brettman135
Stan The Man
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2006
- Messages
- 45
new turns up
Civ4 Warlords - OT game?
- Thread starter IglooDame
- Start date
- Status
I think that sets a record... a no click turn 
(Stupid go-to auto moving warrior)
(Stupid go-to auto moving warrior)
azzaman333
meh
I just looked through the rules, and there is something there I want to clarify. Attacking very early. Is it ok to attack before another civ can build their first defender? I'm asking because I am unable to do this, whilst other civs can. Also, civs such as my own which start with hunting cannot even use the scout for defense.
Thoughts? Opinions? Why I should stop drawing attention to the lack of defenders in my capital?
Thoughts? Opinions? Why I should stop drawing attention to the lack of defenders in my capital?
azzaman333 said:I just looked through the rules, and there is something there I want to clarify. Attacking very early. Is it ok to attack before another civ can build their first defender? I'm asking because I am unable to do this, whilst other civs can. Also, civs such as my own which start with hunting cannot even use the scout for defense.
Thoughts? Opinions? Why I should stop drawing attention to the lack of defenders in my capital?
Well, the scout can be used for defense, but who does that (besides someone that starts very close to someone else)? I personally think there should be a 10-turn automatic no-war-declaration at the beginning of every MP game for that reason, 10 turns is enough to allow everyone to build their first warrior if they hustle, and if they don't, them's the breaks.
Raisin Bran
Cereal Killer
IglooDude said:
as stated in the CivIVor thread, anyone that attacks a undefended city in the first turns is going to be a target for a lot of the players.
Gentlemanship is in order.
Anyhow, someone attacking a undefended city is also leaving his city undefended at the start of the game unless they popped a warrior in a goody hut.
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
I agree, 10 turns it should be.IglooDude said:
Speaking of unclarified rules, we're dispensing with the prohibition on double-moving, given a few people in favor (of double-moving) and none opposed, unless there are strong feelings to the contrary that haven't been expressed yet.
IglooDude said:
The lack of AI means everyone is at the same (dis)advantage, so I see no problem.
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
Well...can we decide it within the next 2 turns...hint..hint.... *paranoid*
ComradeDavo said:
I'm going to leave it to the referee, then. Whomp?
Okay, somebody go wake up Whomp.
HitAnyKey
Lunatic
What is it that needs to be decided again? I havn't yet fully turned on my brain this morning. 
HitAnyKey said:What is it that needs to be decided again? I havn't yet fully turned on my brain this morning.
Fixed first-10-turns-after-start no-war-declarations rule, yea or nay?
It is already in place that a war that early will get you dogpiled sooner or later, but that's little consolation to the player that is knocked out that early.
Igloo as you know we've seen this in another game and the result ended in the elimination of a player very early.
I would like to hear what the players believe if I need to make a decision.
A few things for consideration by the players:
1. The playing field early is not level. Some civs start with a scout instead of a warrior.
2. The number of players and map size should be taken into consideration.
3. Diplomacy.
I would like to hear what the players believe if I need to make a decision.
A few things for consideration by the players:
1. The playing field early is not level. Some civs start with a scout instead of a warrior.
2. The number of players and map size should be taken into consideration.
3. Diplomacy.
Whomp said:
I vote yea to the 10-turn rule.
Be mindful that a few don't see this thread more than every couple days, and a couple may not have even been back here since the game started.
Raisin Bran
Cereal Killer
yea 
Kan' Sharuminar
Fluffy
While I'd love to unleash my secret army of warriors upon the world, I'm gonna have to pass this time and vote yeah to ten turn peace.
IglooDude said:
I would make 1 exception and that is, if you declare war. So, you don't wait till the end, declare, and then take 2 turns in a row.
Other than that, doesn't matter to me.
As for wars, how about a "no wars until 3000 BC" rule?
.Shane. said:
How many turns between 4000BC and 3000BC?
I figured ten turns is enough time for anyone to build a warrior, thus preventing attacks before the capital has any protection. After that, I don't see the point.
- Status
