|
|
Post by TheDohr on Jan 26, 2004 17:48:55 GMT -5
to shed some more light on the no-war rule.
A while ago I started an epic with war allowed from the start. Unfortunately me and another (forgot who) met at 'bout the 20th turn of the game. Capturing my worker we were soon at war.
Two civs THAT early at war with eachother means the other civs have some enormous advantage. This results in a lot less fun for everyone involved, a good epic offers some tough competition.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hrathnir on Jan 28, 2004 11:46:10 GMT -5
So whats the trick to winning, or getting the reports anyways.
By the scoring benchmark you cant grow too fast or you will lose the rest of the benchmarks?
Since the score is how well you did since previous benchmark if you do good early your screwed it seems.
Guess the reason for benchmark scoring to keep it interesting for others to continue playing even if they are far behind, but sucks to get a loss due to having too large of an empire. ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Hrathnir on Jan 28, 2004 12:26:05 GMT -5
As far as war in an epic, it is very important to know if you can fight and still keep a infrastructure/technology going strong. Expensive stalemates help no one if a 3rd person is ahead of you in power/technology, you have to have open communication with opponent about what is happening. If he is really upset and wont listen then yea you are both screwed. ;p
With the scoring system currently used it doesnt do any good but if a team game is going your teammates will help or only winner gets the reports it will not take long to deal with the stalemate and clearer minds will prevail for the better of both parties.
Trick to know if you can fight to me is if you only have 1 threat and have extra units. You can build a front and bother your neighbor putting all your forces at that one front still building infrastructure and making sure your neighbor is weaker then you for future reference of resource/luxury grabs. And basicly keeping your neighbor in check.
Of course in a ffa epic its best to not have to fight, but if a civ feels that it is important for them at a early time and a rule says you cant just seems totally crazy.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheDohr on Feb 1, 2004 10:43:39 GMT -5
even with large empires you can stay ahead of the others in benchmark weighted scores. For with a large empire you tend to get score faster as well, which makes you comparitivly speaking grow as fast as others.
however, if you either drop much in either land or population, or one of the others gains much (much relative to their size) then another might beat you for that benchmark.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsoxguy on Feb 11, 2004 16:04:02 GMT -5
AN epic game sounds like a hell of a good time. How can i find out when the next is taking place?  |
|
|
|
Post by Mo D on Feb 11, 2004 18:45:21 GMT -5
Oh it is a blast, Redsox.
Just watch these forums. People will put up a sign-up post once in a while when they're starting a new epic.
Welcome to the Ladder!
|
|
|
|
Post by CiverDan on Feb 15, 2004 10:52:16 GMT -5
I personally think that 500 AD with AP is too long without war. Even in a game that was no war to 500 BC I already had muskets. I Think 1000-500 BC is a good choice as it doesnt take Ancient era UU's completely out of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheBrain on Feb 23, 2004 6:38:30 GMT -5
Is VP scoring a good idea for epics ? I thought about starting a worldmap epic with VP scoring once i have enough time for an epic but I am not sure if that would be playable.  |
|
|
|
Post by Mo D on Feb 23, 2004 9:06:48 GMT -5
I have a VP epic going right now actually. I think VP scoring works VERY well for epics. I actually like it for epics much better than regular scoring.
|
|
|
|
Post by agntsmith on Feb 23, 2004 13:44:05 GMT -5
How do you use VP ?
Do you use bench marks and calculated scoring Mo D ? ie. at the 1000 AD BM you calculate who won that BM by their victory points % increase ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mo D on Feb 23, 2004 14:42:46 GMT -5
How do you use VP ? Do you use bench marks and calculated scoring Mo D ? ie. at the 1000 AD BM you calculate who won that BM by their victory points % increase ? Actually, in the one I have going, we only had two benchmarks, 10ad and the end of the game. If you want to use BM's, I would suggest just going with straight up victory points (no formula or % increase stuff). The reason: regular score is an average throughout the game, and thus, it is very difficult to make up ground once you've fallen behind. With VP, ground can be made up quickly. I could envision many scenarios where the loser of the first BM could easily win every other BM. Because of the differences in the way VP and regular points are calculated, I would just play the VP straight. Actually, I'd like to test this in an epic sometime with full benchmarks. |
|
Leash
Swordsman
Posts: 185
|
Post by Leash on Feb 23, 2004 15:48:46 GMT -5
Hey Mo - whenever you want to try that I am all for it. Still havent found an epic, and find that I much prefer VP scoring.
|
|
Bogey
Slave Worker
Posts: 2
|
Post by Bogey on Feb 26, 2004 12:16:01 GMT -5
I'm sick and tired of these 50 turns and out because you lose one insignifigant hilltop fortress in elimination. I am dying for epic...
|
|
|
|
Post by Mo D on Feb 26, 2004 12:51:18 GMT -5
I think the next epic I start will be scored with VP as outlined above. Also, I think I'll make it either with a slow timer or no timer at all.  I'm tired of getting to the industrial era and having a gazillion troops and not enough time to move them all. Oh, and Bogey, epics rule! |
|
|
|
Post by Mrs Hawk on Feb 26, 2004 15:23:07 GMT -5
Mo,
Just wanted to let you know (in case you didn't already) that you can change the turn timer at the beginning of a new session of an existing epic. We ladies started with a fast timer in our first session, switched to normal for 3 or 4 sessions and have now switched back to fast.
Mrs. H
|
|
