Setting up IP Games XXXVI

[DrSpike]

Sounds like a friendly game.

[Ming]

Originally posted by markusf
Good game last night.

I got to "assist" rah in relocating his capitol.

[War4ever]

Originally posted by markusf
Good game last night.

I got to "assist" rah in relocating his capitol.

To quote the A-Team...... " i love it when a plan comes together"

[markusf]

Originally posted by War4ever



To quote the A-Team...... " i love it when a plan comes together"

Mikes didn't make the relocation.. I think thats the first time ever in a MP game that i razed mikes to the ground instead of taking it.

[rah]

Yep, tips hat to markus. Don't lose my capital often. (maybe the second time ever) I knew when I built it that was kind of exposed. But the opening didn't give me many options unless I was going to delay for another 5 turns. The spot was originally grassland but I had converted it to forest (reasonably early) since it was sticking out there.

On the other hand, you expended a lot of resources on it and your civ was still quite pathetic. Behind in almost everything. (except knights ) and your tech window was closed.

I expended a lot of resources defending. Now if we both could have used those against Berz. hmmmm
But when he built GW, I figured you were coming.
(Of course your using the leader name RAH Killer should have been a tip off )

Still a fun game. Nothing like having your capital come under pressure to get your blood flowing. The first attack when you killed all the defenders, down to size 1 and noone to move into the city. Were you surprised at the number of defenders? (even though one was a diplo and another a caravan)

To bad I had to sell the market and the library to rush the wall. It would have taken a few more diplos to bring the walls down.

It would have been nice to win a combat or two in that sequence. Pikemen fortified on Forests should win every now and then against vet Knights. My solo vet pikeman, couldn't even win. (don't get me wrong, that city was doomed, but with a couple of wins, it might have taken you a third wave and cost you another 5-10 knights.)

Same for the second city. 3 pikemen and a phalanx. all fortified on a river, (one vet of the three) None of them won a combat either. 4 knights, and city gone.

But you have nights like that. Probability will pay me back in the future

RAH
Well Done.

And Spike, all our games are friendly

[DrSpike]

Glad to hear it. Good luck with repaying Markus' kindness with your own brand of generosity.

[War4ever]

see this is why i like to play with this group.....and we do have many that come and go........when someone does something noteworthy they get acknowledgement, instead of excuses.....

if only the young lads would take notice

[rah]

Dr. Spike. I'm sure I'll get a chance to repay But it won't be something personal, it will just be another campaign.

War4, Yep, I had to tip my hat. After I survived the first wave, I thought I might still be able to hold on, but he was prepared to back it up again and again. I spent a lot of money trying to hold on. I love that pit that you feel in your stomach when a good player starts unloading units next to your capital. With some players you know they didn't bring enough. With others, you suspect they did.

My only mistake, (and not an excuse) was since Mics is not city specific, and was rushed with caravans, why the heck did i build it in my capital knowing how exposed it was. Pride is an evil thing.

Love fests where everyone spends the whole game sitting back and advancing are boring. Always prefer a good fight, even if I'm on the losing side. Our saturday game was kinda similiar, I shared a 40 square border with DD and a lot of action happened along that border. A lot of troops were built, used, and died
And if the game had gone just a few more turns, Many many more troops were ready to go on both sides.

RAH

[War4ever]

Rich i am glad to hear the games are changing for the better......we all know that warfare isnt' the most viable option until later in the game when the attacker actually has units of serious destruction.....but those races through the tech tree become obvious and tedious , especially in single session games where we always get a taste of whats to come , but never truly feel the effects of the heat!

i propose to eliminate tech stealing as an option in order to incourage more warfare and to eliminate the casual walkup......

i know you don't get to choose the tech you want, but tech stealing with an unnoficial ally really ruins tech windows IMO

what do you think about that.....i think our rules need some 2k2 tweaking!!!!!

[rah]

Yes, the newer players coming into the group are more aggressive. (or just more adept at it) and is definately adding more early warfare. I enjoy them more.

Unofficial tech stealing alliances and trade alliances do make it harder for more early warfare. I would have no problem outlawing them.

Normal tech stealing, while not my favorite, does help keep players in the game when they fall far behind in the beginning. (due to luck or lack of skill)
So I have a harder time justifying not allowing it.
But I would be willing to discuss it because it can really slow down an offensive. You take a couple of cities with your tech advantage but at the same time open yourself up in the captured cities for your opponent to steal the techs you used to capture them.

RAH
I'm always open to tweaking. We have tweaked often over the years, and will hopefully continue to keep the game enjoyable. What good is it having a rules set if no one wants to use them?

[War4ever]

ok that sounds good to me.....i don't expect all my proposals to take effect....but its nice to tweak as we see gameflaws develop.....

personally, i would rather have the oportunity to wipe someone out/or be wiped out , then to be reduced to 3 cities to suffer in a drunken stupor....

i hate researching others techs too.....if you build the SSC, you shouldn't fear the diplomat...otherwise whats the point.....

as it stands now in our games, anyone with 12-20 cities is still in the game.....which is fine to a point...but if i am opening a 8-10 tech window on someone, i should be allowed to use it for morethan a couple of cities......

i also feel as though the Great Wall should be banned......makes suns more important which takes people off the tech path ealier which in turn slows down the tech race, which is good!

but with no city bribe, gw makes the city a virtual lock..even on flat terrain....

the game needs to be evened out for the attackers....tech should come from conquest not from little men wearing suits from the 80's

[rah]

Well, a GW ban has slowly slipped in. We don't allow it in games of fewer than 4 players. In 4 player games, you still have two other targets. And we do get to metalurgy if everyone is fast and stay up long enough. But I would also support a gw ban in all games for the same reasons. This discussion should move to the other thread. I'd be interested in others opinions.

RAH
suits from the 80's

[DrSpike]

I don't like tech stealing agreements; it's only a little bit of effort to do so it's not that different to allowing tech trades.

Tech stealing should be kept in though, it's a leveller and there is a limit to what you can accomplish through such foul means.