1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Tribal Warfare - Game

Discussion in 'Civ4 - PitBoss Games' started by KingMorgan, Nov 24, 2009.

  1. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Paused the game with ~10 minutes left on timer for Classical Hero. If someone objects, go ahead and un-pause.
     
  2. Niklas

    Niklas Fully Functional GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Messages:
    10,290
    Location:
    57°47'55"N 12°09'16"E
    Yes, I object and I am unpausing. He's had well over 24 hours to take the turn, and over 20 since his war opponents played their turns. I doubt he'd expect us to pause for him in that situation.
     
  3. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Its ok, I did not knew who is first in row, and myself catch the game at nearly the end of the turn :)
     
  4. classical_hero

    classical_hero In whom I trust

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    33,262
    Location:
    Perth,Western Australia
    I have just been a bit busy, but i will be back playing.
     
  5. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    19,608
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Ha!:lol:

    Who said anything about a fat lady singing?:aargh:

    My victorious armies are dancing on the graves of their defeated foes as we toast our re-capture of one of our wrongfully taken cities.:xmascheers: Victory... even short lived victory:mischief:, is sweet;)
     
  6. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Desperate people are dangerous people. Sun Tsu teach that the you must leave a bit of hope to the enemy. Otherwise he becomes too dangerous. For me, your army with so many siege was too dangerous to advance in your territory. I'm only biting my bottom from anger that I under looked the possibility to take Lagash with amphibious assault. That way your whole army could just died in the field and that would have been an example to be put in the manuals.
    Maybe next time :)
     
  7. classical_hero

    classical_hero In whom I trust

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    33,262
    Location:
    Perth,Western Australia
    I logged in before work, but I forgot that i did so , so I went to while still in. Whoops.
     
  8. Amask

    Amask Oogala Boogala

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    777
    Location:
    Toronto
    Are we refraining from civic swapping spy missions this game?
     
  9. Elkad

    Elkad Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,044
    I would hope so, since the insignificant cost is completely unbalanced.
     
  10. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    19,608
    Location:
    On the one spin
    I see you brought the old Avatar back classy...:). Nice.

    And about the civic-swapping missions... I see no reason they should be disallowed unless that was announced at the beginning of the game. Yes, I have read ALL the threads and heard all the "analysis' (whining) about them being unbalanced, and all that nonsense, and I am frankly unconvinced.

    We had this whole discussion prior to the current BTS MTDG II game, and it was conclusively decided that all the talk about civic changing missions being unbalanced was overblown. So we specifically decided that there would be no banning of the civic changing mission.

    To the extent that its unbalanced (and I'm not convinced that it is), it should be cheap, because its kind of like a terrorist attack... most of the spy missions are. People just complain because they don't like dealing with it. There are so many ways to neutralize this mission... I can list them if anyone cares to hear... But its just easier to declare it "unbalanced" so you don't have to bother protecting against it.

    Anyway, that's my rant.;) I figured I better stir up some trouble so I have something to talk about since I'm getting elimminated soon.:D
     
  11. Elkad

    Elkad Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,044

    Hmm.
    Spiritual. Nope, we got semi-random civs.
    Build BigJesus. Only one person can do that.
    Outspend your enemy on EPs by 10-1 or more. Don't forget to outspend all his allies.
    Stay in a GA all the time - Right....

    The problem is the mission is too cheap. Get kicked back to all the starter civics for a couple hundred EPs, and then have multi-turn anarchy for your entire empire if you want to switch back.

    The effect is similar to causing a 1t revolt in every city. As such, it should cost about the same as causing a revolt in all of the players cities.


    Of course you can have an ally switch you back with another mission (assuming he's running the civics you want), but that's pretty gamey too.
     
  12. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    19,608
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Yaa:yeah: somebody wants to talk about this (and give me an excuse to stay subscribed to this thread:mischief:)... Thanks for biting Elkad... Sooo anyhooo, we were discussing the defenses against the civic-swap-mission (csm). I can see you already pointed out several (albeit sarcastically;))My thoughts (I have alot more than this but Im trying to keep it at a reasonable length:)):

    As a backdrop, let me begin by saying that when you say csm is unbalanced, I assume you are talking about when a small, weak (terrorist) nation uses it against a Big Powerful nation (like the US;)). Otherwise, it is way too expensive for my BigCiv to waste all the turns of :hammers: and :commerce: to switch my good civics to useless, civics, just to use a csm against Lil'Civ, then waste resources again with Anarchy to switch back. And if I'm a Spiritual BigCiv, then I deserve to be able to switch back and forth, without anarchy just like you deserve your +1:commerce: from FIN when you pick a FIN leader.

    1. The complaint that "csm is unbalanced" blatantly and shamlessly ignores the most obvious defense... It CAN'T be unbalanced, because EVERYONE can use it.:smug: Sure you can switch my civics... but I can switch your civics too... Thats not unbalanced, thats fair. I can do it and you can do it.:)

    Now I have heard the argument that it is easier for smaller/weaker civs to use csm against strong ones(more on that later) But let me give you an example of why the above point addresses this... If I am BigCiv and you are LiL'Civ and I see you switch your civics to some primitive civic for no apparent reason, then I KNOW that you are OBVIOUSLY getting ready to try to use csm on me... So since I have wisely placed spies in your cities already (because I place value on recon) I just use one of them to switch your civics back to something good, or better yet, to match mine:eek:, so poof :D, just like that, you csm is neutralized... Simple. A more aggressive way to use this defense is just to constanly send out your spies and constantly be switching everyones civics to match yours... 'Spreading Freedom and Democracy' as it were;)

    The REAL issue is that we want to force human players to play more like the AI, because its just easier that way. The AI does not use espionage well, so most players are not good at using or defending against espionage, because we practice against the AI. So since we all suck at espionage, it is just easier to ban some of the more creative, powerful espy missions, as opposed to using our human intelligence and ingenuity to come up with even more creative and innovative defenses. I like playing against humans because humans think and play outside the box, and banning a creative strategy that a human comes up with, by declaring it "unbalanced" is lame. Come up with a solution, dont just ban tactics that frustrate you.

    For example, many people have emotionaly and ideologically committed to certain leader traits... mainly FIN and PHI (maybe IMP, CRE and AGG too). Each of These traits are powerful for multiple reasons, but none give any defense against csm. So the threat of a csm is very inconvenient for many of the leaders that we have come to know and love, so rather than just use a Spiritual leader (if you arent willing or able use the other numerous defenses to the csm) we just ban the tactic, so that we can continue to reap the HUGE reward of FIN, and PHI, without suffering the tradeoff... the tiny risk of someone repeatedly using the csm against us.

    2. Of course, the easiest way to defend yourself is to just outspend your rival in :espionage: points. To be fair, you pointed this out... But I think you sort of dismiss how easy this actually is. You can run a spy specialist with a courthouse or build the Great Wall to get a Great Spy very quickly. If you settle the Great Spy you get passive :espionage: production that is 4 times higher than anyone else, so you can easily pick a target (or two, or three) and quickly get a hopeless lead on them in :espionage: points.

    Another way is to use a Great Spy to Infiltrate the enemy Civ, which will instantly give you a hopeless lead on them in espionage. After that, the only way they will ever be close to you in points is if you USE the points by running missions against them.
     
  13. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    19,608
    Location:
    On the one spin
    3. As an aside, you can't say this:
    AND say this:
    You can't have it both ways... If you are going to point out the threat of the mission being used by your enemies allies as a legitimate reason that the civic swap mission (csm) is unbalanced, then you have to acknowledge the defense of having your allies switch you back as legitimate as well. On the other hand, if one is 'gamey' then the other is gamey too and they cancel each other out.

    4. As you also point out, Another easy way to neutralize the csm is by picking a spiritual leader. If you think the mission is that overpowered, it is certainly worth picking a leader that is immune to it. I wasnt here at the beginning... I took over for Kaleb, so I don't know what you mean by "semi-random." If that means you didn't get to pick your leader AND you WOULD HAVE picked a spiritual leader if given the option then that point about the random-leaders is legit. Do you usually use spiritual leaders?

    5. Yes only one person can build Cristo-Redentor (BigJ)... so what? Build it! If you are really worried about csm, then BigJ is worth it. If I want Representation in Ancient times I build Pyramids. If someone else gets it, I dont whine... "aww thats unbalanced now only one person can get an advanced civic that everyone else needs a Modern era civic to get:cry: That's "unbalanced":cry:... Mids should be banned"

    6. About using a Golden Age to neutralize a civic swap. That is a brilliant defense that I did not even consider:)... And cheap at the price, considering how many lost :hammers:, :commerce:, :science: etc., that is saved...
    And you dont have to stay in a GA the whole time. Just save it for when you get a csm used on you. That's a pretty easy defense, good call:goodjob:... that is if you already missed the easier defenses of picking a spiritual leader, or BigJ or espy spending/Great Spy/preemptive civic switching...not to mention using constant counter-espionage to make the csm too expensive to keep doing... or the pretty straightforward approach of just destroying the smaller weaker civ that is terrorizing you with the civic swap mission... So what's wrong with those?

    This is a non-issue. As I pointed out above, this would be a dead giveaway. If you see an enemy civ do this (switch to all the starter civics), it is obvious what he is trying to do, so you just use your spies to pre-emptively switch his civics back, problem solved.

    7. And Anyway, the mission is supposed to be cheap. IMO it is intended to imitate:
    A.) The suicide terrorist radical who with one act frightens an entire powerful nation into drastic policy change and economic upheaval. Very cheap was to cause chaos in a larger, more powerful nation.
    B.) The economic hitman that a rich country uses against a poor one. For the cost of a plane ticket, you send an assasin into a country to assasinate the reformist leader and replace him with a corrupt one who will allow you to exploit the country economically (ie switch them from state property to free market so you can spread your corporation). If the leader is already corrupt, you can just send an 'independant corporate rep' in to negotiate terms for the corporate takeover of the country. This happens all the time.

    8. I have heard this argument, and it is deceptive. The first time I heard it, I understandably thought that csm CAUSED anarchy... But it does not. It simply switches one of your civics, WITHOUT anarchy. You ONLY suffer anarchy if you want to switch back. For that reason, and the reasons immediately above (about the intent of the csm) the argument that it should cost as much as a revolt in every city is an unsound argument.

    9. Spiritual civs have imbedded defense against this, and banning it is a de-facto nerf of the Spiritual trait. What is the justification for that?:confused: Because nobody uses Spiritual Civs?... My point exactly... the csm was tailor made for Spiritual civs, it is the whole point of the trait... to be able to cause chaos with other teams civics. Banning csm is like requiring PHI civs to disband every other great person born. Why use Spiritual leaders if the trait is being nerfed for no reason?:(
     
  14. Niklas

    Niklas Fully Functional GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Messages:
    10,290
    Location:
    57°47'55"N 12°09'16"E
    I for one find myself convinced by Sommerswerd's arguments. I hate the CSM, but I especially buy the point about not playing as if playing against the AI. I won't be unhappy if we decide to ban them, but now I won't be if we don't, either. Thanks, Sommerswerd. :)
     
  15. Elkad

    Elkad Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,044
    Semi-random civs means that we all picked a civ-leader combo. Which were then randomly assigned to players.

    So, no, you couldn't pick Spiritual. At best you could add one more spiritual leader to the pool.

    Re: Having an ally swap my civics for me as a defense. I lump that in the same category as handing around units to unlock HE/WP, phony wars to level up troops, or cities for a dozen useful reasons. It's unsportsmanlike conduct.

    Defense. This isn't live play. When my opponent logs in, he can make his civic swaps and then run his missions immediately, while I'm at work or sleeping. So the only "defense" is the MAD policy.

    Anyway, my main issue with the whole mission is the tiny cost. If it scaled with empire size, I'd be fine with it. Or if there was an actual working defense (similar to Theocracy). Yes, I realize everyone pays the same reduced cost. It still should have been patched to a greater value (just like Firaxis did with the revolt city mission). The tiny cost makes the only actual defense via EP spending nearly impossible.
     
  16. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    19,608
    Location:
    On the one spin
    OK... but that dosent answer my question about whether YOU pick a spiritual leader... because if you wouldnt have picked a Spiritual leader anyway, then the whole thing about it being random doesent really matter. Also, the fact that in THIS game the leaders were chosen randomly doesn't justify banning csm as a standard practice, because usually, people get to pick their leader if they want.
    OK that's fine, but then you have to consider it just as unsportsmanlike for someone to ask an ally to use a csm for them... Which means in your 'sportsmanlike' world, neither would happen... Allies wouldnt csm your enemies for you, AND allies wouldnt switch your civics back for you... Result everyone does their own csm's and nobody gets switched back by allies. So in that world, you wouldn't have to worry about 'outspending your enemy's allies... just him. That was my point.
    This is a valid point, except that I checked, and it would likely cost you OVER 1500 espionage points to "kick someone back to all the starting civics" That means you would probably need to burn a Great Spy EVERY TIME you wanted to do that, not to mention enduring 3 turns of Anarchy yourself to switch to the crap civics, 5 turns of lost productivity with the crap civics and then 3 more turns of anarchy to switch back. In no world can that be considered "cheap."

    So I just dont see anyone repeadtedly switching to crap civics just to use a csm on you. It just isnt cost effective. What is more likely is that they ALREADy have different civics, and they switch you to theirs in order to frustrate your strategy short term, or gain some quick advantage, like switching you out of representation to the HR that they are running so that you lose the extra :science: allowing them to beat you to a key tech (like Music).

    So at most, what you are probably up against, is getting one of your civics switched in a strategic situation... like a war enemy switching you out of slavery or Nationhood to prevent you from rushing units. So you leave it alone for a while, and then switch back when its convenient, or you preemptively switch that person back to your civic.

    Again, I am not considering Spiritual Civs in this, because as I said earlier, they deserve to be able to switch back and forth with no Anarchy.

    What you are saying essentially is that you wish that csm was too expensive to use... or at least that it could only be used as a tool of the big Civs to exploit the small. And Im sure all the rich countries in the world wish that terrorism was "scaled to empire size" too. That way it would be too expensive for poor countries to use against them. As I said before, it should not be scaled. That is the point of guerilla/terrorism attacks... It is really cheap to strap bombs to yourself and blow up a subway station or hijack some planes and fly into a building. These things are not "scaled to empire size."

    What recourse do weak civs have against strong ones? Should they just find a corner and press 'End-Turn' until they are destroyed? That sucks:(... Why take away one of the few sources of amusement and relevance that a weaker civ has, ie the threat of harrasment and disruption, especially in the late game? Is it just to make things smoother, easier and less complicated for the big civs because they 'deserve' to win?

    And this brings me to the ultimate point, I have not heard of ONE single example of someone ever using the csm mission to cause a civ that was winning the game to ultimately lose. At most, the csm is a minor annoyance that robs them of some production and money... And for that we ban it?:confused:
     
  17. Amask

    Amask Oogala Boogala

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    777
    Location:
    Toronto
    There are many situations where you don't have to kick the player into starter civics, as long as you get him out of his preferred civic. This means no anarchy for you, the only cost is 500-1000 EPs. Examples:

    1. Mostly cottage-spammed empire running US, and depending on it for buying troops. For 500-1000 EP you kill its two major sources of production, rush-buying and +1 hammer from towns (late game that means 2 hammers for each town because of factories/forges). Can you really compare that to blowing up a subway station? For a big late game empire with 100 towns (conservative estimate I think) and an income of 2k/turn to play with, that's 200 hammers from towns and 666 hammers from rush-buying per turn. Too big of a hit for some EPs I think.

    2. Religion based empires. If you aren't also a religion based empire, you won't care too much about your religious civics, and can switch him out of his preferred one (may or may not involve one turn of anarchy for you). Make his 30 cities produce 3xp troops instead of 5xp troops for 5 turns. Let's say late game they can all crank out a unit in 3 turns. That's 50 tanks with only CR1 instead of CR2. For 500-1000 EPs?

    3. Corp-based empires getting kicked to state property.

    4. State property empires getting kicked to anything else, ending up with starving cities all over the place and a huge hit to income.

    And what does losing 500-1000 EPs cost you, the user of the mission? You might or might not give your enemy some visibility in your cities. For border cities, they're likely to have planes around already showing them everything they need. If you are doing this to someone far away, the extra visibility doesn't give the victim much at all.

    There are many situations where you don't have to endure any anarchy and will still be able to severely disrupt your enemy for a laughable cost.




    And a big issue is that if you run the mission again in 5 turns, they can't switch back. What if you do it again in 10 turns?

    The only defense is for them to swap you into their civics first. Then do it again in 5 turns so you can't swap back and swap them into yours. And again in 10. And forever. And do this to every small nation that has a bone to pick with them. Impossible.
    (during war, whoever moves second actually can't even do that).

    As Elkad said, outspending your enemy isn't really a sufficient defense. From what I recall, the spending modifier works like this:
    modifier = (x*2 + y) / (y*2 + x)
    So if I outspend you by 10 times, x=10 and y=1, that's 20+1 / 2+10 = 21/12, less than a +100% cost penalty for you for running missions against me.

    Of course, if you kick me into some non-starter civic, I will get some benefit from that civic, but in a lot of cases that benefit is miniscule compared to what I was getting with my preferred civic. Think of the Universal Suffrage empire getting swapped to representation. Whoopadidoo, all my cities with no farms and all cottages get +3 science from non-existent specialists. When what I really want is max out production for the huge war.

    So in the cases of empires optimized for some particular civic, I will want to switch back. So, even if you can't afford to repeatedly run a mission on me every five turns, there's still the anarchy for me, but not for you because you were already in those non-starter civics that work for you but not for me.



    While I agree with Sommerswerd about his point that we are used to not having to deal with these missions when playing against the AI, and I think they would be fun to use and open up a new strategic level, first they really have to be balanced.
     
  18. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    19,608
    Location:
    On the one spin
    I hear it said over and over that "theres no (easy) defense against the csm because its so cheap (besides picking a spiritual leader which means I cant have my Capac, Lizzy, Pericles, Pacal, Willem etc:cry:)." No defense huh?:) What about diplo? What about not ignoring bullying and exploiting the smaller weaker civs? What about befriending them, sending them gold and aid and free tech so that they love you and would not dream of using a terrorist mission against you? Or does that sound too much like playing with humans with egos and feelings? Too complicated? Would we rather that human players with small civs just do what the AI does, and quietly die? Sounds like it:(

    @ Amask/BSProphet - Everything you say is correct of course but that does not address the point I am making. The csm is SUPPOSED to be cheap. It is a cheap way to harrass larger more powerful civs. Everything you say is just reiterating Elkad's point in more detail... ie. "the csm is not 'scaled' to empire size." All your analysis goes to this one point which is the main argument that gets raised against the csm.

    My point is that csm SHOULD NOT be scaled to empire size. That's the whole point. If it were scaled as you desire, it would be unusable, except for larger civs exploiting smaller ones. Scalling it to empire size would mean that the best defense against it would be to just get really big, because then it would be too expensive for anyone to use against you. But we are all trying to get big anyway... that is the main goal of the game... to build the biggest strongest civ.

    So what you are basically arguing is that you should get defense from the csm by doing nothing... at least not doing anything that you wouldnt ordinarily do. Your argument that it should be "scaled in cost to civ size" is the exact same thing as saying "I don't want to be bothered with it" because that is the effect of scaling it to civ size... just focus on getting big (ie do what you normally do) and you wont have to worry about it because no one will be able to afford to use it on you.

    The point of csm is to give smaller, weaker civs a way to deal meaningful damage to larger ones, thus forcing the larger civs to deal with them, rather than just ignore them. That is why I compare it to a terrorist attack. Its an inexpensive way for a small civ to stay relevant... to do substantial damage to a larger civ, without taking any cities or killing any units... just widespead chaos, panic, and economic loss... So yes in that sense I would compare it to blowing up a subway station, or a government building, or bringing down a National landmark... any kind of guerilla attack that is very cheap to pull off, tough to defend against, and requires drastic policy change and focus to stop... Such attacks might even :eek:'gasp', necessitate a Big rich powerful Civ dropping everything and going to war with a small weak Civ all the way on the other side of the Map just to get the attacks to stop... Sound familiar;)?

    Here is a question... Can you give an example of a time where this supposedly so out-of-balance, drastically overpowered, unfair csm chaged the course of a game you were playing? That is to say someone csm harrassing you caused you to lose a game that you were otherwise going to win? Has this ever happened to anyone? If not, then all this csm demigoguery (sp) is probably just a proverbial straw-man no?
     
  19. Amask

    Amask Oogala Boogala

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    777
    Location:
    Toronto
    I disagree that the point of csm's is to give the smaller civs a tool to use against you. When you compare them to terrorist attacks targeting some building, that exists in the game as another mission where you can do just that. If you are a small civ not sharing a border with me but hiding behind another big civ, you can blow the bank in my holy city or corp HQ, or the airport in my HE city, or keep poisoning my water in my already smog-ridden cities. That would do some damage, and if you really concentrate on it, will force me to deal with it one way or the other.

    But I don't recall the US managing to kick the USSR out of state property for the cost of a plane ticket. That's not chaos or panic, that's a major policy and mentality shift. It makes no sense from a real-world perspective. Could I send in a guy that would single-handedly turn a caste society into an emancipated one, or a republic into a fascist state?




    About your suggested diplomatic defense. Sounds very iffy to me. If there's a small nation on the other side of the world, behind another big one, and tech trading is off, what can I offer that little nation that would compare to the other big nation that it borders saying "I won't destroy you if you go annoy that other big guy"?





    And I also disagree when you say that no one will be able to use csm's on me if they scale with empire size and I'm the big guy. The other big guys still can. And the little guys can with some effort, just not as rampantly. It all depends on the magnitude of the scaling factor.

    A lot of my gripe would go away if you were allowed to switch back to your preferred civic in one category after 5 turns even if you were kicked out of your preferred civic in another category on that turn. And the 5 turn period where you can't switch should apply to missions too. If I just switched back, my people don't want to handle switching out again 1 turn later (for the same abstract reason that we can't do civic changes one turn apart).



    To answer your final question, no. But this is my third game that lasted into the modern times, and csm's were banned in one.
    And I want to say, maybe it's because people don't realize how much damage they can with a well-timed csm. Just like we aren't used to defending against espionage when playing against the AI, we aren't used to using it effectively for non-diplo reasons. Maybe that's because we rarely face huge AIs with optimized empires, where the csm's would hurt the most. Or maybe because on higher levels, there are plenty of other things to worry about like keeping up in tech. AI's production is not as important if you can match their units, because they suck at war and you should be able to beat them as long as you can keep up in tech. Also, if you beat up on an AI enough, you can vassal them, so it doesn't make sense to invest into bringing their productivity down. Not so with a human, if you piss him off, he'll throw every last hammer at you. So, maybe not enough players see the opportunities when they arise.
     
  20. KingMorgan

    KingMorgan Deity

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,327
    Location:
    In the clouds
    CSMs was banned in the "surprise" pitboss after Munro and Elkad were on the receiving end iirc.

    Lots of ppl complain about it being overpowered, i think it's underused and not a part of most ppls games - therefore they would have it banned rather than explore the possiblities of alt gamestyles.
     

Share This Page