SuperLeague *9 Reports Part II

[Mathemagician]

Originally posted by Nuke Boy


Turn 269

WHAT turn ?

[Av8tor]

Originally posted by Mathemagician


WHAT turn ?

I don't understand

[Mathemagician]

hehe. i was just surprised and couldnt believe you got that far. the question was merely rethorical

[filix]

Originally posted by Keygen
And here's the turn for review:

I cant download the save file

[Mathemagician]

downloaded and mailed.

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Keygen
I have already claimed victory so I can't accept - and for other reasons - but for the sake of fun and to verify this we could play 8-9 more turns and see if I am right. I do have spotted several cities of yours in the west, east and northeast and I am able to explore the south as well in no time.

I'd be happy to play you in a 1x1 PBEM Challenge Ladder game anytime in the future but not for the next few weeks as I expect to finish some of the games I currently play.

I will challenge that claim if you want Keygen. Giving you an excuse to continue for those 8-9 turns. Honestly, I dont think you can. You will need to take an average of 2.5 cities per turn. Unless you are really interested in keeping it up, there is no need. However if you do, I will play to the end.

[Keygen]

2.5 cities per turn would mean that you still have 19-20 cities. I have captured or anihilated 22 cities so far if I remember correctly so that would mean that you should have built 40-41. Is that true?

In turn 90 I captured "Nicomedia", "Virconium1" and "Tarentum1".
I have also spotted "Vindonissa", "Genua", "Viminiacium", "Tarentum", "Antium1", "Hispalis", "Rome1", "Argentoratum", "Londinium1", "Agrippina" and "Eburacum1". I can capture all of the above in 8 turns the most and several others if they're near the above cities I mentioned.

I have 29 cavalry, 14 fascists and 6 fighters plus some other lower value units, near the fore mentioned cities. I will have 11 more fighters within the next 2 turns and 7 more within the next 5 turns.

Unless you have a city built within a mountain range that can't be crossed by cavalry or in a place far away from the fore mentioned cities and with careful calculations I could have taken all the above cities plus some more (few) if they're near.

[Nimrod]

Fairly accurate estiments. I will let you know as of my turn 91, I have 19 cities.

[Keygen]

OK Nimrod, here's the deal.

If I don't take all your cities before turn 100 (turn 99 is valid) then in our upcomming 1x1 PBEM Challenge Ladder game you will begin with one more settler but the PBEM Mod will be used (I will alter the code so that you get the additional benefit) or kill a settler of mine if I won't find a way to get you an additional settler with the PBEM used. If I take all your cities before turn 100 then we shall begin with the same number of settlers.

Note that if we continue up to turn 100 regardless of the result, this will not affect our SuperLeague 1x1 game meaning that I am the winner and that will not change (plus the bonus for winning under turn 100).

[Mathemagician]

if you make such an agreement for the challenge ladder, please post it there too so that quinns is aware of it and can approve or contradict.
so far all settings agreements have been symmetric. not sure if this one is okay.

[Dimytes]

It should be ok if both agree to it, shouldn't it?

©Dimytes 2004

[Nimrod]

A friendly bet is fine by me. When we start our 1x1 PBEM Challenge, we will be on even ground, regardless of the outcome of this game. I was just trying to make a loop hole to prevent such a horrible lose

[Mathemagician]

Originally posted by Dimytes
It should be ok if both agree to it, shouldn't it?

as long as the starting conditions (at least those under control of the players) are equal. i feel that those handicap agreements are somewhat contrary to the spirit and also the relevance of a ranking system, be it ladder or point based.

[hatschy]

Some reporting:

1x1 #7, Protoss72000 vs Hatschy: Hatschy leading at turns 169 and 179.

1x1 #29, FlameFlash vs Hatschy: Hatschy leading at turn 39.

2x2 #3, Raging Hordes vs ELF, ranking at turn 69:
1. Gavrushka
2. Hatschy
3. Mathemagician
4. ricketyClik

2x2 #1, Raging Hordes vs SAR, ranking at turn 49:
1. Gavrushka
2. Hatschy
3. FlameFlash
4. Gumpold

2x2 #6, Raging Hordes vs Spys, ranking at turn 39:
1. Hatschy
2. Nimrod
3. checkMate
4. Gavrushka

[quinns]

Originally posted by Nimrod
When we start our 1x1 PBEM Challenge, we will be on even ground, regardless of the outcome of this game.

This is the best way to play the PBEM Challenge Match, in my opinion. That is, with no handicap to either player. Maybe Keygen could change his PBEM Challenge handicap bet to a MONETARY bet in your current game? (Not that I condone gambling, mind you ... )