Succession game
- Thread starter steel.stiletto
- Start date
Unser Giftzwerg
UgLe Game Promoter
Oldfrt said:
Agreed, there shouldbe ample fun from the grinding gears.
PS: GO ahead and join. The differences between skill levels are definitely manageable.
Silverkiss
NekoChan
I don´t agree with that, Sucession Games are for discussion between the players, "should we put a city up there ?", "should we declare war ?", etc...
But im only lurking so feel free to disregard my comment ;D
But im only lurking so feel free to disregard my comment ;D
Unser Giftzwerg
UgLe Game Promoter
JuliusBloodmoon said:
That sounds fun too.
(What do I know I've never played one of these before either.)
Silverkiss
NekoChan
Heh I never played a Sucession Game either, I just like to lurk =P
steel.stiletto
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 88
The purpose of it isn't to add a level of difficulty, or to try to draw a communal picture. The idea is to get through it the best way possible, and possibly learn as you go. Which, I would learn much better if I had communication as I did my turns. More than just "Do it this way because." though. More like "Do it this way, because then this will happen. As oppossed to this happening, which would be bad for this reason."
That's generally how succession games go, if I understand correctly.
That's generally how succession games go, if I understand correctly.
steel.stiletto
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 88
Nothing yet. I posted a few questions a while back about how we should go about it. Feel free to put some input in (even you lurkers out there).
1) There are several goodie huts nearby. Would it be a good idea to send our warrior to some, and our scout to others, or is the benifit of using our scout to open them worth the wait?
2) What should we build first? I get the idea that a worker is bad, because then your city can't grow, but I never know what to build then.
3) What should we research? Agriculture is what I think of off the bat, since we do have wheat right next to us if we decide to put our city here.
4) Should we put our first city here? I mean, it looks like a good place to me, but of course I normally play on the level right below Noble (can't even remember what it is), so my opinion probably doesn't count for much.
1) There are several goodie huts nearby. Would it be a good idea to send our warrior to some, and our scout to others, or is the benifit of using our scout to open them worth the wait?
2) What should we build first? I get the idea that a worker is bad, because then your city can't grow, but I never know what to build then.
3) What should we research? Agriculture is what I think of off the bat, since we do have wheat right next to us if we decide to put our city here.
4) Should we put our first city here? I mean, it looks like a good place to me, but of course I normally play on the level right below Noble (can't even remember what it is), so my opinion probably doesn't count for much.
As (self declared) minister without portfolio I would recommend:
1. Build where we are because:
a) Building next to the sea can be dangerous what with the risk of the Dirge.
b) We have plenty of food where we are.
c) Because we have to start somewhere!
2. Exploration:
a) Let the warrior head north west to the hills - just to see the sights, then head back to the city & fortify - we want maximum fortification for when the unfriendly natives appear.
b) Get the scout into all three huts ASAP. First hut WSW, then the hut to the N, then the third.
c) After the huts would suggest exploring the woods to the NE with the aim of sending our next settler to that area (I like the rivers to found cities on/near.
d) Looks like tundra to the north - so it may be worth leaving that area for exploration at a later date.
3. Founding (starting production & science).
a) We are going to need roads (as we arent on a river or coast), so suggestion would be to head towards exploration immediatley.
b) Suggest we start with producing Warrior (to allow population growth) - when built would suggest it is moved to the NE and defends a suitable position near where our 2nd settler is likely to go. Produce settler after Warrior (if pop is up by this time), else another warrior for exploration to West.
4. Generally:
I think we need to base ourselves around the two river complexes, with, when we can afford to, a base to the left of where that goodie hut is on the coast. That, with a road network will allow rapid defence.
Only let settlers travel alone if you are totally convinced they are safe.
When settler is built, make sure Warrior is back near city so it can escort settler directly to location required.
1. Build where we are because:
a) Building next to the sea can be dangerous what with the risk of the Dirge.
b) We have plenty of food where we are.
c) Because we have to start somewhere!
2. Exploration:
a) Let the warrior head north west to the hills - just to see the sights, then head back to the city & fortify - we want maximum fortification for when the unfriendly natives appear.
b) Get the scout into all three huts ASAP. First hut WSW, then the hut to the N, then the third.
c) After the huts would suggest exploring the woods to the NE with the aim of sending our next settler to that area (I like the rivers to found cities on/near.
d) Looks like tundra to the north - so it may be worth leaving that area for exploration at a later date.
3. Founding (starting production & science).
a) We are going to need roads (as we arent on a river or coast), so suggestion would be to head towards exploration immediatley.
b) Suggest we start with producing Warrior (to allow population growth) - when built would suggest it is moved to the NE and defends a suitable position near where our 2nd settler is likely to go. Produce settler after Warrior (if pop is up by this time), else another warrior for exploration to West.
4. Generally:
I think we need to base ourselves around the two river complexes, with, when we can afford to, a base to the left of where that goodie hut is on the coast. That, with a road network will allow rapid defence.
Only let settlers travel alone if you are totally convinced they are safe.
When settler is built, make sure Warrior is back near city so it can escort settler directly to location required.
Silverkiss
NekoChan
Lurker´s Coment: I wouldn´t build a settle with only 2 warriors, in my games when I build my first settler I have at least 2 warrios defending capital, 2 on the spot I will build my city and 1 patroling the way to the spot.
Chandrasekhar
Determined
Since this isn't a Raging Barbs game, I might suggest using three warriors to do the job. One to protect the capital, two to protect the settler. I normally have a fourth warrior to protect my existing infrastructure, but as it looks like you don't plan to set any up prior to the second city, three warriors should be adequate.
steel.stiletto
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 88
Okay then. So, from what I get so far, we should settle where we are, explore with the scout to all three huts, explore for maybe ten or twelve turns with the warrior, start building another warrior, and what should we research? Agriculture?
Moon Hunter
FfH2 addict
not that i would somehow want to heavily influence the game, but you guys give me the European Parliament.
First things first: i have never before played a succession game, BUT i have watched more games played...
Yes we do need to coordinate among each other but No, we dont need to discuss where is that single warrior of ours going to go...
If you become middle management, you dont ask your superiors for every single step you take, instead you offer a general strategy that is accepted/rejected... that needs to be our sort of gameplay.
First things first: i have never before played a succession game, BUT i have watched more games played...
Yes we do need to coordinate among each other but No, we dont need to discuss where is that single warrior of ours going to go...
If you become middle management, you dont ask your superiors for every single step you take, instead you offer a general strategy that is accepted/rejected... that needs to be our sort of gameplay.
Moon Hunter
FfH2 addict
JuliusBloodmoon said:
When i play my games (higher than prince difficulty) i leave one warrior in capital, and build one to escort the settler and immediately defend new city, and then i build others for 2 warriors in both cities...
And i usually play raging barbs, but i usually dont play highlands type games, rather custom continents, pangea or similar...
Silverkiss
NekoChan
Lurker´s Coment: I play Monarch normally... 3 warriors each city, always. I guess on Prince you could make that 2 or even 1... but only if you are sure you want to take the risk, I think 1 is too much of a gamble.
I play Prince & hold with 1 warrier / city until I can get the 2nd built.... with 1 warrior / settler moving....
I lose a few, but I would rather run the risk than get bogged down by having to double up production all the time. This way I can expand quicker in the early game, then settle down and build up what I have. Also the faster expansion allows the central cities to be more secure - and hence their 2nd warriers can move to securing the frontiers. Also I tend to get a few promotions this way on my warriors, which helps. When the cities become "safe", I tend to cycle the warriors, using the promoted ones to go out with settlers and defending with the weaker ones....
Of course, you can go the suicidal method of sending settlers on their own, but I wouldnt recommend it.
I lose a few, but I would rather run the risk than get bogged down by having to double up production all the time. This way I can expand quicker in the early game, then settle down and build up what I have. Also the faster expansion allows the central cities to be more secure - and hence their 2nd warriers can move to securing the frontiers. Also I tend to get a few promotions this way on my warriors, which helps. When the cities become "safe", I tend to cycle the warriors, using the promoted ones to go out with settlers and defending with the weaker ones....
Of course, you can go the suicidal method of sending settlers on their own, but I wouldnt recommend it.
Unser Giftzwerg
UgLe Game Promoter
This is more or les my approach. In the early game, it doesn't hurt to buld warriors (often what else ya gonna build) but as more cities go up, the 'safer' each becomes and the easier it becomes to get by with 1 or two defenders.
I'm sorry I have not had much to say. I'll do better. I've DL'ed the file, but haven't had the urge to start up an actual game of FfH recently...I hope you've not been waiting for me to kick off turn one.
Similar threads
