Quote:
just a thought (everything that follows is just IMHO):
In reguards to Indy strength, I've tried to think of an arguement for why we should have Indy3: Because we have to rely on military support from other nations, it would be better if there was Indy3, cos this would allow everyone to move into position where they can join a war. cos people far away from a battle front would need to forge a path around friendly kingdoms. I think we should encourage that. Especially since it would then be possible to cut off reinforcements from a particular battle front. This encourages team members to get involved (rather then justify staying out of the war because of their location. I just think that using Indy as terrain isn't as important in a team game cos you're gonna be hit from multiple directions anyways.. you can't rely on Indy to create choke points. And IMHO its much more important to have each team member control the right provinces in order to be effective at striking in unison. This means lots of provinces being used as supply lines (which might even be exchanged between team members).
|
This is what I was thinking when I suggested low indys, but you put it FAR more eloquently, Lex.
Putting 6 or 7 indys just because it is 'normal' does not make any sense to me. After all, this idea of allied play is much different than 'normal'. The idea is to fight your enemy, not the neutrals. I would think you need to clear them out quickly to establish communications with your partners.
The main purpose of high neutrals is because the basic game is an FFA and you can frequently use the indys to help your situation.
Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
Threaded Mode