ESOCommunity

Heard some mixed opinions about this so thought I'd make a poll about it.

If your civ has more vils early on, then I'd imagine it wouldn't be hard to send them to eat out opponents mines before they have the chance to do so tehmselves. This would cripple the opponent more than yourself. Then the game would turn into a race of who can gather all the coin first, similar situation as racing to fill the whales with fishing boats in NR40... Imo kinda lame so I wouldn't want the vils to travel over hm.

harcha wrote:If your civ has more vils early on, then I'd imagine it wouldn't be hard to send them to eat out opponents mines before they have the chance to do so tehmselves. This would cripple the opponent more than yourself. Then the game would turn into a race of who can gather all the coin first, similar situation as racing to fill the whales with fishing boats in NR40... Imo kinda lame so I wouldn't want the vils to travel over hm.

Yeah, would say it's far from being as extreme as the whale example you gave but would definitely make the warchiefs civs more viable.

Half map is both stupid and necessary at the same time.

Mitoe wrote:Half map is both stupid and necessary at the same time.

Why stupid?

Because it’s kinda boring, and it feels so contrived. At least there might be some strategy before the treaty ended if half map rule didn’t exist.

Instead half map just sets it up so both players just ram units into each other for 5 minutes after the treaty ends, without too much thought going into real strategy. I know I’m oversimplifying that a bit, but still.


Even so, I can see how stupid it would be if someone just snuck like 30 petards into their opponent’s base before it was walled up and just sat 2-3 on top of all of their buildings and then killed them instantly, etc etc.

Also certain civs with more vills would benefit a lot more than others from being able to use more natural resources.

I get all of that, and while I think that it’s stupid that we have to rely on a gentleman’s agreement for this sort of thing, I also understand that the treaty community is too small and mostly too casual—on top of little opportunities for treaty-specific balance changes, especially for different time rules—for it to realistically make sense to have no rules.

NR40* is just an endless game of rock, paper, scissors!

*I know thread is about NR20

@Mitoe can 100% assure you that a lack of half map rule would not make Treaty any more strategically interesting, rather it would make it cheesy to the point of unplayability.

and it should be the opposite of contrived, seeing as historically at the end of treaties there was precedence for meeting in an agreed upon place for battle. Métis had a nice post on it from the way back, but I’ll be damned if I could find it

How would you enforce it?

@Riotcoke https://youtu.be/L7-0ugujS2U

Cometk wrote:@Mitoe can 100% assure you that a lack of half map rule would not make Treaty any more strategically interesting, rather it would make it cheesy to the point of unplayability.

and it should be the opposite of contrived, seeing as historically at the end of treaties there was precedence for meeting in an agreed upon place for battle. Métis had a nice post on it from the way back, but I’ll be damned if I could find it

No I understand that, I just think it's a shame that that's the case.