secret to finishing games

[cavebear]

Apolyton News Post and Gazette Feb 24, 2001

CaveNews (R) - War4ever agrees to long-term games! KenThur and others support this radical new proposal!

Long a proponent of such, War4ever reiterated his support of long-term games using the "preset time/day" system of old in an interview today. Stating that "games just don't continue to the really intersting parts", Mr. War4ever announced his full support for the idea.

In a related interview, KenThur also supported the proposal. Responding to a question on "Modern Weaponry", Mr KenThur related his difficulty in gaining experience with Mobile Warfare and Women's Suffarage, stating "I never get that far before other players quit the game. Just once, I'd like to see the game go farther".

Other players are not so sanguine about the idea of advanced years. Eyes of Night, a regular player of many names and some skill declared "If my opponents make it to 500 BC or so, it would be all over for me", adding "but they never do, so they are all my ******* anyway. It's a cr*p-a$$ mute (sic) point anyway."

Still, the concept may spread, as many players seem to be in the doldrums these days. As one player, Nap, said "You think I am good with triremes and chariots, you should see me with stealth tech".

Markusf, when asked, merely smiled and said "We are attempting to address that issue now."

The debate rages on.

[War4ever]

ROTFLMAO well done Cavebear...... your up for a pulitzer with that article...... other candidates include..... Alexanders Horse's "building on Mountaintops is a cheat" ..... Capo's "I am the biggest ***** @ Apolyton"..... EON and Markusf piecess on "I am the greatest player in the world" and last but not least ....... Agharta_ID and his piece titled ...."My settings only" .....


Stay tuned for the winner and whiner

[Hydey]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 02-24-2001 05:26 AM</font>
*horse scours his hard drive looking for a save where Hydey is doing well*


<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Try looking in your recycle box, for you probably delete games you are not winning.



------------------
I am the real Troll
A.H. is a nice guy
Sooky Sooky La La

[KenThur]

Thanks & let's hope so Cave!

Raspuke'n: You slobber...
"...just to placate an apetite for modern era units."
No wonder the other Auzzie's talk about U the way they do.

And as for "Play by yourself, if U want to see modern units."...
Yeah, like the AI knows how to conduct an invasion supported by air & naval units that blitzkriegs it's way thru the heart of your civ using armor & RR to strike deep into your wonder city.
Or is it, that your fellow Auzzie's havn't blessed U with that sort of baptisum that can happen ONLY in modern times.
Perhaps because they, how did U say it? They all "politely surrender" after U get Mich's & Leon's?
GAG! Choke! Whimps!
As we say in auto racing... to finish 1st, 1st U have to finish.
Even my dull little mind has started to figure out that "Eyes of _____" win-by-intimidation tactic. Rush thru the start as above & hope that your competition capitulates when they see a rush of some wonders completed. If not, then as Eyes figured out long ago, the rush builder had better get out of game, because the solidly built Civ's are going to rule in the end, huh? But as we are discussing herein, are you MAN enuf stick it out?


------------------
"Hm-m-m, doubt me you will?"

[Rasputin]

As one of the easist beats in the competition I fully understand people not wanting to waste time in MP games that they stand no chance of winning...

However I also fuly understand that some egomaniacals wish to utterly destroy their opposition rather than let them concede i na favourable surrender... Many Real world leaders of old had the same mind set so nothing unusual in this. But I would hope that in modern world all palyers would realise that with REAL LIFE to take care of Time is too precious to waste on an obvious loss..
But as you also say, jsut becuase some one rush builds wonders is no reason to give up. But if you are down to your last few city sand the opposition had more than 10 times your city numbers and many more times your techs and units then perhpas you need to rethink your oppurtunitys and redo your strategy in next game.
I never concede based jsut on Powergraph as to me it is totally irrelevant , I know the strenghts and weaknesses of my own civ and I know if I can withstand the onslaught of the other civs.

As to your point of AI modern warfare, in most single player games I paly, the AI uses many Tanks and Howitzerrs in a Blitzkreig type attacks, the only differnece is their lack of railroads. But they do target my Engineers building railroads to its citys so it seems to understand that risk (or maybe it just targets weak units) But then again I am not upto your standard and abilty to eqasily defeat AI pre modern warfare units..

I just feel that people should accept taht they have won the war when the oppsoition concedes, not only when the opposition is dead....

[Alexander's Horse]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Rasputin on 02-25-2001 04:37 AM</font>

However I also fuly understand that some egomaniacals wish to utterly destroy their opposition rather than let them concede i na favourable surrender...
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Muwahahaha!!!!!!



------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

[Rasputin]

Damn how did he know I was talknig about him

[Hydey]

I don't think anyone has a problem with people leaving when the situation is impossible, (5 cities & 10 units against 50 cities & 300 units), it is those who leave when the game is still in the balance, perhaps one player has a slight tech lead (1 tech ) or has 2 cities more or that wonder that is wanted, they are the problem players. SHlT I don't want someone to keep playing until I destroy every unit they have but just until it is obvious they can not stop me from doing that.

------------------
I am the real Troll
A.H. is a nice guy
Sooky Sooky La La

[War4ever]

Mikes and SOL don't guarrantee victory...... calvalry vs phalanx's.... thats a different story.....

[KenThur]

Totally agree w/ that Rasp.
It is a waste & the game obviously is unwinnable & someone has given it there best shot, both time (schedule) wise & playing hard, fold your cards & call for a new deal. Valuable time is a'wastin'.

If the "crush'm to the last unit" type player wants to, they can save & do it alone later.

[carnide_]

How about a ladder for finished games?

[rah]

Amen Hydey,
Yes that is the most annoying. I won't name names, but I've had people send a hoard to attack me and when the army loses, they just quit. (some without any warning or even a good night.) And you're right, the worst is when the completed wonder message pops and someone quits the next turn.

Granted, I too will concede when it becomes obvious, but I'll at least finish the session to let the leader have some fun. But even if they are obviously stronger, I'll hang in there to see if I can cause some trouble.

Unfortunately it is easier to continue games when you're getting your ass kicked.

RAH

[cavebear]

Rah, I agree there is value to continuing games you are losing. There is a lot to learn from defending in hard circumstances. Besides, quitting losing games is just a child's way...

[Alexander's Horse]

I think there is a point where a clear winner emerges and there isn't much point going on. I think its better to concede than play to the last in some circumstances.

What I find odd about the play of some of my regular partners is how passive they are when behind. I think you might as well come out with all guns blazing.


------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

[Hydey]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 03-03-2001 07:34 PM</font>
I think there is a point where a clear winner emerges and there isn't much point going on. I think its better to concede than play to the last in some circumstances.

What I find odd about the play of some of my regular partners is how passive they are when behind. I think you might as well come out with all guns blazing.



<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

If you feel that way , why don't you ever do it?