I got screwed on a 1 versus 1 game. The computer practically set the other guy up with the Australia bonus and then proceeded to box me in against the neutral armies. The game wasn't even a contest.
My solution: Please get the neutral armies out of the 1 versus 1 games and let people truly battle against each other.
Last edited by DangerBoy on Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
DangerBoy wrote:I got screwed on a 2 versus 2 game. The computer practically set the other guy up with the Australia bonus and then proceeded to box me in against the neutral armies. The game wasn't even a contest.
My solution: Please get the neutral armies out of the 2 versus 2 games and let people truly battle against each other.
are you talking about 1v1 games? sounds like it.....
Liberté, egalité, cash moné
Hey, Fox News: Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo
My heart beats with unconditional love But beware of the blackness that it's capable of
DangerBoy wrote:I got screwed on a 2 versus 2 game. The computer practically set the other guy up with the Australia bonus and then proceeded to box me in against the neutral armies. The game wasn't even a contest.
My solution: Please get the neutral armies out of the 2 versus 2 games and let people truly battle against each other.
are you talking about 1v1 games? sounds like it.....
I got screwed on a 1 versus 1 game. The computer practically set the other guy up with the Australia bonus and then proceeded to box me in against the neutral armies. The game wasn't even a contest.
My solution: Please get the neutral armies out of the 1 versus 1 games and let people truly battle against each other.
I got screwed on a 1 versus 1 game. The computer practically set the other guy up with the Australia bonus and then proceeded to box me in against the neutral armies. The game wasn't even a contest.
My solution: Please get the neutral armies out of the 1 versus 1 games and let people truly battle against each other.
i had that idea once...i like it
the neutral armies are there because if they werent, the initial bonus would be so high, that whoever went first would have a huge advantage
I got screwed on a 1 versus 1 game. The computer practically set the other guy up with the Australia bonus and then proceeded to box me in against the neutral armies. The game wasn't even a contest.
My solution: Please get the neutral armies out of the 1 versus 1 games and let people truly battle against each other.
i had that idea once...i like it
the neutral armies are there because if they werent, the initial bonus would be so high, that whoever went first would have a huge advantage
In my game the other guy started out with armies all the way from China down to Australia. I had 3 guys placed in East Australia. He took it out on his first turn. Everything else I had was surrounded by neutral armies. If we could just be allowed to battle it out I think it would have been more fair.
Most of the games I've played so far are 1v1. Out of about 50 games, I'd say that about 20% of the time someone gets a drop with a full province. I've benefitted about as often as I've suffered, so it works out in the end.
What is more often the case is someone getting an adventageous drop...and if you play first and know how to play, then you can pretty much ensure a victory before the other guy gets to play. But that's all part of the 1v1 experience.
So far, I've found the 1v1 much more enjoyable than 3-player games.
A good drop + going first can be all it takes in 2 player games. The best way I've found to avoid this is to avoid unlimited forts. at least thenyou still have to know what you're doing to win the game.
disk wrote:Most of the games I've played so far are 1v1. Out of about 50 games, I'd say that about 20% of the time someone gets a drop with a full province. I've benefitted about as often as I've suffered, so it works out in the end.
What is more often the case is someone getting an adventageous drop...and if you play first and know how to play, then you can pretty much ensure a victory before the other guy gets to play. But that's all part of the 1v1 experience.
So far, I've found the 1v1 much more enjoyable than 3-player games.
Dont you think that 5 or 6 player games might be more of a challenge !
The only thing I don't like about free style, is that it's actually advantageous to go SECOND.
The other person can not infringe upon your turn (in RT), but you can finish your turn (the round) and then start right after they start (deploy) so you can see where to attack them/avoid.
I think that once it gets down to 2 players, turns should effectively be sequential.
I enjoy playing 1 v 1 but i think the current system has two major issues that will determine the game 1) initial deployment 2) First turn
I can accept initial deployment because I have been on both sides of a good and bad deployment and feel it is pretty equal.
First turn - WHen setting a game..whoever is first ...in the first round, player 1 goes first, player 2 gets to take first turn and 2nd turn (or just let them have double the deployment then player 1 takes 2nd turn and then sequential after that,
If you go first and and get a good drop...first turn determines the game in most cases
Something like USApocylpse looks like a bad 1v1 map since the chances of getting the nuclear symbols varies more whereas Extreme Global Warming is perfect for 1v1 since it's a vary chockpoint based map
disk wrote:Most of the games I've played so far are 1v1. Out of about 50 games, I'd say that about 20% of the time someone gets a drop with a full province. I've benefitted about as often as I've suffered, so it works out in the end.
What is more often the case is someone getting an adventageous drop...and if you play first and know how to play, then you can pretty much ensure a victory before the other guy gets to play. But that's all part of the 1v1 experience.
So far, I've found the 1v1 much more enjoyable than 3-player games.
Dont you think that 5 or 6 player games might be more of a challenge !
i've only played 1 game where it was 1v1 in a tournament and the drop meant I was gone before it started the other guy got 1 bonus and was 99% of the way to the 2nd before I even started I got dropped in amongst neutral and would have to take out 6 neutrals to get a bonus I laughed as soon as I saw the drop as I knew it was all over. I won't play 1v1 anymore too random and that rules me out of alot of tournaments except if they played best of 3 or something like that.
disk wrote:Most of the games I've played so far are 1v1. Out of about 50 games, I'd say that about 20% of the time someone gets a drop with a full province. I've benefitted about as often as I've suffered, so it works out in the end.
What is more often the case is someone getting an adventageous drop...and if you play first and know how to play, then you can pretty much ensure a victory before the other guy gets to play. But that's all part of the 1v1 experience.
So far, I've found the 1v1 much more enjoyable than 3-player games.
Dont you think that 5 or 6 player games might be more of a challenge !
But aren't 5 - 6 player games harder to win ??
But aren't they more fun to win? You get that thrill 4-5 times over and it's even better with escalating... 6 in one go is the way I like it
nmhunate wrote:Speak English... It is the language that God wrote the bible in.
