 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Modo44
|
 |
in western Poland
Jul 2004 time: 06:19
|
|
Snoopy, you'd be right about expansionists, were there not the agricultural civs. The advantages are very different, but you'll see that in the game, methinks. 
You'll have to explain the Celts and Persians thing to me. Frankly, I don't get it.
I would give the barbs more HP and I will with the Keshiks and the ships. I can't, however, strenghten the Swordsman, as players will use it. I have no idea how to increase the experience level of barb units. The editor doesn't seem to have an option for it.
Welcome aboard. 
[edit]
First post updated.
Since there are so many players in the game, I'd like you all to post your most common playing times, so we can work on a sensible playing order.
I am there 8AM - 11AM GMT and 3PM - 11PM GMT, sometimes longer.
[/edit]
Last edited by Modo44 on 07-11-2004 at 12:28
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
snoopy369

|
 |
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004 time: 23:19
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Aqualung71
It's all in the traits 
And the Celts have a significant advantage over the Persians, being Agricultural But the Persians have nice traits too |
I guess i feel that any civ advantage is useful sometimes and not useful sometimes. With the exception of seafaring, I never understand limiting a particular trait, to be honest; ag is useful sometimes, but not always, just like sci. and comm. and ind. are as well.
Modo, it's not so much that I think the immortals etc. are useful, as that I don't see how the hoplites are MORE useful. Okay, 3 defense, sure - but everyone gets an advantage from their UU, it's the point of the UU. I don't tend to play defensive games against the barbs; I play an offensive game, where I attack their stacks before they get to me. Admittedly this game is a bit ... harsher, i'm sure. But still, the advantage I gain having a Hoplite as defensive UU I lose when we hit chivalry and tactics ... Otherwise I'd have to suggest banning the Ottomans from ever playing any game any time, since their UU is +2 offense. 
Anyways, it's not a big deal, I was just saying I thought it was equivalent 
The way you'd make the barb unit have more HP is to make a new unit, identical to the swordsmen, but only barb-producable, with the extra hp. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
snoopy369

|
 |
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004 time: 23:19
|
|
I think that if you're playing a scenario that is intentionally stuck in the iron age for the whole game, then you're right.
If you're playing a game that will progress through that age into the modern age ... the advantage early on is negated by the fact that you *have* an early UU. Despotic GA, lack of ability to compete versus late UU, when the PBEM really happens anyways...
It's to some extent in my mind a difference between SP and MP, i guess. In MP, you win most of your battles somewhere between Feudalism and Tactics. Thus, having a GA then is good; having a UU there is better.
It's not at all true in SP, of course; most SP people either play aggressively in the iron age, or are builders and wait until tanks to fight if at all. But, I think that you'll find, assuming one survives to the middle ages, that the ottomans, the arabs, the russians, have a significant advantage over the greeks and the carthaginians, in a PBEM game. True, I have to build an extra spearman compared to the hoplites; but spearmen are cheaper anyways ... and 3 or 4 keshiks will kill a hoplite just as dead as a spearman.
One of the C3C changes was, as far as I can tell, to increase the randomness of the RNG, meaning that yes, on average a hilled hoplite (3+1.5+1.5=6) will win against a keshik (4); but only about 60% of the time give or take (hp for hp), and the Keshik will win sometimes more than you think it should. That's why I say to give the Keshik more HP. (Compare a spearman; 2+1+1=4, at least an even chance to start with; add in strategic rivers, or a city wall, and the spearman will win too, most of the time.)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
snoopy369

|
 |
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004 time: 23:19
|
|
(The point of the above, which I apparently forgot to make, is that I suggest you strongly consider writing this as a scenario rather than as a normal game. Stick us in the iron age *for good*, since you can't upgrade your barbs enough. Give us all UUs that are appropriate to the iron age equivalents of our normal UUs, and cut the tech tree off at 1. Maybe add in a few techs from the middle ages to make some progress, but make those as part of the iron age.
Heck, make it a VP game, or a King game. Have it be "Your king must survive the Barbarian Hordes", or even "Lose one city to the Barbarian Hordes and you're toast!" (Elim, i think barbs can take cities in elim, not sure tho). If you want it to be so heavily focussed on barb warfare in the early ages, then fix it so. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19. Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|