|
|
|
|
|
November 4th, 2005, 12:18 AM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, ME (USA)
Posts: 3,241
Thanks: 31
Thanked 65 Times in 18 Posts
|
|
Re: Turn 25
Turn 25 is out.
Deadline is Sunday, November 6, 2005 at 9:00 pm.
|
November 6th, 2005, 10:43 PM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, ME (USA)
Posts: 3,241
Thanks: 31
Thanked 65 Times in 18 Posts
|
|
Re: Turn 26
Turn 26 is out.
Deadline is Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2005 at 9:00 pm. EST.
|
November 8th, 2005, 11:56 PM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, ME (USA)
Posts: 3,241
Thanks: 31
Thanked 65 Times in 18 Posts
|
|
Re: Turn 26
Turn 27 is out.
Deadline is Thursday.
Pasha
|
November 11th, 2005, 11:38 AM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, ME (USA)
Posts: 3,241
Thanks: 31
Thanked 65 Times in 18 Posts
|
|
Re: Turn 28
Turn 28 is out.
Deadline is Sunday, Nov. 13.
|
November 14th, 2005, 12:03 AM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, ME (USA)
Posts: 3,241
Thanks: 31
Thanked 65 Times in 18 Posts
|
|
Re: Turn 29
Turn 29 is out.
Deadline is Tuesday, Nov. 15 at 9:00 pm EST.
Pasha
|
November 19th, 2005, 11:25 AM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, ME (USA)
Posts: 3,241
Thanks: 31
Thanked 65 Times in 18 Posts
|
|
Re: Turn 31
Turn 31 is out.
The deadline is Sunday, Nov. 19 at 9:00 pm EST. However, the hosting schedule is out of wack. So, if players need more time, we can certainly extend the hosting to Tuesday, Nov. 22 to get us back on track.
|
November 28th, 2005, 12:14 AM
|
Major
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 1,019
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Bah!
See attached file.
While I did win the battle (barely), it was not a good thing for the war, for I lost way too many troops winning the thing. Boron was using his secondary army against me anyway. While the battle result was indeed costly for him, it does not matter for the final result in the war against me and Pasha.
I have decided that I will never again play an MP game in which an Ermor death theme is allowed. It unbalances the game far too severly.
Not that Ermor is unbalanced late game, but it ruins the early/middle game. Mictlan has this SOL game won mainly because he started the farthest spot away from Ermor. When AE/SG Ermor is in the game and you get unlucky to start adjacent to him, you have two ways to lose:
1. You can have selected a good anti-undead nation, such as Pythium or Marignon or Arco. You could even make a pretender specifically for killing undead. You could even attack Ermor early and get a couple of other players to help. You could even mostly kill Ermor right off the bat. But the excessive losses required to do this means that your neighbors on the other side can invade and kill you easily.
2. You could have not done anything specific to make a pretender to fight undead and you could be a very weak race early on against the undead (like Jontunheim, for instance). You could even put together a nice anti-undead coalition (like I did). You could then weaken the undead enough in a suicide mission to ensure that Ermor does not win (like I did). But you will still die (like I will).
There is really only one way to win in a game with a death Ermor theme:
1. You could get really lucky and start on the other side of the map. This allows you to get the necessary research needed to kill 5-10 times as many troops as you lose. I can't think of anything else that could be done against an expert undead player such as Boron.
Boron made the utmost rush pretender. By using -3 on all scales, he is basically making a mockery of the game. I doubt the game was designed to be played like that at all, but Boron is quick to take advantage of the many loopholes in the game.
Fundamentally, the presence of AE Ermor takes ALL the fun away from the game. The three commanders I lost in the attached battle? They were the 50 gold indy priests. It is very sad that the most cost effective troop I can buy in my castles is an independent priest...
So, what will happen to me next in SOL? Boron will just put together another stack of his endless rush troops and attack yet again. I will surely lose the war of attrition in the long run.
Meanwhile, Mictlan will mop up on C'tis, next kill whomever wins the Arco - TC war, and then eliminate Ermor in the resulting 1 on 1 for an easy victory.
BAH! HUMBUG!
|
November 28th, 2005, 01:22 PM
|
|
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bavaria , Germany
Posts: 2,643
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Bah!
You forgot that there is always the option to peacefully coexist. I asked you for a Nap but you declined and attacked me.
In the other Invisible Swarm, the one hosted by Chris, Invisible Swarm 4, i tried Ermor SG for comparation purposes. Though my S.O.L. Ermor is more inflexible i like it more than the IS 4 Ermor. In IS 4 i am neighboring Turin (Tien Chi) and we peacefully coexisted until Turn 57. Now Turin got too mighty though and for the game's sake i have now canceled our Nap.
I like the undead themes not because they are powerful but because they are fun to play .
Ermor is a really good partner nation normally. They will happily give you their other gems for deathgems and sometimes even for gold. Also their god is normally flexible so they can probably forge you special stuff like uniques.
Ermors Dominion normally can be kept out too, so there is really no need to attack them.
|
November 28th, 2005, 01:57 PM
|
Major
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 1,019
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Bah!
True, you did offer a NaP. Of course, you would have cancelled it and attacked me after you eliminated Ulm, for I was the next logical nation for you to attack. Though you might have killed Machaka first before attacking me.
Perhaps I could have built up a bit more and attacked you later. But I thought my single best chance was to hit you while you were weak from attacking Pasha. Plus, Pasha and I already had a previous treaty when you attacked him.
I also made a peace treaty with both TC and Arco for the sole purpose of eliminating the nasty AE Ermor before you destroyed too many provinces. Pretty much everybody has a basic goal of undead containment in any game where AE Ermor exists.
Little did I know that you lost very little taking out Pasha...
Still, I will never again play a game with an Ermor death theme, for it simply takes all the fun out of the game to start next to it. In 4 of my last 5 games, I started adjacent to AE or SG Ermor. In one of those, the Ermor nation quit and went AI so I am doing very well. In the other 3, I am nearly dead due to the starting proximity to Ermor.
And for the fifth of those last 5 game? I was Ermor (default) and took a joint victory in that one. It was surprising just how much fun the Broken Empire theme was while playing in that game!
Finally, I am still a bit mad at myself for allying with an AE Ermor adjacent nation and allowing him to win in a game (I was Mictlan) about a year ago. I spent basically the whole of that game sacrificing endless slaves to try to keep a bit of my own dominion alive in the face of 20+ Ermor level 10 temples. My pop was dying far too fast from the Ermor dominion spread and all the blood hunting I was doing. I even had all 6 IDs and 2 of the ADs in that game (that was before the life drain nerf), but they were useless against a swarming, lifeless Ermor which is why I never did cancel my peace treaty with him. After that game, I vowed never to make that mistake again.
Like I said - BAH HUMBUG!
|
November 28th, 2005, 07:39 PM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, ME (USA)
Posts: 3,241
Thanks: 31
Thanked 65 Times in 18 Posts
|
|
Turn 33
Turn 33 is out.
Deadline is Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2005 at 9:00 pm.
Pasha
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|