Customizing a good and long game! Help

[Senethro]

Hmmmmm. I've often had that problem myself against the AI. I Impact rover rush my 2 neighbors early and end up having wiped them out but looking very silly having captured nothing except off-beeline probed tech and a small number of energy credits.

As I've never played a proper momentum in a PBEM (I've started 4 PBEMs, 1 died and 2 were sabotaged by Sebed) so I'm hoping that when the time comes that human opponents aren't found to be short of plunder.

[Chaos Theory]

A smart, spiteful human opponent will leave little for you to obtain, by scorched-earth tactics.

[Senethro]

Which is what I would do as well. If I can't win, I'm going to engage in self-harming tactics and simply trying to injure my opponent so he can't win either.

[Mart]

Re: Customizing a good and long game! Help

Originally posted by TheCabal
...installed AC+CF recently. I noticed that things were going much too fast, especially secret projects.

Have you heard about so-called "instabuild" for Secret Projects? It may be "unpleasant at first, but after some time you will start to like it. Then when you move to play some civ3, where after the last expansion "Conquests" you cannot "instabuild", you might start to be really frustrated by the lack of this ability.

In short this is that you discover a tech in a turn and have the corresponding Secret Project exactly next turn completed.

Want to customize a game which takes a bit more time to complete.

I would recommend here something a bit maybe different. Try to play more efficiently. Spend more time on a single turn. More carefully check every base each turn, for possible drone riots when pop booming, units that might do something instead of being idle in bases, etc.
Make more long term plans.
Maybe you already are playing like that, if not, you may be surprised how longer your game may be, when actually finishing the game in less turns.

After setting randomized HUGE MAP, what to turn on/off in the game rulez?

What about Tech Stagnation or things like Do-or-Die. Plz help! Want an enjoyable long nice game!

Tech stagnation is element I chose very often. It gives more meaning to actual management of factions, at least for me. You also have more turns to actually prototype units and use them more. Techstagnation is good for singleplayer, but most multiplayer games avoid it, as I noticed.

I like Do-or-die Off. I like more interaction with AI, and this makes AI harder to kill, more diplomacy with AI.

I almost never played with Blind research, but have to give it more attention.

[Kataphraktoi]

I would recommend here something a bit maybe different. Try to play more efficiently. Spend more time on a single turn. More carefully check every base each turn, for possible drone riots when pop booming, units that might do something instead of being idle in bases, etc.
Make more long term plans.
Maybe you already are playing like that, if not, you may be surprised how longer your game may be, when actually finishing the game in less turns.

the difference between civ3 and smac. civ3 you only need time to remember the proper thing to do with whatever option comes up. smac,you get to think creativly

[Archaic]

Originally posted by binTravkin
Hence your challenge call on me?

Something like that. To be honest though, I expect that terraforming will decide our match, rather than our actual playstyles. I don't see much difference at all economy, labs or mineral wise between our two playstyles.

Originally posted by Cataphract887
the PTS AND the VW? thats some luck there

reminds me of a uni game in in where i have all those SP's(like 10) except ME and WP that was a heck of alot of luck sebed had

Sebed cheated to get those kind of results, but there's a number of good uni players (myself included), who can achieve that without cheating, with only a bit of effort. Hell, it's not hard for a determined Uni player to get 80% of all projects in the course of a game, if their opponents don't gang up on them to leapfrog and deny trades. It certainly does make us vulnerable to an early assault, but on the larger maps that most PBEM's are played on, that's almost a non-issue. By the time people can attack us, we're already several weapon and armour prototypes ahead, and our mineral production at each base is sufficient to allow a (strong) unit a base a turn builds.

[binTravkin]

If opponents can negate your tech edge, then what advantage exactly does the UNi have ??

If a Uni player is skilled, he's almost sure to have VW.

Even if he does not manage to get PTS, VW is enough to gain decisive advantage if used properly.

Something like that. To be honest though, I expect that terraforming will decide our match, rather than our actual playstyles. I don't see much difference at all economy, labs or mineral wise between our two playstyles.

I actually just read why it's so.
I read someone build sats before you in VW and that's the mistake you made.
I was estimating to be 7 or 8 turns away from sats and being first there and producing them massively (hence the bases with ACs) by rushing to 10 mineral carryover.

That's the principal difference in late game.
At that point nut and labs input greatly differs.
While your style might have more mins, it lags back in research.

I know and have played both styles.
I actually tend to think that if you succeed in winning me with your style against the ICS I am making than I've probably missed something important about it.
Crawlers are not the important thing if it was the first to come in your head - I already tried the crawlering approach you seem to be using at CGN 32 and concluded it has only limited use (to bonus tiles or prior to cash-in for an SP).

But time will show..

[Kataphraktoi]

are you two planning to release the savs from that game? it sounds interesting to look at

[binTravkin]

Well, in the end we'll probably make something like a 'report' of our effort..

[Kataphraktoi]

can i bribe you for the savs from your side then?

always wins

[binTravkin]

I think saves will be released if Archaic agrees, but probably after game only (or after first x turns).

[Kataphraktoi]

hasnt it started?

[binTravkin]

Not yet, we're waiting for scenario to be made.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by binTravkin
I actually just read why it's so.
I read someone build sats before you in VW and that's the mistake you made.
I was estimating to be 7 or 8 turns away from sats and being first there and producing them massively (hence the bases with ACs) by rushing to 10 mineral carryover.

Actually, I've had sats for *many* *many* turns in that game now, I just never bothered announcing it. I think I have about 8 or so in the air currently, more than enough with the bases as they currently are. You didn't have enough Condenser/Farms to support booms in all the cities, so I haven't had a chance to really shoot my population through the roof yet.

Originally posted by binTravkin
That's the principal difference in late game.
At that point nut and labs input greatly differs.
While your style might have more mins, it lags back in research.

I'd disagree there. I switch tack from Mins to Energy in the mid game after Genejacks, and I'd suggest that one of my facilitied-up-the-wazoo bases would be worth at least 3-4 of yours, so in the end, I'd think that we both make about the same in all areas, it's just that yours is distributed amongst more bases than mine is.

Originally posted by binTravkin
I know and have played both styles.
I actually tend to think that if you succeed in winning me with your style against the ICS I am making than I've probably missed something important about it.
Crawlers are not the important thing if it was the first to come in your head - I already tried the crawlering approach you seem to be using at CGN 32 and concluded it has only limited use (to bonus tiles or prior to cash-in for an SP).

But time will show..

Indeed it will. I have to admit, even with Sebed's cheating, CGN32 wasn't really my best, though I'd lay some of the blame for that on the map (which I won't elaborate on, given the game's still ongoing). I'm itching to prove myself in SP.

My guess is, what you've missed may be the exploitation of GA's in the mid to late game. Not that I'm any better. I've still yet to actually use an energy park in any full length game. Though, given that you'd rarely have the opportunity to use one of those properly in an MP game anyway, that's perhaps not a bad thing.

[binTravkin]

blame for that on the map

What do you want to say with this.

That was one of the best maps I've made, especially in means of balance..