Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pencil_Art]

((I'm back!!))

[lemon10]

*shrugs*
Its entirely up to them if they think going off and raiding their opponents is a good idea, because as you say, they can do some damage, and since they start with troops, it won't cost anything. I wouldn't do it personally, but that's mainly because I play very conservatively, and try to outgrow my opponents.

[Squeegy]

Yes, but that only worked for you because you started on a wide-open space that could only be reached by ship and nobody bothered to come curb your growing power. These guys don't have that luxury.

[SilverDragon]

Welcome back Pencil Art! I can't do my turn at the moment, its a bit too late.

[Kashyyk]

((I'm back!!))

Yay! you are welcome to keep my stand-in, or do your own turn.

[lemon10]

Yes, but that only worked for you because you started on a wide-open space that could only be reached by ship and nobody bothered to come curb your growing power. These guys don't have that luxury.

I really have to disagree. I've used that strategy in every game of this that I have played, and it has served me well every time.
It might not always be an option, as if you are attacked you are always forced to fight back, but focusing on growing your power without attacking other players is the optimal option.

It also helps that I am the best at long term growth. If I was in Wales position in The Dark Age right now I would have 70+ fully upgraded knights (or mounted crossbowmen) at the very minimum, with probably having over 100.

[Squeegy]

I can't really comment on that because I've only played the last few turns, but I do know that sitting idly and letting an enemy in a better position for growth consolidate their power is not strategically wise. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Also, welcome back, Pencil_Art.

[lemon10]

I can't really comment on that because I've only played the last few turns, but I do know that sitting idly and letting an enemy in a better position for growth consolidate their power is not strategically wise. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Also, welcome back, Pencil_Art.

But that's just the thing. Its not a zero sum game. If you harass another player, and cost him 5 turns of growth for 2 turns of your own, that isn't a win (despite the fact that it is a huge advantage for you in a 1v1 against him), it simply puts all the other players 2 turns ahead of you.
So while you can stop the growth of a single player by being aggressive, all that does is simply help every single other player.
Now, if you gain strength as a result of your fighting by taking over his cities that is one thing, but that is very improbable early game unless your opponent basically doesn't fight back, due to the amount of time that it takes your troops to reach their cities on any decently sized map.

[Squeegy]

It's not a zero-sum game, but you're not the only player in the game. There are also other factors to consider: If everyone just sat back and grew as fast as possible, the game would be very boring. Not everyone has the same potential for growth, some people have an abundance of resources that are better suited to building an army. If you stop the growth of 2 players for 5 turns, you would only lose 4 turns of growth. If you target the two closest players, this weakens your biggest enemies more than it weakens you. Moving a pre-existing army around does not actually cost you anything in terms of growth, unless you are attacked. The game is not built so that you can only either grow or produce a military. And if everyone else followed your advice, they would be too shy to send their armies out to face yours as it razed their outskirts. I appreciate that you've played a few more games, but it's not as simple as "turtle and grow = better." It's certainly an easy strategy, but it's not the be-all end-all.

[Pencil_Art]

I'll keep the stand-in. Thanks.

[Criptfeind]

This game is not exactly economically complex. Especially on such a large map as this. Whether one can outgrow their opponents or not was basically determined on turn one and for the most part it's not really a function of skill, but starting position. I'm not sure if you can call "having the best starting spot" a strategy that it's possible to be good at...

[Squeegy]

I believe (but I could be completely wrong) that population you get from food consumes 1 food per turn, so eventually everyone's population will level out to the maximum that their lands are capable of supporting. However, the tiles that you choose to claim with your population (as well as what improvements you build) make a big difference in the early game, so it's possible for someone to get a big early lead by choosing to claim tiles for food over any tiles with other resources, or building a farm every turn. However, everyone else will eventually catch up to them, and while they'll have a lead in population and labor, they'll suffer on resources, which don't taper off over time.

[Rolepgeek]

Ah, but in the meantime they will have been able to expand to resource spots and grow their labor cities faster, which means that overall they will have an advantage.

[Squeegy]

Yes, this is true, which is why it's very useful to have potential allies you can team up on them with.

[scapheap]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Code: [Select]

<playerturn player="scapheap">
  <tileorders>
    <tileorder type="tClaim" x="12" y="25"/>
    <tileorder type="bCity" x="13" y="25">
      <cityname>Nova</cityname>
    </tileorder>
    <tileorder type="bImp" x="15" y="19">
      <improvement code="lumb"/>
    </tileorder>
  </tileorders>
  <cityorders>
    <cityorder type="bBld" cityid="4">
      <building code="gran"/>
    </cityorder>
  </cityorders>
  <armyorgorders/>
  <armyorders>
    <armyorder type="mArmy" armyid="2" x="18" y="25">
      <step dx="-1" dy="0"/>
    </armyorder>
    <armyorder type="mArmy" armyid="6" x="16" y="25">
      <step dx="-1" dy="0"/>
    </armyorder>
  </armyorders>
</playerturn>