Masters of Arboria (new pitboss sign up)

[Indiansmoke]

I have tried to get hold of Aristoboulous who is supposed to sub Gigaz...but no reply.

I want to get this game going and finished as well to start another one...

 

[Gigaz]

I'm back now.

 

[Indiansmoke]

1790AD reloaded...I guess we can start this again..

 

[Elkad]

I want to get this game going and finished as well to start another one...

Please no Quick speed next time.

 

[Indiansmoke]

Please no Quick speed next time.

Why not? .....

 

[Elkad]

Why not? .....

Well lets just say if the next game is on Quick, I'll be skipping it. I don't feel the game is balanced at that speed.

 

[Levgre]

I think quick might be better if you increase the difficulty... which reduces tech times quite a bit.

 

[Indiansmoke]

Well lets just say if the next game is on Quick, I'll be skipping it. I don't feel the game is balanced at that speed.

Can you give specific reasons you think the game is not balanced at quick?

 

[oyzar]

Can you give specific reasons you think the game is not balanced at quick?

War is much worse as it's way easier to get left behind. Also obvious that the troops you build quickly get obsolete, almost before you finish building them...

 

[Indiansmoke]

War is much worse as it's way easier to get left behind. Also obvious that the troops you build quickly get obsolete, almost before you finish building them...

War is bad and you can get left behind in any speed.... Troops get obsolete faster, but numbers always count.

I would not say war is broken...just different

 

[oyzar]

Sure, but slower speed combined with (nearly always) huge map means military victory might not be possible(which might be a good thing, however it means that in the end nothing else matter than GNP as long as you can defend yourself(more land gives more GNP in the long run so it is always a tradeoff).

 

[Indiansmoke]

Sure, but slower speed combined with (nearly always) huge map means military victory might not be possible(which might be a good thing, however it means that in the end nothing else matter than GNP as long as you can defend yourself(more land gives more GNP in the long run so it is always a tradeoff).

I agree huge map in quick is like that...that is why next game I am thinking on standard map with 8 players....propably inland sea.

 

[Dandridge]

As if there weren't other things that change the balance of the game more than quick speed. Like some top players making a permanent peace treaty untill the end of the game in a non-team game.

 

[Elkad]

One of them still has to be the winner, so eventually they will have to turn on one another. If you can hold out till then, the potential for vulturing is pretty high.

oob's 4th, dV and I just turned on Oyzar, after a very long 3civ alliance(from BCs to nukes). Some people who were pretty far down on the scoreboard suddenly find themselves being offered pretty sweet deals to choose a side. 5 turns ago Oyz was running away with the game. Now? I have NO idea who is going to win, it could literally be anyone.

War is bad and you can get left behind in any speed.... Troops get obsolete faster, but numbers always count.

I would not say war is broken...just different

Its different enough I don't find it fun. Being forced to pile up 3x the numbers of your opponent because you know by the time you march to his city he will have a tech advantage takes all the fun out of it.

 

[Dandridge]

One of them still has to be the winner, so eventually they will have to turn on one another. If you can hold out till then, the potential for vulturing is pretty high.

Not if the players have agreed about real eternal peace treaty. In your example you clearly didn't have agreed about staying in peace untill the end of the game.

 

[da_Vinci]

Not if the players have agreed about real eternal peace treaty. In your example you clearly didn't have agreed about staying in peace untill the end of the game.

People make "eternal" peace treaties? Isn't that called a "team" or a "permanent alliance"? Short of that, I think treaties only last as long as they serve the mutual interest of both parties. If you want to play permanent teams, design a team game. Otherwise, it ought to be "King of the Hill", and whomever gets far enough out front should expect the Lilliputians to unite try to tie him down.

dV

 

[oyzar]

People make "eternal" peace treaties? Isn't that called a "team" or a "permanent alliance"? Short of that, I think treaties only last as long as they serve the mutual interest of both parties. If you want to play permanent teams, design a team game. Otherwise, it ought to be "King of the Hill", and whomever gets far enough out front should expect the Lilliputians to unite try to tie him down.

dV

Perfectly possible to make eternal peace treaties... it is just to not attack each other...

 

[da_Vinci]

Perfectly possible to make eternal peace treaties... it is just to not attack each other...

Sure, it is possible, but why would one do it? Well, you might, as you are pretty good at getting out in front ... ... but the rest of us? Particularly, why would we make an eternal peace with you? Are we playing for second?

dV

 

[oyzar]

Because then(if you do it early enough) you assure that neither of you will have to fear each other and hence gain a huge advantage from that...

BTW Please read your pm, i kinda have bad time...

 

[Levgre]

if you make a permanent peace treaty it becomes a race for whoever gets the non-military victory first.

At the time of the peace treaty being signed it may be unclear which one ultimately has the advantage, but signing this treaty for the future gives a much higher guarantee that one of the two players will win. It improves the odds for both players.


And in mine and BCLG's case, there were times when he had the military advantage (early), and then me, and now him again. So without the peace treaty we both would have the had the ability to take the other out, or hurt them more, throughout the game.