This is symptomatic of a well-balanced map - and in my opinion is pretty standard in 3-player games in any caseEsn wrote:Is it just me, or is this map particularly conducive to 3-way ties that last a long time?
Moderator: Cartographers
This is symptomatic of a well-balanced map - and in my opinion is pretty standard in 3-player games in any caseEsn wrote:Is it just me, or is this map particularly conducive to 3-way ties that last a long time?

MrBenn wrote:This is symptomatic of a well-balanced map - and in my opinion is pretty standard in 3-player games in any caseEsn wrote:Is it just me, or is this map particularly conducive to 3-way ties that last a long time?

Very true. If you don't want long games, try escalating spoils. Sooner or later someone will cash in for an overwhelming number of troops. Sure, it's a matter of luck at that point, but the skill comes in being ready.Bruceswar wrote:MrBenn wrote:This is symptomatic of a well-balanced map - and in my opinion is pretty standard in 3-player games in any caseEsn wrote:Is it just me, or is this map particularly conducive to 3-way ties that last a long time?
Better the map is well balanced than lopsided.
One of the games started as 6-player, the other as 5-player, but both are 3-player now and look like they're going to stay that way for some time. I was referring more to the fact that there seem to be 3 stable "bases" long-term (if you play flat rate or no spoils), and any player who doesn't manage to get into one of those 3 positions will be eliminated sooner or later.MrBenn wrote:This is symptomatic of a well-balanced map - and in my opinion is pretty standard in 3-player games in any caseEsn wrote:Is it just me, or is this map particularly conducive to 3-way ties that last a long time?
Sorry, but if you play any decently large map on 3, 5+ players, with no spoils or flat rate, you're probably going to get a stalemate.Esn wrote:One of the games started as 6-player, the other as 5-player, but both are 3-player now and look like they're going to stay that way for some time. I was referring more to the fact that there seem to be 3 stable "bases" long-term (if you play flat rate or no spoils), and any player who doesn't manage to get into one of those 3 positions will be eliminated sooner or later.MrBenn wrote:This is symptomatic of a well-balanced map - and in my opinion is pretty standard in 3-player games in any caseEsn wrote:Is it just me, or is this map particularly conducive to 3-way ties that last a long time?
This isn't a complaint, just a hypothesis about the strategic side. Have any other people noticed the same thing?
You're biasedRisky_Stud wrote:This probably should come out of Beta now.
So! What's your point?jakewilliams wrote:You're biasedRisky_Stud wrote:This probably should come out of Beta now.

Congratulations Tisha, your shiny new medal is well-earned 

if you are so into your native side, perhaps you should study it a bit. the Cherokee didn't refer to themselves as Cherokee way back when.ChDaemon wrote:A couple suggestions for realism, in case they aren't made yet. First, where are the Cherokee? I'm part Cherokee, and am a little disappointed to not have my people represented here. Second, the Taino indians are not from Republica Dominicana, they're Puerto Rican, you might want to add PR in there beside the Republica. (I'm part Puerto Rican myself, so...) Other than that, its good to me.
Gengoldy wrote:Of all the games I've played, and there have been some poor sports and cursing players out there, you are by far the lowest and with the least class.
Yes, it's deliberatealstergren wrote:Is Nimiipuu for some reason supposed to start with 2 neutrals (and not 3)?
