Posts: 821
Threads: 4
Joined: Aug 2011
Did plako make a mistake worth his civ being eliminated? If not, maybe that's something a balance mod should try to fix. 
I mean, if the choice is between scouting, building an extra warrior for defense, or not scouting, the person who scouts will be better off 95%+ of the time, and simply die the rest. Is that an interesting choice?
Posts: 6,630
Threads: 47
Joined: Apr 2010
I am sorry for plako here, I am sure it sucks to be out of it this early, but I don't think changing the game for something like that makes sense. It does not come down simply to luck - after all, if he had waited just one turn to pop the hut, just so that he could move back in the capital in case it is necessary - or if he had invested a turn in a warrior earlier, just so that he could finish it before anyone could reach the capital, he would have been fine. He decided to gamble on it instead and drew the 1 out of 100 chance that his opponent shows up at the exact right (or wrong) tile. Thats his decision, not luck imo.
In theory you can of course make a system like Civ5, with a city that defends itself. Makes sure that no one is leaving early. But that would take away so much more (surprise attacks, losing an undefended city quickly, etc.) that I don't think it would be worth it.
Posts: 6,893
Threads: 42
Joined: Oct 2009
I agree that I'm the only one to blame here. It seems I'm getting gradually sloppier.
I've been way more cautious in the past e.g. in PB4 I wasted couple of turns to invest hammers on warrior before finishing Worker. And in PBEM25 and PB7 I've kept my warrior positioned so that nasty surprises were very unlikely. But I'm not only one doing this. Vast majority of pklayers take similar or bigger risks. My gambling was extremely minor. I lost because of the half turn I played too early and pretty much miraculous luck he came just this turn and not e.g. 2-3T earlier or 1T later.
Despite of the fact I'm the one to blame I still recommend 20T enforced peace on future games.
Posts: 5,323
Threads: 22
Joined: Feb 2012
Probably the best thing would be to either
A) Give everyone a scout, instead of a scout or a warrior or
B) Give everyone a worker
That way, you can go warrior first and be safe. Besides, it makes the early game more interesting. The first 15-20 turns of any Civ IV game is either incredibly boring or heart-stopping.
Posts: 2,868
Threads: 15
Joined: Sep 2010
AutomatedTeller Wrote:Probably the best thing would be to either
A) Give everyone a scout, instead of a scout or a warrior or
B) Give everyone a worker
That way, you can go warrior first and be safe. Besides, it makes the early game more interesting. The first 15-20 turns of any Civ IV game is either incredibly boring or heart-stopping.
IMO giving everyone a scout, warrior, and a worker to start the game with would be a good way to speed up the early game and prevent these random instant deaths.
Posts: 4,416
Threads: 34
Joined: Dec 2010
luddite Wrote:IMO giving everyone a scout, warrior, and a worker to start the game with would be a good way to speed up the early game and prevent these random instant deaths. Scout and Warrior for everyone is fairly benign. I think a free Worker for everyone would be a mistake though. It removes one of the key early decisions from the game - even if it usually goes the way of building the Worker, sometimes it doesn't for various reasons. Also, a free Worker from T0 hugely benefits nations with certain starting techs over ones with different starting techs.
Posts: 7,766
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
IMO the best way is actually to just give everyone a scout but NOT a warrior. The strategy everyone uses will stay the same (scout around with your starting unit while building a worker) without the small risks of death.
Posts: 2,868
Threads: 15
Joined: Sep 2010
Lord Parkin Wrote:Scout and Warrior for everyone is fairly benign. I think a free Worker for everyone would be a mistake though. It removes one of the key early decisions from the game - even if it usually goes the way of building the Worker, sometimes it doesn't for various reasons. Also, a free Worker from T0 hugely benefits nations with certain starting techs over ones with different starting techs.
That's something we're never going to agree on I think. I know you enjoy long, very long games, whereas I'm a lot more impatient and I've always wanted civ to be a bit faster. I know you lose a little strategy by skipping the early turns, but I think it's an acceptable compromise to speed up the game by 10 or 20 turns.
You do make a good point about the starting techs- although one way around that is to also let every civ start with all the starting techs. Again, it would take a way a small amount of strategic choice but speed up the game a lot.
Posts: 4,416
Threads: 34
Joined: Dec 2010
luddite Wrote:That's something we're never going to agree on I think. I know you enjoy long, very long games, whereas I'm a lot more impatient and I've always wanted civ to be a bit faster. I know you lose a little strategy by skipping the early turns, but I think it's an acceptable compromise to speed up the game by 10 or 20 turns.
You do make a good point about the starting techs- although one way around that is to also let every civ start with all the starting techs. Again, it would take a way a small amount of strategic choice but speed up the game a lot. I guess you're right that we simply have a difference of philosophy. I prefer to have the full experience of the game, from start to finish, with all the associated natural imbalances that develop based on early decisions. It's not interesting to me to speed up the game when it means losing those critical initial planning turns. I actually enjoy that part of the game just as much as the later stages.
Posts: 7,766
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
From cyneheard's thread: BrickAstley starved himself from size 2 to 1 the turn after growing. I'm guessing he worked e.g. a 1/2/0 tile and a 0/3/0 tile (or two of the latter)? Guess what happens if you do this? The citizen on the 0/3/0 tile dies before producing his hammers. It's very bad.
From scooter/dazed's thread: the've moved a warrior into BrickAstley's territory.
If Brick just grew last turn he probably grew in six turns; four turns of working the 3/0/1 corn and 2 of working the improved dry corn (5/0/0) for 22 total. Therefore he probably had 6h in the warrior. Since he starved immediately after that, he got at most 4 more, and can now get at most 4 more the next turn too, bringing him to 14h in the warrior before the enemy reaches his city. Whereas if he hadn't starved himself he'd be getting 5h each turn for 16 total. Really painful mistake if I'm interpreting it correctly based on all this secondhand information.
So it seems fairly likely that scooter/dazed are about to be the first to a second city (because it grew to 2... they won't know this until they move into it though; what a pleasant surprise that might be). And it will have two corn, with one in the first ring and already improved.
|
