Dog vs. Wolf - 1on1

[Andydog]

yeah but not just with the battles, mainly with the surrounding land. A was terrible, mainly tundra. If I'd have chosen to explore north early on rather than toward the Celts, things may have been different, but not much. I also seemed to loose a heap more than normal units to raging barbs.

As for B - there was slightly better land towards the Arabs, but mainly plains. The game seemed to swing against me when I lost my 3rd city (my iron city no less) to the arabs in a culture flip. What are the chances that so early on??

Another of my big dissapointments with Civ3 is how much luck plays in the game, and how badly it is distributed.

anyway, back to you.

[sabrewolf]

yep, civ3 is still a lot about luck... if i compare your starting location in ironciver to moonbars for example... he had food bonuses, lots of grassland and was not stuck on the tip of the peninsula.

don't forget that against barbarians you only get offensive advantage, none in defence. i always send out lots and lots of warriors and spearmen to clear away barbarian camps when before i'd expect the hordes coming (short before the era change).

lets hope civ4 has less luck in it...

[sabrewolf]

A: no battles, just 1 pillaging action

B: no battles either


btw:
- in A the lands NW really would have been a lot better. shows how important early scouting is.
- in B, your land would be great for agricultural (desert like plains) and industrial (faster workers for all that irrigation)
i have loads of desert too in B, but it doesn't harm me as much as it did you. and i very soon sent out a large worker taskforce to convert forrest and mainly jungle into grassland.

[Andydog]

back to you, no battles.

I did explore North in A but the warriors got killed by barbs so never got very far. I concentrated more East where I thought I'd have to cut off the Celts. It would have been nice to have iron - horses are okay but lack that penetrative punch that you so often need.

I had a great online game with Mickeyj once. He had more land but my land was better, and it allowed me to catch him up during the industrial ages.

But well done. I think your war experiment would have backfired if I had better land. Definitely in A, if I had iron I think I’d have wiped out those celts before you were ready to strike. In B, I took the arab cities but they didn’t grow quick enough because of all the plains – also I had a brain explosion which led to me forgetting your galleys travel 3, not 2 tiles, and so you managed to land troops and grab my capital.

[sabrewolf]

A:
- vet knight vs. fort vet spear in istanbul, wins with 1HP left

B:
- vet treb bombards edrine: no damage
- vet treb bombards edrine: 1HP damage to spear
- vet knight vs. 3HP spear (1 treb free shot): wins with 1HP loss
==> edrine captured
- reg knight vs. fort reg spear: wins, 2HP loss
==> izmit captured
- vet knight vs. fort vet spear: retreats, 1HP damage
- vet knight vs. fort 3HP vet spear: wins, no HP loss
==> uskandar captured

[sabrewolf]

to be honest, your resistance in A is a lot fiercer than in B. the last turn you had 1 single spearman in each city and i can see you capital defended by a warrior.
i know i slaughtered a big part of your army when taking istanbul earlier on and the swordsmen who didn't manage to successfully counterattack, but i didn't expect it to be easy back there!

oh well, B looks like if it is decided and A... well, it going to be difficult, because my knights are gradually being produced and without pikemen there's not much you can do.

btw, speaking of iron: i had to be very aggressive to get iron in both. in the B game, i had to kill 1 dutch settler and a city, then place a settler of mine right beside the amsterdam borders and poprush culture (add workers, poprush, etc). in A, i had to send out a settler very far north to place in on the iron spot... again culture-rushing needed. and the volcano actually cut me off from iron for quite some time. i think nearly 20 turns (send workers there, clean pollution on hills, road the tile again).

but in the end i still had the better situation than you.


btw: if i had known that you were so near in B, i would have tried an archer rush

Originally posted by Andydog
back to you, no battles.

I did explore North in A but the warriors got killed by barbs so never got very far. I concentrated more East where I thought I'd have to cut off the Celts. It would have been nice to have iron - horses are okay but lack that penetrative punch that you so often need.

I had a great online game with Mickeyj once. He had more land but my land was better, and it allowed me to catch him up during the industrial ages.

But well done. I think your war experiment would have backfired if I had better land. Definitely in A, if I had iron I think I’d have wiped out those celts before you were ready to strike. In B, I took the arab cities but they didn’t grow quick enough because of all the plains – also I had a brain explosion which led to me forgetting your galleys travel 3, not 2 tiles, and so you managed to land troops and grab my capital.

[sabrewolf]

110bc to you btw

[Andydog]

well back to you, but yup, both have been decided. I couldn't compete with growth and production and you deserve both games. Nicely played.

I don't mind carrying on if you want to continue against the AI, otherwise we could start another..?

[sabrewolf]

A:
- catapult fails
- elite medinf vs. fort vet spear: wins, 5HP loss
- vet medinf vs. fort vet spear: wins, 1HP loss
- elite sword vs. fort vet horse: wins, 2HP loss
- vet medinf vs fort vet warrior: wins, 2HP loss
- vet horse vs vet hors: wins, 3HP loss
==> istanbul taken
2 workers captured

[sabrewolf]

B:
- knight takes undefended iznik

oh well.. your other cities really do look toast in B. and in A, i can see another undefended city.

if you want, you can resign, or play on... whatever you prefer! i may finish the game against the AI, but it will be a bit dull as i'm dominating in both games.

[sabrewolf]

about another game: i'd be willing to participate in another one (maybe not 2 more). but i really want to get au601 moving. the other game would have to be secondary and only be played when waiting for the au601 game

but as for the next game: how can we guarantee equality?

another idea would be playing together against a sid AI. could you imagine that?

anyway... thanks for 2 good games! pity the differences were too big to get a good comparison!

[Andydog]

playing together against the AI on Sid doesn't grab me that much, mainly because I feel that I haven't yet had a reasonable chance to beat you.

I wouldn't mind giving the Iroquios a crack. How about standard map, continents, everything else random?

[sabrewolf]

ok, lets forget about the sid idea.

you do have 2 games where you'll probably beat me: flawed and swift... but imho we won't ever get anywhere near a battle because it's moving waaaay to slow

iroquois you say?
i'll have to think about how i'd like to react to that. maybe celts, maybe and ultra-early UU, maybe greeks or zulu... i'll get back to you

are you sure about continents? if we should happen to be on different ones and have fairly even land, the game will take forever, definatly end of industrial...

however, that would be interesting against you

[Andydog]

The game would take a while, but they all do don't they?

I've always wanted to try out modern warfare on another human, hence the continents idea. I'm hoping we'll be on different ones!

[sabrewolf]

we could get someone to check a map that we're on different continents.

heck, i'd even let you look at my starting location to check if it's ok... as long as we're on different continents (you far east, me far west, or the other way round), i can survive knowing that you have knowledge of my capital