Posts: 7,658
Threads: 31
Joined: Jun 2011
(April 9th, 2013, 00:40)Lewwyn Wrote: (April 9th, 2013, 00:35)Serdoa Wrote: I can understand you Lewwyn, I feel the same way. But I'm also getting upset when in a no TT game people start to gift around strategic resources like crazy. PBEM46 is a prime-example. Harry didn't have any horses in his borders. What happens? Hydra gifts him horses, Harry whips a shitton of HAs. It makes absolutely sense from the perspective of my opponent, but it really gets annoying as hell and just reemphasizes that you have to have a big tech-lead to crush the other, making early wars even less attractive - IF you get unlucky and he gets traded those resources.
Again a reason to play AW unfortunately, as there everyone really has to take responsibility for his own game.
Wait till you read the pb8 lurker threads...
 Well that would be one reason to play AW. But to say anyone isn't "taking responsibility" by not being good little boys and waiting for the grownups to kill them if they try to swing favorable deals, IMO that's absurd. Play within the rules of the game and if they're not fun, skip the next game with those rules. For example, PB9 here has added NTT and NTB to my list of "will not play" settings as all the tech trades induce too much Advil eating for my taste and seems unfun to me. But the figurative/literal horse trading seems like a fun part of the game to me, so I'm fine with that. Maybe it's a testament to player skill -- good players like yourself may enjoy a more one on one (on one on one on...) contest where a general also ran player like me may need every available option to stay in a game. It's usually all a matter of where you sit at the table. But nothing to do with taking responsibility, I'd say, maybe it's just not fun for you.
Posts: 13,237
Threads: 25
Joined: Oct 2010
Psst, commerce isn't any less valuable just because you have your science slider at 0%.
Posts: 6,630
Threads: 47
Joined: Apr 2010
(April 9th, 2013, 05:53)spacetyrantxenu Wrote: Well that would be one reason to play AW. But to say anyone isn't "taking responsibility" by not being good little boys and waiting for the grownups to kill them if they try to swing favorable deals, IMO that's absurd. Play within the rules of the game and if they're not fun, skip the next game with those rules. For example, PB9 here has added NTT and NTB to my list of "will not play" settings as all the tech trades induce too much Advil eating for my taste and seems unfun to me. But the figurative/literal horse trading seems like a fun part of the game to me, so I'm fine with that. Maybe it's a testament to player skill -- good players like yourself may enjoy a more one on one (on one on one on...) contest where a general also ran player like me may need every available option to stay in a game. It's usually all a matter of where you sit at the table. But nothing to do with taking responsibility, I'd say, maybe it's just not fun for you.
I think the word I used there was the wrong word for what I meant. I don't meant to belittle anyone getting / taking those trades. It is perfectly fine within the rules. And I would do it myself for certain, no question there. That has nothing to do with player skill - or maybe only if you wouldn't take it and instead die silently, because that would be bad for certain. So yeah, taking responsibility is the wrong word. Maybe "being on his own" would be more approriate.
Posts: 8,786
Threads: 40
Joined: Aug 2012
I think in our case player skill was certainly a factor
The diplomacy (even in a no-diplo game) is one of the things that makes the bigger games more interesting. Even in AW you get brownie points for not putting a choke on and you think about how setting that city will make the other player react. I guess dual games are the only way to truly test your skill at playing civ rather than your skill at playing civ and the opposition...
Completed: RB Demogame - Gillette, PBEM46, Pitboss 13, Pitboss 18, Pitboss 30, Pitboss 31, Pitboss 38, Pitboss 42, Pitboss 46, Pitboss 52 (Pindicator's game), Pitboss 57
In progress: Rimworld
Posts: 7,658
Threads: 31
Joined: Jun 2011
(April 10th, 2013, 13:42)Serdoa Wrote: (April 9th, 2013, 05:53)spacetyrantxenu Wrote: Well that would be one reason to play AW. But to say anyone isn't "taking responsibility" by not being good little boys and waiting for the grownups to kill them if they try to swing favorable deals, IMO that's absurd. Play within the rules of the game and if they're not fun, skip the next game with those rules. For example, PB9 here has added NTT and NTB to my list of "will not play" settings as all the tech trades induce too much Advil eating for my taste and seems unfun to me. But the figurative/literal horse trading seems like a fun part of the game to me, so I'm fine with that. Maybe it's a testament to player skill -- good players like yourself may enjoy a more one on one (on one on one on...) contest where a general also ran player like me may need every available option to stay in a game. It's usually all a matter of where you sit at the table. But nothing to do with taking responsibility, I'd say, maybe it's just not fun for you.
I think the word I used there was the wrong word for what I meant. I don't meant to belittle anyone getting / taking those trades. It is perfectly fine within the rules. And I would do it myself for certain, no question there. That has nothing to do with player skill - or maybe only if you wouldn't take it and instead die silently, because that would be bad for certain. So yeah, taking responsibility is the wrong word. Maybe "being on his own" would be more approriate.
Ah, yes that would change my response quite a bit. I jumped on your use of "responsibility", as to me it smacked of something unpleasant. But being "on your own" is much different, it doesn't imply anything negative about the other players. 
Posts: 7,658
Threads: 31
Joined: Jun 2011
So AT seems to be caught with his pants down a bit by Jowy's invasion. Anyone taking odds on how far the elephants get before Jowy gets beat back? Based on absolutely nothing I'll wager he takes the front city and that's it.
April 23rd, 2013, 00:42
(This post was last modified: April 23rd, 2013, 00:45 by NobleHelium.)
Posts: 13,237
Threads: 25
Joined: Oct 2010
AT is ridiculously obsessed with chariots. If you take his thread from 35 and his thread from 42 and count the number of chariot references...
Why would you even want chariots against war elephants? HEY LOOK THE ENEMY IS MASSING FIREBATS LET'S BUILD MORE ZERGLINGS!
Posts: 7,658
Threads: 31
Joined: Jun 2011
Are they the cheapest unit he can build? Maybe he is a hardline devotee of the TwinkleToes defense?
Posts: 13,237
Threads: 25
Joined: Oct 2010
Archers are cheaper than chariots.
He probably wants them to get into the city sooner but they're still useless. And they definitely built a lot of chariots stupidly in 35.
Posts: 12,343
Threads: 46
Joined: Jan 2011
Hopefully the jowy/AT War moves issue is clear to both now. I think I explained it as simply as possible.
“The wind went mute and the trees in the forest stood still. It was time for the last tale.”
|
