morello:
>>because your opponents are creating 3-4x as many units as you, see if you think it's still not a worthwhile investment.<<
The only one who is going to lose, time after time is YOU, morello.
At least Elquein is happy with the current poineer because it _doesn't_ allow players to build many cities. YOU, however, think you get the chance to actually build more than 75% of all the cities you own, which is simply rediculous, even with the old rules.
To make things clear to the world once and for all:
*430 gold, people!! One lousy outpost.
For that amount you can:
1)bribe 1 or even 2 settlements to join you, giving you anything between an outpost and a complete city PLUS some units.
2)build 14 crossbowmen, and with a generous 5 crossbowmen to capture one independent city this gives you three (almost).*4 to 5 production days LOST
In that time you could have build 4 or 5 crossbowmen which is more than enough to capture one average defended independent city, which then can be anything between an outpost and a complete city.So even if you do have the money, there are more useful ways to spend it on a generic map. Even if you have the time, it can be used far more efficently.
Remember, to earn your investment back, it takes roughly 20 days days now. A couple of troopers, used properly, earn themselves back in a matter of days.
If that wasn't enough: there's also a basic principle behind all this. Logic demands that
it is better to conquer surrounding independent cities than to found new ones, because:
*it's easier (5*30 gold instead of 430 gold)
*it is likely to be more beneficial: maybe a village instead of an outpost.
*it prevents your enemy from taking it (very important).
*it extends your military front
Logic also suggests that it's better to conquer the cities of your enemies than to make new ones because:
*you get a city
*your enemy loses one city, making the absolute difference twice as big.
In a fair fight with two equally powerful empires, the conqueror will have a bigger army, and there more likely to succeed than the defender who is wasting resources on outposts instead of troops.
The defender is therefore actually building cities only for his enemy to take them!
Just as soon as the conqueror finds out the enemy is using a _significant_ amount of resources on outposts (and even one cost of 430 gold usually is VERY significant) he must attack, and will likely win.
With three players (one settler; two expanders), it would get even BETTER! Logic suggests that both expanders should both attack the weaker settler, and try to grab as many of his rich structures as possible, before it falls into the hands of the enemy.
Because both expanders must attack the settler, because and both know it, the defender becomes then basicly twice as weak, making it free shopping for the agressors: get it while you can.
The settler always loses.
Exception to this rule is a player who starts somewhat isolated with no (or few) independent cities around to conquer. Even then, the old rules were already balanced and now, the investment is just too high.
So there. Still, cities might get build, even now and on a normal MP map, but more like one or two in the mid phase of the game, making only a slight difference.
Steel Monkey
[This message has been edited by JAT (edited 05-03-2002 @ 09:38 AM).]