Re: New Pitboss Game Discussion (Jun 30/09)

**DMOC** · 10-01-2009, 09:02 PM

Okay.

Also I just noticed now that we can have permanent alliances. Wouldn't that risk the game being simply handed to the two best teams who decided to ally?

**Bernout** · 10-01-2009, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by DMOC

Okay.

Also I just noticed now that we can have permanent alliances. Wouldn't that risk the game being simply handed to the two best teams who decided to ally?

I suppose that's a possibility. I think FoW was the first game where I tried using that option. The idea was that you almost always end up informally partnering with someone else anyhow. So it was a way to formalize the relationship. We haven't gotten far enough yet in FoW to see how it actually plays out.

Since PitSuc is a team game, I wouldn't have any objection if you guys wanted to remove it. I'm guessing that noone would have a huge issue with that.

Bernout

**Ebenezer** · 10-01-2009, 09:52 PM

PAs are a gamble. It actually slows your tech pace down (you do get shared wonders however). So a team that formed a PA early might just get passed in the tech race. It also destroys a lot of EPs when you form the PA and raises mission costs quite a bit (due to a math bug with teams)

**DMOC** · 10-01-2009, 10:29 PM

I know about the tech handicap part, but still, 2 civs with a handicap are still faster than 1 civ alone, assuming equal beaker per turn rates (IIRC).

**Rusten** · 10-01-2009, 10:33 PM

2 civs together without a handicap is better than 2 civs together with a handicap.
You can be allied without a PA as well -- there are no AIs here.

Thread Tools

Display