August 15th, 2011, 13:49
(This post was last modified: August 15th, 2011, 14:41 by Sareln.)
Posts: 5,294
Threads: 59
Joined: Dec 2004
Bob says start a thread, so I start a thread.
Other players get lost until after the game, Danke.
Dunno what else to say... oh, I know! I will not build Pyre Zombies!
![[Image: BalthorTheDefiledWOTC.jpg]](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4995277/BalthorTheDefiledWOTC.jpg)
Blog | EitB | PF2 | PBEM 37 | PBEM 45G | RBDG1
Bobchillingworth
Unregistered
Dedilurker checking in!
I might type up my thoughts on the enemy combos later, and what I expect them to do. Not that they matter a whole lot- if you are physically able to rush them, then they should get rushed. Speculating on which civ is easier to rush than the others is pointless if you don't border them & everyone is getting rushed regardless, after all =)
Although I'd of course love if you completely followed Selrahc's PBEM IV plan and summoned Basium so that I could romp around with some angels, I promise to try my hardest to not attempt to railroad you into doing stupid stuff for my own amusement. Obviously this is the pledge of a truly dedicated lurker  Actually I suspect that Krill and Kyan will try for Basium- probably attempt to exploit warrens for extra angels. I guess we'll find out!
Oh and because there's really no way to post it in the organizing thread, a Note For the Mapmaker- the reason why sticking to the original map settings is important is because PZ are slow and you can't haste them, making it more difficult to hit someone quickly. So a larger map than what was agreed upon when civs were chosen is unfair to the Sheaim, and disproportionately benefits civs like the Hippus. Do not be fooled- there is one reason and one reason only to pick this combo, and that is the aggressive PZ rush (with upgrades!). Yes the Sheaim have mages and stuff, but that's all ancillary.
Final, random thought of this post: SL is clearly going for the super-retreat abuse option. I wonder if he got the idea from our unreported FFA? I forget if I ever told him about it in chat... Anyway it'll be interesting to see how it compares with my selection of Garrim of the Hippus. Probably worse- Stirrups takes a while to get if you have no economic bonuses, and Raiders won't matter as much in a game where nobody should spam roads because Varn(s) can always take Raiders.
Posts: 5,294
Threads: 59
Joined: Dec 2004
Bobchillingworth Wrote:Although I'd of course love if you completely followed Selrahc's PBEM IV plan and summoned Basium so that I could romp around with some angels, I promise to try my hardest to not attempt to railroad you into doing stupid stuff for my own amusement. Obviously this is the pledge of a truly dedicated lurker Actually I suspect that Krill and Kyan will try for Basium- probably attempt to exploit warrens for extra angels. I guess we'll find out!
...
Final, random thought of this post: SL is clearly going for the super-retreat abuse option. I wonder if he got the idea from our unreported FFA? I forget if I ever told him about it in chat... Anyway it'll be interesting to see how it compares with my selection of Garrim of the Hippus. Probably worse- Stirrups takes a while to get if you have no economic bonuses, and Raiders won't matter as much in a game where nobody should spam roads because Varn(s) can always take Raiders.
They're clan, we're Sheaim, so unless they make a super-dedicated beeline, they start off ~70 beakers in the hole (Ancient Chants), and you can't really do better than FIN for economic leader traits (maybe EXP). I think if they want to make it a race, it's one that we can win.
Super-retreat was annoying in that FFA, but I think it is eminently beatable, especially with a unit that can explode post-combat (on their turn).
Map thread seems to be turning towards a larger map, which I find irksome.  . Well, I've drawn my line, if I get outvoted, it's not the end of the world, but it'll come with a ready made map excuse! (Joy  )
Blog | EitB | PF2 | PBEM 37 | PBEM 45G | RBDG1
Posts: 12,510
Threads: 61
Joined: Oct 2010
Bobchillingworth Wrote:Note For the Mapmaker- the reason why sticking to the original map settings is important is because PZ are slow and you can't haste them, making it more difficult to hit someone quickly.
Yeah, I figured this was the reason. As you can see, I'm bowing out of the decision. I'll go with whatever the 6 of you can agree is fair, including a repick if it comes to that.
EitB 25 - Perpentach
Occasional mapmaker
Posts: 5,294
Threads: 59
Joined: Dec 2004
Mardoc Wrote:Yeah, I figured this was the reason. As you can see, I'm bowing out of the decision. I'll go with whatever the 6 of you can agree is fair, including a repick if it comes to that.
Oh, I think I like this combo enough to try and make it work on a larger map. But you didn't hear that from me as I try to push for a standard size map in the thread
Blog | EitB | PF2 | PBEM 37 | PBEM 45G | RBDG1
Posts: 5,294
Threads: 59
Joined: Dec 2004
Sareln Wrote:Oh, I think I like this combo enough to try and make it work on a larger map. But you didn't hear that from me as I try to push for a standard size map in the thread
If folks vote "their interest" It should come down to a standard size map. Illians, Clan, Sheaim all being "rush" civs and with Mist abstaining. Hippus in theory fit well on either map, so SL voting to go large makes sense to give himself a leg ( ) up on the competition.
Blog | EitB | PF2 | PBEM 37 | PBEM 45G | RBDG1
Bobchillingworth
Unregistered
Well you're certainly handling it with more grace than I would be. I'd have rage-quit by now. Who the hell plays a large map with medium sea level with only six players, anyway? Even Standard with Low was pushing it. The game is a complete farce if the map size is changed after everyone picks civs just because people are scared of one of the players and seek to neuter them through the map-maker. They aren't even being subtle about it. I'd be unhappy with Mardoc too (dude, why are you pushing for a large map for six players? Why are you apparently going for some sort of "high concept" design? Just generate a standard size map with the original settings, shift some resources around as necessary, and be done with it. Now you have to make your special map design keep a PZ rush viable unless you want the game to be a joke). But that's not my fight either.
Posts: 12,510
Threads: 61
Joined: Oct 2010
Bobchillingworth Wrote:Well you're certainly handling it with more grace than I would be. I'd have rage-quit by now. Who the hell plays a large map with medium sea level with only six players, anyway? Even Standard with Low was pushing it. The game is a complete farce if the map size is changed after everyone picks civs just because people are scared of one of the players and seek to neuter them through the map-maker. They aren't even being subtle about it. I'd be unhappy with Mardoc too (dude, why are you pushing for a large map for six players? Why are you apparently going for some sort of "high concept" design? Just generate a standard size map with the original settings, shift some resources around as necessary, and be done with it. Now you have to make your special map design keep a PZ rush viable unless you want the game to be a joke). But that's not my fight either.
I just can't win with you, Bob. Small is way too small for 5, yet Large is too big for 6. You think the PBEM 8 map is incredibly harsh, but were perfectly fine with the PBEM6 map. We don't seem to see eye-to-eye on anything. I keep trying, but what I see as reasonable you see as ridiculous.
Frankly, the difference between low sea level normal and normal or high sea level large is pretty small in my opinion, just the amount of water tiles. And I'm not even pushing much for this, I'm aiming to defer to the players. The real trouble is precisely what Krill pointed out, that people didn't speak up beforehand, but left things extremely vague. I'm just trying to figure out what they actually want.
Quote:Who the hell plays a large map with medium sea level with only six players, anyway? Even Standard with Low was pushing it.
Well - perhaps people who agree with you that they don't want another PBEM 9? That was exactly even with the land/people ratio recommended by civ, and it was pretty universally agreed it was too small.
I guarantee that you will not be happy with whatever I do, because you're never happy with anything I do. Good luck finding a mapmaker for your next game - it won't be me. I've had enough of this sniping at me, as though I've got it in for you for some reason. Never mind that you did the lion's share of creating the FFH community around here that I find wonderful, clearly I hate you .
EitB 25 - Perpentach
Occasional mapmaker
Posts: 5,294
Threads: 59
Joined: Dec 2004
Peace you two. I am about to head out the door and I will say more later.
Blog | EitB | PF2 | PBEM 37 | PBEM 45G | RBDG1
Bobchillingworth
Unregistered
I was going to type out a long response, but this really isn't my fight. I don't hate you Mardoc, and I know that you intend well. Besides, even if you were actively malevolent for some incomprehensible reason, taking it out on Sareln as some sort of proxy would be hillariously petty I just dislike what I see as blatant opportunism by some of the other players to try to bolster their positions through post-selection map legislation rather than relying on their own skills, and I am worried that this will be another game where the map plays a far greater role in how certain players fare than it objectively should. I have no idea what design you're considering. Quite possibly it is a thing of beauty. But I'm Sareln's dedicated lurker, and obviously prone to mouthing off about these sorts of things, and so I'll advocate here for what I think is best for the Sheaim.
|
