2 Player Team OCC - Warlords
- Thread starter whiplash_CDC
- Start date
also, may i suggest this format?
Renny or Indu OCC
Limit: 140 turns
Map: Equal_Inland_Sea on small (6 or fewer) or standard (8 or more) low sea level.
Civ choice: yes - all allowed - duplicates allowed, Unrestricted Leaders On.
One City Challenge - checked
No City Razing: Unchecked
Era: rennaisance or Industrial
Substitutions: No
Victories: all but Diplo.
Spy missions banned.
Nukes Banned
No Internet
Renny or Indu OCC
Limit: 140 turns
Map: Equal_Inland_Sea on small (6 or fewer) or standard (8 or more) low sea level.
Civ choice: yes - all allowed - duplicates allowed, Unrestricted Leaders On.
One City Challenge - checked
No City Razing: Unchecked
Era: rennaisance or Industrial
Substitutions: No
Victories: all but Diplo.
Spy missions banned.
Nukes Banned
No Internet
Indiansmoke
Deity
I can play with grilla then as a team if possible
Indiansmoke
Deity
don't like this settings though.....ancient start at least
whiplash_CDC
King
Well, Grilla is a ladder player. They play a lot of later era starts over there.
whiplash_CDC
King
Tanijo and Kingpin need to pick Leaders.
whiplash_CDC
King
I think tech trading should be allowed. My reasoning is that it gives a player an incentive to continue after his partner dies. He really would have quite good bargaining leverage to join an alliance with another team.
ancient start, maybe medi start at least? well i guess, thats the most boring occ game. Are we playing BtS? I assumed that was what we were playing. and is this always war? There is no tech trading in always war. I guess i'm completely confused here...???
whiplash_CDC
King
It's Warlords. The settings are up for discussion/consensus.
ok, been a while since i played warlords occ. i think the map should be equal_inland_sea or equal_team_battle_ground would be the best for all occ era starts. for one, everyone starts with the same resources, and are placed in a reasonable location, i.e. not on a coastal area.
As far as era, well it depends, are you looking for an ironman type occ? or a more ladder style beat each other up and be the top techer after x amount of turns? If ironman, anc start is reasonable. any other format and you really should look at a later era.
I'm not a fan of tech trading between teams. But if the consensus is to have it. so be it.
Do we have to pick leaders before the game is formatted? If its ancient start I'd like mansa musa. Anything later i think I'd like to have either Gandhi or Peter.
Things to be banned:
GL: in anc start whoever gets it probably will win.
Internet: another bad boy, i guess can be a losing teams savior, if playing late era game.
Nukes. Why play a billion hours to have everyone nuke each other? Bantams favorite tactic
spies: scouting only.
looking forward to playing with you guys!
As far as era, well it depends, are you looking for an ironman type occ? or a more ladder style beat each other up and be the top techer after x amount of turns? If ironman, anc start is reasonable. any other format and you really should look at a later era.
I'm not a fan of tech trading between teams. But if the consensus is to have it. so be it.
Do we have to pick leaders before the game is formatted? If its ancient start I'd like mansa musa. Anything later i think I'd like to have either Gandhi or Peter.
Things to be banned:
GL: in anc start whoever gets it probably will win.
Internet: another bad boy, i guess can be a losing teams savior, if playing late era game.
Nukes. Why play a billion hours to have everyone nuke each other? Bantams favorite tactic
spies: scouting only.
looking forward to playing with you guys!
I agree that tech trading should be on. Pyramids is imo more inbalanced than great library. Banning nukes internet and spies sounds good. Probably not allways war. The game is likely not going to come down to time victory if that is what you mean by ladder style. There are no unrestricted leaders in warlords.
Indiansmoke
Deity
@ grilla...don't get confused this is not a ladder game, connect to gamespy for those.
There are people that actually enjoy games that are more about than who builds axemen first.
There are people that actually enjoy games that are more about than who builds axemen first.
Indiansmoke
Deity
I am not talking about the time victory but about the settings he is proposing.
I don't know how many ladder games you played but I have played a few non ladder OCC with ladder players though in gamespy and they rush you with warriors, never mind axemen. Someone loses the first rush and it is game over!!
I don't know how many ladder games you played but I have played a few non ladder OCC with ladder players though in gamespy and they rush you with warriors, never mind axemen. Someone loses the first rush and it is game over!!
I don't see how the settings he proposes would lead to any earlier rushes than otherwise... Though of course mansa have a strong early UU... If you think a warrior rush is going to win the game for you then by all means be my guest.. An all land map is by nature going to be pretty cutthroat. That however was whiplash's idea not grilla57's. The game that was tried to be hosted before was on a special archpilango map, probably to stop so much early elimination.. On a pangea map there is no reason to not eliminate someone if you can though. As for the specific maps he proposed those just lead to way more balanced starting positions and i totally agree that we should be using them if we are going for a land based map as seems the idea...
Most ladder occ games are not necessarily cut throat rushes, and most people who do an early rush usually are not the winners. OCC is mostly about building and teching, whether you play it with ladder rules or not. Late game OCC rushes are more common as someone will try and rape his neighbor who is leading him in points. Kill's are hard, but they do happen.
I'm not a fan of ancient OCC, and I didn't pick mansa musa for his UU trait, more for his fin/spi trait. But, whatever i'll play any era.
If ya want to ban the pyramids instead of GL, thats fine. Any decent player can take GL and scoot to victory. Or, don't ban either one.
Equal maps are designed to take any chance of players getting screwed on the initial placement. I wouldn't want to be the one without horse or metal....
or coastal.
I'm not a fan of ancient OCC, and I didn't pick mansa musa for his UU trait, more for his fin/spi trait. But, whatever i'll play any era.
If ya want to ban the pyramids instead of GL, thats fine. Any decent player can take GL and scoot to victory. Or, don't ban either one.
Equal maps are designed to take any chance of players getting screwed on the initial placement. I wouldn't want to be the one without horse or metal....
or coastal.
Indiansmoke
Deity
The turn limit, the always war and the late starts imply war as soon as possible.
Of course war is in the game and anyone can rush if he wants, but I think ansient start and no turms limit can lead to more developing games as well.
Also Pitboss gives you the ability to play longer more strategical games than gamespy lobby. What is the point of playing a pitboss game and using the exact settings that ladder players use on gamespy for quick matches?
Of course war is in the game and anyone can rush if he wants, but I think ansient start and no turms limit can lead to more developing games as well.
Also Pitboss gives you the ability to play longer more strategical games than gamespy lobby. What is the point of playing a pitboss game and using the exact settings that ladder players use on gamespy for quick matches?
I think you are missing the point indian, late starts just open up more avenues for a win, like space race, diplo etc. There are still hundreds of turns still to play. Always war is just the way we play, and any1 that wants an early rush is not going to win the game. It rarely happens in ladder games, except for noobs who don't have a clue how to play OCC.
most battles mostly happen in the last 40 turns or so... and if you feel uncomfortable playing always war, why don't we do always peace? Always peace is the only way to stop any kind of rush.
Ancient starts are also the most common era you will find an early rush, one player will build wonders and the other will rush the other teams to disrupt their wonder building.
most battles mostly happen in the last 40 turns or so... and if you feel uncomfortable playing always war, why don't we do always peace? Always peace is the only way to stop any kind of rush.
Ancient starts are also the most common era you will find an early rush, one player will build wonders and the other will rush the other teams to disrupt their wonder building.
Indiansmoke
Deity
I am not going to argue the way you play, obviously you are more experienced than me in ladder games.
My point is that pitboss games can and should be different than ladder games. Online the 120 turns makes sense because people do not want long games. In pitboss it does not make sense IMO.
You can win space race even by starting form Ancient age, a game in pitboss is your chance to try it as you will never have that chance online.
I am also surprised that you say that people build wonders in a 120 turns ladder game! By the time you research Archery, BW, AH, Wheel, IW, Construction half the game is over, what is the point of wonders?
My point is that pitboss games can and should be different than ladder games. Online the 120 turns makes sense because people do not want long games. In pitboss it does not make sense IMO.
You can win space race even by starting form Ancient age, a game in pitboss is your chance to try it as you will never have that chance online.
I am also surprised that you say that people build wonders in a 120 turns ladder game! By the time you research Archery, BW, AH, Wheel, IW, Construction half the game is over, what is the point of wonders?
Similar threads
