

Moderator: Community Team
Lord Nuke wrote:Hello people,
This is Lord Nuke, starting up what i hope to be a series of big games: big maps, lots of players.
All games are Standard, Sequential, Flat Rate/ No Cards, 6 players. Only bigger maps like World 2.0, Siege!, etc. being played.
As i am not premium, there is no password involved. However, i would like only 1800+ players to join.
First one is:
779994, flat rate.
Hoping to see you on the battlefield,
Lord Nuke
rabbiton wrote:Genghis Khan CA wrote:Clearly you have not played many flat rate or no card games with exclusively high ranked players - with some exceptions they tend to be extremely tedious affairs that end up in build situations.
Why is that, do you think? In those situations is it always everyone's best move to just build?
I haven't played many of these games with high rank players myself, so I'm interested as to how they will go. I'm not overly concerned by the length of the game personally, as I find the endurance aspect of long games rewarding. It's all about patience and timing.
Also in the No Cards games I've played I've been more aggressive than in escalating at the start, because continents are so much more important... however I can see how the stagnation might happen once everyone settles into their areas... wouldn't some players have an advantage though? Shouldn't they steadily make use of their advantage? I guess it's not obvious to me why such stagnation would be all but inevitable based on every player doing the best thing for them to win.
rabbiton wrote:rabbiton wrote:Genghis Khan CA wrote:Clearly you have not played many flat rate or no card games with exclusively high ranked players - with some exceptions they tend to be extremely tedious affairs that end up in build situations.
Why is that, do you think? In those situations is it always everyone's best move to just build?
I haven't played many of these games with high rank players myself, so I'm interested as to how they will go. I'm not overly concerned by the length of the game personally, as I find the endurance aspect of long games rewarding. It's all about patience and timing.
Also in the No Cards games I've played I've been more aggressive than in escalating at the start, because continents are so much more important... however I can see how the stagnation might happen once everyone settles into their areas... wouldn't some players have an advantage though? Shouldn't they steadily make use of their advantage? I guess it's not obvious to me why such stagnation would be all but inevitable based on every player doing the best thing for them to win.
since i got no response to this heartfelt plea for insight, i would like to report back on the 1 of the 4 games originally posted that actually started. i think the players could be called "high-ranked" - one is (usually) 3000+ and a reputed master at the no cards option.
the game, 685340, is in round 23 and doesn't look like ending in the near future. certainly it will be longer than almost all escalating games. however the notion of "logging in and deploying for 6 months" or it being a build game, certainly doesn't apply at this point. it has been brutally aggressive and the army sizes are still low. even when the logs show no attacks, there usually were. pretty much every round there has been something afoot!
anywho, perhaps this the "exception" mentioned above, but i felt compelled to report that it has not been an "extremely tedious" affair, and perhaps urge some of you guys to try out no cards again.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users