|
|
|
 |

January 6th, 2006, 05:46 PM
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 259
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Alliance Vs The Dead
Use Photobucket.com
BTW, I like the barbarian concept as well.
|

January 9th, 2006, 11:35 AM
|
Major
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,122
Thanks: 5
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
|
Re: Alliance Vs The Dead
I would like to join in this game, and I think the barbarians should not be allied, first barbarian to capture Rome or Byzantium would win the game. Or that the roman empires stand for 50 turns.
|

January 9th, 2006, 12:10 PM
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 259
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Alliance Vs The Dead
Quote:
Folket said:
I would like to join in this game, and I think the barbarians should not be allied, first barbarian to capture Rome or Byzantium would win the game. Or that the roman empires stand for 50 turns.
|
That would be a neat variation but I think a co-operative effort vs The Ultimate Bad Guy(s) is the central theme of this game.
|

January 9th, 2006, 03:00 PM
|
Major
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,122
Thanks: 5
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
|
Re: Alliance Vs The Dead
If that is the case then I think the victory condition should be that if Rome defeats even one opponent then the romans have won the game. Making it crucial for "the barbarians" to cooperate as the roman empires are strong then each of them, but togather they are stronger.
|

January 9th, 2006, 04:56 PM
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 259
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Alliance Vs The Dead
Quote:
Folket said:
If that is the case then I think the victory condition should be that if Rome defeats even one opponent then the romans have won the game. Making it crucial for "the barbarians" to cooperate as the roman empires are strong then each of them, but togather they are stronger.
|
That's a good idea in order to provide incentive for helping others out when they really need it, even when you know it's going to set you back.
|

January 9th, 2006, 05:13 PM
|
 |
Major
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 1,032
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: Alliance Vs The Dead
I'd be totally interested in this game, if you need anyone else to be the Barbarians. I expect you'd want experts to play Rome. Perhaps we could have an IRC room or a private forum to discuss Barbarian strategy after it gets started.
|

January 9th, 2006, 05:16 PM
|
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 449
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
|
|
Re: Alliance Vs The Dead
The barbarians idea is a lot more interesting than the all vs Ermor.
I'd be interested in playing the Pythium part.
[edit] I just saw Morkilus' post. I'm not a real expert, but I play one on TV.
I have played Pythium several times in MP. And I slept at a Holiday Inn Express once.
|

January 9th, 2006, 07:34 PM
|
 |
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 500km from Ulm
Posts: 2,279
Thanks: 9
Thanked 18 Times in 12 Posts
|
|
Re: Alliance Vs The Dead
Sounds interesting. Have not decided if I want to be an imperialist or a barbarian, though
Suggestions: - Add Machaka in the South, so it's a 2 front war for western Rome as well.
- Instead of C'tis, use Arco.
- human pretenders only.
__________________
As for AI the most effective work around to this problem so far is to simply use an American instead, they tend to put up a bit more of a fight than your average Artificial Idiot.
... James McGuigan on rec.games.computer.stars somewhen back in 1998 ...
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Hybrid 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
|
|
|
|
|