BTS and the upcoming slavery nerf

[rah]

Starting with a flood plain and a few hills over someone that doesn't is also considerable luck. So there is a balance between luck, if it's just land, what's there to offset it. You add huts and a few barbs and it has a better chance to equalize the luck. Just a thought.

[MJW]

The game is too stuiped to tell if the guy popping the hut had a bad start.

[Kuciwalker]

Law of averages, kid.

[MJW]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Law of averages, kid.

I agree. Civ4 is fair if you play a lot.

[Ming]

When I start out in the middle of nowhere, with no resources, no rivers, no flood plains, no hills, no forests, and somebody else starts off with great land, I pray I can get lucky on a hut or two... Granted, it all should even out in the end... but there is still lots of luck opportunities even removing barbs and huts... like losing a key battle when you have a 90+% chance

[EyesOfNight]

Starting with a flood plain and a few hills over someone that doesn't is also considerable luck. So there is a balance between luck, if it's just land, what's there to offset it. You add huts and a few barbs and it has a better chance to equalize the luck. Just a thought.

Slavery makes land less important. Hence if you play on normal you're going to increase the importance of land. Also, it only has a chance to equalize luck if the player with really good land gets bad luck. Otherwise the chance is just as good that it will make things worse. Bad thought.

[Ming]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
Otherwise the chance is just as good that it will make things worse. Bad thought.

Been there, done that...

[EyesOfNight]

When I start out in the middle of nowhere, with no resources, no rivers, no flood plains, no hills, no forests, and somebody else starts off with great land, I pray I can get lucky on a hut or two... Granted, it all should even out in the end... but there is still lots of luck opportunities even removing barbs and huts... like losing a key battle when you have a 90+% chance

Again, quick makes one unit less important. Sure it sucks to lose a unit you should have, but it won't lose yout he game. When you're dealing with just 3 units early on and they take 10 turns each to build and you get some bad numbers...on normal that's death. There's really no argument to be made for playing on normal. It's why no one plays it.

[rah]

quit saying no one plays it. they do.
playing quick makes units obsolete more quickly.
It can make UU's less important.

[EyesOfNight]

quit saying no one plays it. they do.
playing quick makes units obsolete more quickly.
It can make UU's less important.

First of all, that was probably the dumbest statement I have ever heard about the UUs. Judging by your play in that one game with you and some of the things you have said, I can only conclude that you are lower level and you fall into the category of people who don't like quick because they get finished off too fast. That was the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. You clearly don't have experience.

[Ninot]

EyesOfNight, you are a charming debator.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ninot
EyesOfNight, you are a charming debator.

Would you even call him a Master debator?

[Ninot]

I think that would be fair, yes.

[EyesOfNight]

He's gone through every possible reason in the book to play on normal and each time he is wrong. Now he's claiming the reason he plays normal is to make it so UUs are more important. Seriously, I've heard absolute newbies on gamespy who have a better grasp of the game than you do. Even the total beginners on gamespy know how powerful UUs are on quick.

[Ming]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
Now he's claiming the reason he plays normal is to make it so UUs are more important.

Where did he say that... I just don't see where he claims that that is the reason he plays normal speed.