to mention that very often it is necessary to move from your starting location because you dont have enough hills. If you choose the balanced resources option each player should have a nearby iron, copper, and horse.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Nov 3, 2006 23:31:33 GMT -5
Well when exactly did you want them to improve upon balance issues?
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Aug 5, 2006 3:34:02 GMT -5
Speaking of Horse Archers…Melee and gunpowder units, intended to be the city-taking units, were often being supplanted by cavalry units. Sure, cavalry don’t get City Attack, but the speed of their attack often made them more worthwhile city-takers. As a result, in Warlords, all mounted units have a slightly weaker ability to attack cities: a -10% penalty. (Argument from realism: Horses don’t fight well on city streets.) Fried or someone is this really for all mounted units? Seems to be only for horse archers according to civlopedia although i have had terrible luck attacking with cavalry lately. No, it's only for Horse Archers. All other Mounted units don't get the city attack penalty. (BTW -- check the attack odds next time you're attacking a city with a Cav, the 10% penalty doesn't show up )
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Jul 26, 2006 11:26:03 GMT -5
He was a must-have before as well. IMO he was more powerful as industrious, because fast forges + fast workers = crazy expansion and production quickly. Phi doesn't have much synergy with fast workers, but it's still a critical component of many teamers. In my opinion, Phi definitely has synergy with Fast Workers. With the faster chops, if you are able to get a few Wonders up, you get 100% GP birthrate, which is pretty sweet!
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Jul 26, 2006 3:12:56 GMT -5
Gandhi needs to be banned straight off from industrial and up by the MP community. Cossacks are a minor detail compared to that supremacy. Heh, let's try out a few games before we ban anyone .
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Jul 26, 2006 2:37:36 GMT -5
How and when do you get to know who to report to ? If you die, or at the end of the game if you don't die, the true identies of the players are revealed.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Jul 26, 2006 2:36:47 GMT -5
I'm not too happy about the nerfing of Napoleon myself. I'm not a big fan of the change to Ghandi either, but I can deal with it as he was pretty overpowered before -- the Fast Worker with Industrious combo was pretty sick for chopping wonders. Although, think about the new Ghandi on the front in a Ren Teamer. Quick Philosophical culture bomb followed up with chop units ... be afraid!
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Jul 26, 2006 2:34:34 GMT -5
I'm not sure I still understand charismatic... as the game stands now, you get a level at 2, 5, and 10 experience. With charismatic, does this become 2, 4, and 8 experience? If you have a few civics/buildings that increase a new unit's experience, like say you have a barracks, theocracy, and vassalage- is it automatically a level 3 unit with 8 exp? It'd be great if that were the case... Nappy would then still be able to make triple upgraded muskets. Also, I read somewhere that barracks were nerfed to 3 free xp- is this true? Yes, Barracks only give 3 XP while the new Stable building adds 2 more XP for mounted units. So Napoleon cannot build triple upgraded Musketeers, but if he religion in his cities, along with Barracks, Stables, Theocracy, and Vassalage, he could pull off triple upgraded Knights.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Oct 5, 2006 16:29:37 GMT -5
Nobody has to be play Civ4 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to be a good admin. There are other video games out there than Civ4 and there are other things in life than video games. You can't seriously blame Fried or any other admin on any other ladder for having other interests outside of one single video game or one single ladder.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Oct 2, 2006 16:39:44 GMT -5
Gogf is busy with school at the moment, although he drops by TS a few times every week to say hi.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Aug 27, 2006 18:46:13 GMT -5
My problem with this Ironman situation is simple:
If a player is blocking another player from rejoining, he or she will receive a pop up message from the game saying that an incoming player has failed to connect to him or her. It is then that player's responsibility to speak up and let everyone know what the situation is. I was listening in on the whole situation on TS with Dey, and nobody in the game knew that Swissy was trying to reconnect for 45 minutes because one player kept his or her mouth shut and simply ignored the warnings that Swissy could not connect. That is really poor in my opinion.
Even though my clan would have finished 4th and received points if Swissy were disqualified, I feel that there is no reason why he should be. He made every attempt to get back into the game, and because a blocking player did not let anyone know that he or she was currently a bad peer, Swissy was never able to re-enter the game.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Aug 5, 2006 3:31:16 GMT -5
I don't know about anything about donny specifically, but as for clan tags in general ... Back in the day where all the TX and SC guys used their clan tags, I'd say it was maybe 50/50 whether or not they had their official ladder account set up with the clan tag or not. Not a huge deal ... for example ... [TX]longhorn or longhorn, it was all the same to me, everyone knew the deal .
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Aug 2, 2006 14:28:00 GMT -5
Now, if he was always winning and was playing teamers, then I'd be VERY impressed. Honestly, I think it takes a lot more skill to consistently win Ctons than it does to consistently win teamers. In a Cton it's you against the world. You need to defend on multiple fronts, expand, tech, etc. Plus you need to pray you've got the resources to build stronger units or you could be choked to death. On the flipside, in a teamer, a lot of the time you can get a win when you don't even contribute anything to the game. Someone else is doing all the killing while you are in the back building up, or teching, or whatever. Also, you can get a loss due to luck as well -- some noob on the front for your team loses his city to a longbow or dies to 2 Camels or whatever. In the end, I enjoy teamers a lot more than I enjoy ctons ... and I really think there is a lot of skill involved in playing a teamer well. However, unless you are playing a "bring your own team" sort of game, which is hardly ever done, there's always a large amount of luck involved with the open pick up games we play the most.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Apr 3, 2007 11:52:56 GMT -5
Metallian scored 3163 in a cton, and I saw Knupp score 3350. My highest was a paltry 2517 .
|
|