The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Originally posted by McMeadows
Congrats bongo. Can't say I'm suprised. There's been one crucial battle. The aftermath of that battle allready made me think the game was done.
You're referring to the battle where I took out your entire army aren't you? I remember that I promised to give some more info at a later stage. I think now is a good time
I was lucky in that battle as I only lost one unit, a 'normal' result would probably be about 3-4 lost units. What I never told you was that I had more units available, so my luck was not decisive as I would have taken your army anyway(well, unless I got extremely unlucky). Of course, having lower losses than expected allowed me to advance faster and with more force, it also let me keep a reserve at home large enough to stop jshelr from doing anything 'funny', or to keep him at bay while my forces rushed home.
The only time my 'luck' has been decisive was in 570BC when I took the carthagian city of 'Kasba al Sud'. Not that my luck was exceptional that turn, apart from the fact that my fast units retreated rather than dying(and further delaying carthages golden age) it was more or less as expected (4 horsemen and an AC(totaling 22HP) vs 2 reg num.mercs, a catapult and a 1hp horseman) but losing that battle would have seriously screwed up my strategy against carthage. I may have succeeded anyway but winning there isolated the main forces of carthage inside Kasba al Nord and opened the path towards their capital(and Iron)
Moreover the point has been proven that a very early SoZ does justify a 3-way alliance in every way...
I admit that SoZ haven proven to be stronger than I imagined. Still, an alliance is *not* required. You need to be both cunning and cautious but declaring an open alliance is in fact very stupid as it remove any incentive the owner of SoZ may have to remain peaceful. Having a secret alliance won't help much either as it is all to easy to find out what's going on when no-one wants to trade with you or only wants to give you one-sided deals ( 'There's 3 luxuries in that jungle between us, whaddayasay we share them?'...'NO I WANT THEM ALL'...'one for me and two for you then?'...'NO, I WANT THEM ALL I TOLD YOU, *MAYBE* I SELL YOU ONE OF THEM LATER' )
Without wanting to do injustice to your strong play, you've been very lucky at some points. Or maybe we should say LzPrst has been very lucky. At least it has been rather an easy take over position rather than difficult...
Well, I won in the end but recieving a SGL is very dangerous. There are strong reminders of 'survivor' in this tournament, anyone who pulls ahead, be it by skill or luck is likely to become the target of a dogpile.
One thing has been proven beyond doubt though, SGLs have a tremendous impact on any game. This SGL totally dominated the game.
BTW, lzprst original plan was to rush the pyramids with the SGL, then build SoZ the hard way...
Originally posted by jshelr
...This might go on for awhile, although the Mongol's two AC armies can, with the impending help of bombardment from the mountain position shown, likely take down 3 pikes per turn, with a period of rest between turns. That seige will ultimately be enough to wear down the Russian numbers.
I've got 12 trebuchets waiting for the road to finish, but that was only plan B.
See the pike on the hill north of the mountain? That's plan A In 5-7 turns I would have built a city there, getting access to the road on the forest, then being able to move into the core of your empire more freely. The plan was still under development but both your capital and 'banana fort' was possible targets. I may have done some pillaging first(3-move armies with free pillage are soo cool) to make internal movement of troops even more difficult
yea, that's what I meant by "defensive positions that were slowly narrowing in scope."
I was a bit higher on the page, out of the picture, getting ready to pillage the other end of that road on the next turn, painful as that would have been. there was no way i could let you have a road through the jungle and forests without splitting my pike stack in half or in thirds.
Essentially, you had three workable winning plans. Your plan A, which would have taken a bit more finnessing but would probably have eventually succeeded in splitting the pike stack. Plan B, simple and effective. Or, plan C, which is just build out the land with cities and gain domination.
Couldn't see any way of countering them so I kicked over my queen
I'd been hoping to broach the subject as part of the opening ceremonies for a new PBEM discussion forum, but it seems the time is at hand and the forum is not.
Roughly coinciding with the start of the 30% ICT championship game, I'd like to initiate The Iron Civer Open Tournament. The qualifiying round will consist of 4-player, double-elimination games on tiny pangaeas, organized close to how the 30%er was. Assuming there is enough interest, the winners of the first 6 of these games able to declare victory will advance to the final. This is based on the general interest shown in the current tournament- much more or less than 20-some participants would require some number/format juggling.
In the interest of the 'open' spirit, the 24-hour rule will remain the time enforcement guide, unless everyone interested could commit to a slot. The next progression in the tournament cycle would be an 'invitational' for reliable slot players, but I wouldn't be organizing it until the 30%IC is complete...
Originally posted by Rommel2D The Iron Civer Open Tournament. The qualifiying round will consist of 4-player, double-elimination games on tiny pangaeas, organized close to how the 30%er was. Assuming there is enough interest, the winners of the first 6 of these games able to declare victory will advance to the final. This is based on the general interest shown in the current tournament- much more or less than 20-some participants would require some number/format juggling.
Do you suggest to play a different kind of game in the qualifications opposed to the finals? I would not be interested in participating in an elimination qualification round.
What's your comment on the proposal with 5 or 6 players in time slots? For all I care, you could go with 8 in 3 hour time slots. And why wouldn't you want to start a new tournament early 2005?
I respect you as the organizer and don't want to push you in any direction. Just wondering and it's up to me do decide if I want to participate in your format or not.
don't worry about things you have no influence on...
Originally posted by Rommel2D
I'd been hoping to broach the subject as part of the opening ceremonies for a new PBEM discussion forum, but it seems the time is at hand and the forum is not.
Roughly coinciding with the start of the 30% ICT championship game, I'd like to initiate The Iron Civer Open Tournament. The qualifiying round will consist of 4-player, double-elimination games on tiny pangaeas, organized close to how the 30%er was. Assuming there is enough interest, the winners of the first 6 of these games able to declare victory will advance to the final. This is based on the general interest shown in the current tournament- much more or less than 20-some participants would require some number/format juggling.
In the interest of the 'open' spirit, the 24-hour rule will remain the time enforcement guide, unless everyone interested could commit to a slot. The next progression in the tournament cycle would be an 'invitational' for reliable slot players, but I wouldn't be organizing it until the 30%IC is complete...
Sounds good to me. I like the "first 6" rule.
Would we be signing up en masse and then you'd make 4 player groups? Or would we be signing up as a 4 player group? Or both?
I assume double elimination means 2 city loss? Or do you mean 2 civs? (Which would make for QUITE interesting gameplay, if the other 2-civ games i've played and or seen are any indication...
To echo and restate McMeadows' question, is the Final going to be elimination as well? Or is it going to be a normal game? Personally I'd rather it be a normal game, but elimination is ok if that's how you're going. (I'm a big fan of the qualifier being elim. Just don't put me in a game with Arnelos. )
<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.
Long-time poster on Apolyton and WePlayCiv
Consul of Apolyton from the 1st Civ3 Inter-Site Democracy Game (ISDG)
7th President of Apolyton in the 1st Civ3 Democracy Game
Originally posted by McMeadows
Do you suggest to play a different kind of game in the qualifications opposed to the finals? I would not be interested in participating in an elimination qualification round.
What's your comment on the proposal with 5 or 6 players in time slots? For all I care, you could go with 8 in 3 hour time slots. And why wouldn't you want to start a new tournament early 2005?
It has been 7 months since the start of this tournament. Three qualifiers are complete and the fourth is just nearing it's end. My goal for The Open is to complete the qualification round at somewhere around six months. Assuming we have enough participants for six games in The Open, we will likely need to shorten the current format in order to count on the extra games to finish in less time.
One-a-day slots would seem an overall improvement over the 24-hour rule for inducing fast play, but I forsee three pitfalls: Hoping to make the tournament 'open' and grow the base of interest beyond the 20 player watershed, I have seen some shy away from a 'slot' commitment and so fear this might discourage participation; Also, some who do commit to the slot system have not accurately guaged their own ability to meet said commitment- witness the One-armed Bandits game; Finally, as has already been alluded to, the slot structure tends to inhibit game composures that are conducive to 'rapid-fire' sessions. All of the current tournament's games have benefitted from such sessions at one point or another.
One option for increasing the speed of games would be Accelerated Prodcution. I dislike this because it changes the fundamental mechanics of how the game is played. Much preferable to me is the elimination format which maintains the same basic gameplay, but changes the strategy one must use while applying one's forces. Double-(city-)elimination is based on the philosophy of 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.'
The final game will be more of a 'purist' Civ game. It will not be an elimination game.
Last edited by Rommel2D; November 20, 2004, 01:23.
to slots from me.
In 5-7 turns I would have built a city there, getting access to the road on the forest, then being able to move into the core of your empire more freely. The plan was still under development but both your capital and 'banana fort' was possible targets. I may have done some pillaging first(3-move armies with free pillage are soo cool) to make internal movement of troops even more difficult
)
Tweet
Comment