(August 19th, 2013, 18:59)oledavy Wrote: Azza actually accepted an OB for OB deal with me for some reason, now I get to sate my curiousity and see what's going on over there. Perhaps a little sub-par, as my scout could be mapping out the lanes south of Azza and looking for the final city-state. However, I just really want to see whats going on and since nobody else is reporting, this will be the only way I find out.
End Turn.
I just want to say, on behalf of all the other lurkers out there, thank you.
(August 19th, 2013, 18:59)oledavy Wrote: Azza actually accepted an OB for OB deal with me for some reason, now I get to sate my curiousity and see what's going on over there. Perhaps a little sub-par, as my scout could be mapping out the lanes south of Azza and looking for the final city-state. However, I just really want to see whats going on and since nobody else is reporting, this will be the only way I find out.
End Turn.
I just want to say, on behalf of all the other lurkers out there, thank you.
Agreed
Merovech's Mapmaking Guidelines:
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
Just want to express a lot of frustration with this and my last Civ5 MP game (PBEM1). In both games, I felt like I played very well overall, despite decidedly lackluster starts. Nonetheless, both games were largely decided by turn 100 by events that took place on the other side of the world and that I had no control over. In PBEM1, Mist, Yuri and fire&ice allowed Seven to win city-state allies unchecked and in Yuri and fire&ice's case, fought a long pointless war with each other while Seven built up steam. Combined with his awesome start, the lack of competition for allies my Seven unstoppable. In this game, Azza misplayed badly, throwing away a start he should have won from (salt, marble, and five surrounding city-states as Siam) and got stomped by Mongolia because because he didn't bother to either A. Deal with them early before Chivalry or B. Bother to research any contemporary military techs that might allow him to hold off. And no, I don't believe Keshiks are OP or banworthy. Counterplay is possible in the same way that counterplay to Civ4 Cataphracts was possible. Having a unit better than CBs generally helps to that end.
I thought I had a chance at this game still, because I produce a ridiculously large amount of science every turn, and feel like I could compete with Ichabod for space, while holding off the invaders at the narrow mountain passes. However, it seems we won't find out now.
(September 6th, 2013, 10:00)oledavy Wrote: Just want to express a lot of frustration with this and my last Civ5 MP game (PBEM1). In both games, I felt like I played very well overall, despite decidedly lackluster starts. Nonetheless, both games were largely decided by turn 100 by events that took place on the other side of the world and that I had no control over. In PBEM1, Mist, Yuri and fire&ice allowed Seven to win city-state allies unchecked and in Yuri and fire&ice's case, fought a long pointless war with each other while Seven built up steam. Combined with his awesome start, the lack of competition for allies my Seven unstoppable. In this game, Azza misplayed badly, throwing away a start he should have won from (salt, marble, and five surrounding city-states as Siam) and got stomped by Mongolia because because he didn't bother to either A. Deal with them early before Chivalry or B. Bother to research any contemporary military techs that might allow him to hold off. And no, I don't believe Keshiks are OP or banworthy. Counterplay is possible in the same way that counterplay to Civ4 Cataphracts was possible. Having a unit better than CBs generally helps to that end.
I thought I had a chance at this game still, because I produce a ridiculously large amount of science every turn, and feel like I could compete with Ichabod for space, while holding off the invaders at the narrow mountain passes. However, it seems we won't find out now.
I admit that there were aspects that I misplayed, I definitely underestimated the power of Keshiks and was unprepared for the ferocity of Ichabod's attack. I also could've used my early composite bow army against Ichabod instead of pindicator, but I'd settled in pindicator's face and expected an attack on my aggressive plant if I sent my forces west to Ichabod.
Entering the Medieval Era though, I stand by my decision to go after Education first. Either I seriously sacrificed my economic growth for a chance to survive against Keshiks by building the Great Wall and beelining Crossbows and lose the game because I fall behind the science curve, or I hope that Ichabod goes after a much weaker pindicator first so I can get the free Wats in all my cities, then grab the techs required to defend myself. Furthermore, I don't believe Crossbows would've been much better at defending anyway, at least not without The Great Wall. Keshiks don't even count as mounted units so pikes and elephants couldn't counter them.
IMO, the only way to counter Keshiks in the Medieval era is Camel Archers, favourable terrain, or the Great Wall. Camel Archers you have to pick pregame, terrain you have no control over, and only 1 civ can build the Great Wall. So I definitely disagree with your assessment that Keshiks aren't banworthy.
(April 4th, 2013, 10:00)oledavy Wrote: First off, it's a Knight Replacement, comes during the early Medieval era with the research of Chivalry. Unlike the Knight, it cannot melee attack. It has 15 str. (compared to the knight's 20), 16 ranged strength, and a range of 2. It also gets 5 movement point, compared to the Knight's 4. However, with the Mongol's UA, this is buffed to six.
I thought the same, but this is not true. Keshiks count as ranged units, so they don't get the mounted unit bonus. The advantage of this is that they are not countered by the spearman line or Elephants.
