the first americans

Synchronized-turns strategy. Calling all teamers.
Post Reply
User avatar
blackj3sus
Lux Messiah
Posts: 3223
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 12:27 pm
Location: sillysoft.net/roman-battles
Contact:

the first americans

Post by blackj3sus » Mon May 10, 2010 4:27 pm

the map, the first americans requires an accessory to be fully enjoyed so i thought i would provide you guys with the link to that accessory:
the first americans accessory

User avatar
mbauer
Not A Truck
Posts: 3959
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:59 pm
Location: Tallahassee
Contact:

Post by mbauer » Mon May 10, 2010 5:48 pm

You are also required to say, "AAAAAAAHHHH" while patting your mouth with your fingers.


:P


is that too offensive? :shock:

User avatar
Behemoth
Lux Flyweight
Posts: 1403
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:09 pm

Post by Behemoth » Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:54 pm

I've just finished playing my first game of The First American's against 4 human players.

There's a bit of an issue with the start of this map I think, especially with tribe Sioux who I just played. Sioux is at a terrible disadvantage, having to face pretty much every tribe all at once from the outset but without any extra armies or additional income to compensate.

The potential income that Sioux starts on (the great lakes and Plains) is too hard to gain or hold because almost every border is hostile.

Blackfoot also appears to have drawn a short straw, although there's a few perks for him to help offset it and he does have some sanctuary.

The good news is other players enjoyed the game :)

I did wonder if removing Sioux might be worthwhile. You could share it's countries among the other tribes, ensuring no one player is stuck in the middle.

User avatar
RandomGuy
Lux Veteran
Posts: 1463
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:02 am
Location: Central American Jungle
Contact:

Post by RandomGuy » Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:00 pm

I like it how it is - it provides a challenge for offline play when trying to win from every position. But for online multiplayer, there are definitely a few tougher starts.

User avatar
Behemoth
Lux Flyweight
Posts: 1403
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:09 pm

Post by Behemoth » Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:16 pm

RandomGuy wrote:I like it how it is - it provides a challenge for offline play when trying to win from every position. But for online multiplayer, there are definitely a few tougher starts.
Sure, I understand. The reason I raised it was because with human opponents the central position is dire.

User avatar
mbauer
Not A Truck
Posts: 3959
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:59 pm
Location: Tallahassee
Contact:

Post by mbauer » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:04 pm

I agree, some positions are a little harder to start with on the map (ie Iroquois and Sioux). I sort of intended a different strategy to be employed with each start. The Iroquois and Sioux don't do well with a really aggressive, let's take over as much land as possible as quickly as possible approach. They tend to do better with a mostly soldiers, slow but steady approach. Where as the Cherokee, Apache, and Bella Coola are intended to be the really aggressive mostly knights, attack and attack fast starts. The rest I tried to make somewhere in between.

That was my intention at least, whether or not that came out is debatable. It might be good to strengthen the Sioux and Iroquois a little.

User avatar
dustin
Lux Creator
Lux Creator
Posts: 10871
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 2:01 am
Location: Cascadia
Contact:

Post by dustin » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:45 pm

I think some variety in position strengths can be good, especially in offline maps.

User avatar
Behemoth
Lux Flyweight
Posts: 1403
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:09 pm

Post by Behemoth » Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:42 pm

Agree with the offline point sure. My comments were based on a human game.

I suppose I thought Sioux deserved a better chance is all... then again it might be my aggressive playing style that's to blame. :smt064

Post Reply