Game III: Markusf surrenders early

[Ming]

Originally posted by markusf
Yes.. Plus land based barbs you can tell exactly where they are going to spawn, and as soon as you put a city in that area they are gone.

That is pretty much common knowledge these days... We've been setting up "killing fields" for years now so that we can harvast barb kings

And as far as barbs from huts vs normal appearing barbs, they attack and take second and first cities in the same fashion
(or at least it seemed that way on the 10 or so tests I just ran)

[Flatlander Fox]

Well, I have a mile long **** and got MAD Skillz.

Best of both worlds


Seriously though, what fun is no barbs? Even I can have a superior game with no meddling from neighbors (Read: ColdWiz).

You guys are good enough that you should be finding NEW ways of making the game more difficult. And if you don't like/respect the people you are playing with, find somebody new.

My two pennies!

*back to the cheap seats*

[rah]

Originally posted by Ming
And as far as barbs from huts vs normal appearing barbs, they attack and take second and first cities in the same fashion
(or at least it seemed that way on the 10 or so tests I just ran)

Did you test barbs off of boats? That was the main issue Markus and I were concerned about.

RAH
FF

It's all about choice. Different strokes for different folks. There are still enough of us left to find people that like the same type of things.

[Ming]

Originally posted by rah
Did you test barbs off of boats? That was the main issue Markus and I were concerned about.

In the tests I ran the other day... two barb archers walked off a ship and took my second city... I reset and the ship didn't appear on the next turn. A few turns later, a barb archer wandered out of the black with a barb king... and did the same thing to the city.
However, only one example. I was testing the lose the second city theory, not the do all barbs act alike theory...

[Eyes_Of_Night]

If I wanted random events and things to slow down everyone else I'd play against the AI. If I want a real game where skill is the determining factor and not who gets raped by barbarians first, then I take out everything I possibly can. And I quit because the game has died. Cheaters have been allowed to constantly cheat and even still do now and nobody seems to care. When nobody cares about cheating then the game is essentially dead and has no real support. Another sign is the fact that there is no organized league play anymore and of course activity on the zone has pretty much dwindled to nothing. I play AOK: The Conquerors now but every once in a while I feel like having a good 2 on 2 or playing an islands game just for the fun of it. I didn't quit because the competition was too easy, I quit because the competition left.

[atawa]

Always thought you left becouse everyone was so fed up with you nobody wanted to play you anymore

[Brian Bergs]

Barbs rock

If you don't want random events, go play chess. One of the beauties of Civ2 is a lovely balance of controllable factors and a few random events. Sometimes they knock you on your dupa but other times you manage the randomness with skill.

It also gives me something to blame when Rah grinds me into the mountain terrain. Dang wish I had time to play tonight. Maybe if the wife will just leave me alone...

[Alexander's Horse]

Well because of Markusf's whining about barbs the fifth game has them set at "villages"

[Ming]

I love all these "it adds another random factor to the game" comments. But I think it has more to do with the fact that some people don't defend their cities... and then whine about "random" barbarians when they lose a city to them

[Alexander's Horse]

I agree with Ming. In fact I think the real reason Markus and Eyes don't like barbs is they play an expansion strat which relies on as little interference from barbs as possible

Now that I know I don't have to defend my cities in this game I can do the same Its sooooo easy, I feel like I'm playing King or something.

[DrSpike]

Barbs, no barbs, it's all fine. But if one plays a high risk strategy and it fails IMO that loss is as significant as any other. If the risk (here expanding quickly at the expense of defence) pays off the player taking the risk will reap the benefits, and count the possible eventual win as a proper one.

[Ming]

Part of the game is "taking risks"... but it seems like some people feel that there should be no risk in using their "I'm not going to waste resources defending myself" strategy...

If that's what you want to do... fine... but there should be some risk in doing so.

[DrSpike]

I can see why some players would want to remove barbs and huts. But at the end of the day most of us play for fun, and civ is an inherently random game. Combat is random and starting positions are rarely truely equal. Embrace the randomness, play the percentages, and over the course of a few games the best player will win more of the games.

I would further add that if you are the superior player for god's sake defend more than average. The percentage strat for you is clearly to survive to let superior skill work it's magic.

[Alexander's Horse]

I find barbs make the early game exciting (even hair raising) and then at hordes level they become an excellent source of cash - if you know how to deal with them.

We in the Aussie group always play Deity level hordes.

[rah]

I agree also. most of the self proclaimed great players only difference over other good players is that they don't defend so get off to a slightly better start. Hell, I'd love to play all my games balls out, and then around 2500 B.C. determine if those random things hurt me and if they did, just quit the game and claim that I didn't really lose, just the other person got lucky.

RAH
And I don't see anywhere near the amount of cheating that some claim here. Of course, that's probably because I don't play in Leagues.