29-09-2009, 16:06 | #101 | |
Chieftain
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 34
|
Quote:
If that is the point, I would have to disagree as after a point in this game when cottages are developed and the economy is stable, the more cities you get the faster you tech, maintenance costs are irrelevant after a point. I was thinking it is quite the opposite of what you said, that a backwards player can slave an army and raze some key cities of the forward player therefore crippling him and giving himself a chance to catch up. In any case I don't want to be the awkward voice here, I am sure you guys know what settings you want, I am glad you invited me to play here in the first place and will play with whatever rules you see fit...at the end of the day it is the same rules for everyone |
|
29-09-2009, 17:22 | #102 |
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Costa La Haya
Posts: 8,494
|
That'd make the poll monkey very happy
__________________
"Our spam is backed with COMETS!" |
29-09-2009, 18:23 | #103 |
Chieftain
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Brazil.
Posts: 194
|
sorry?
|
29-09-2009, 18:33 | #104 | |
Nebuchadnezzar II
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Glover Park
Posts: 4,459
|
Quote:
No city razing shortens the time spent playing the game since you don't have to contemplate whether to raze it or to keep it. And if thy neighbor captures one of your cities, there is always a chance to get it back. In 15-city empire, there is little difference if a couple of cities are misplaced unless, as Matrix said, it is archipelago map and it screws the irrigation.
__________________
Cujusvis hominis est errare; nullius, nisi insipientis in errore perseverare Ciceron (Marcus Tullius) |
|
29-09-2009, 18:46 | #105 |
Chieftain
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oxfordshire, England.
Posts: 74
|
I would also favour a house rule on razing linked to size.
|
29-09-2009, 19:21 | #106 |
Emperor
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Blame Canada!.
Posts: 3,501
|
How about:
City razing is forbidden in the event of: - A direct naval assault. - a city of size 6 and above.
__________________
Postcount = Postcount + 1; //Postcount++ |
29-09-2009, 20:38 | #107 |
c00l b33r
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Beat 'm up Scotty!. Lives in the Lands that are Nether.
Posts: 5,094
|
I'm worried that this rule about allowing city razing of other players only in specific situations is unnecessary and will quickly become quite complex.
First of all, imo in a multiplayer game it is essentialy stupid for any player to deliberately do poor city placement as the cost will easily outweight benefit in most if not all situations. The AI of course does a piss-poor job of city placement so basically it would be OK to allow city razing of barbarian cities no matter it's size. The only issue left would be that a mis click when another players city is razed would require the game to be restarted.
__________________
That was a pretty good gamble. -- Scotty, The Galileo Seven, stardate 2821.5, Episode 14
|
29-09-2009, 20:52 | #108 |
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Costa La Haya
Posts: 8,494
|
Coffee mugs
I have to say I would miss the opportunity for razing cities. I always enjoy the sensation.
__________________
"Our spam is backed with COMETS!" |
29-09-2009, 22:40 | #109 |
Emperor
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: HAWK!.
Posts: 4,365
|
how about this: below culture radius 3, and barb cities of any size and expansion, razing is OK. Nothing else may be razed.
__________________
One more turn..... just one more turn... one MORE! |
29-09-2009, 23:10 | #110 | |
Emperor
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Netherlands.
Posts: 3,196
|
Please stop this silly discussion.........
Quote:
If your neighbour decides to waste his resources on spam settlers, you should be glad to have an utter nutcase as neighbour. Having said so, if your neighbour manages to spam your land with misplaced cities, it is fair to say you did a very very poor job yourself. If anytime some player wants to invade my land with settlers, be very welcome .
__________________
Vrooooooooooommmmmm Stapel doesn't like cricket |
|