 |
| |
|
|
smellymummy
|
|
I’m surrendering to the dutch. 
At this point the options are really limited, and personally I don’t want to continue this on for months as a one vs one game, especially with the odds I’m faced with.
Ironically though, I’d like to point out that quitting should be banned from this game. Well in my case it’s down to one on one, and by looking at the game it’s obvious who the winner is. However, early on in the game, the english civ completely surrendered, even though the player still had a fighting chance. Compared to the spanish civ, that stuck to the very end, which is very admirable... something that I believe deserves the mention of a Iron Civer.
Point is, if the english hadn’t abandoned all of their cities, things could have had turned out differently. I don’t want to condemn Trip here at all, I can completely understand why he quit, because I think I would of done the same. I’m just stating something that could of had been addressed about this game before it started, and which should be addressed for future games. Abandoning a city (or more) can make strategic sense, although abandoning everything doesn’t.
Okay, so you want to give up. That is perfectly fine. Just give it to a sub, IMO.
This was a fantastic game. Congratulations to alexman. His amazing usage of all aspects of the Civilization 3 game, gave him the upper edge he needed for victory. If we could bet on this tournament, I would bet on alexman.
And so should you
Btw, Rommel2D has to organize another tournament... at least before winter 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Trip
|
 |
Hunt Valley
Apr 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by smellymummy
I’m surrendering to the dutch.
At this point the options are really limited, and personally I don’t want to continue this on for months as a one vs one game, especially with the odds I’m faced with.
Ironically though, I’d like to point out that quitting should be banned from this game. Well in my case it’s down to one on one, and by looking at the game it’s obvious who the winner is. However, early on in the game, the english civ completely surrendered, even though the player still had a fighting chance. Compared to the spanish civ, that stuck to the very end, which is very admirable... something that I believe deserves the mention of a Iron Civer.
Point is, if the english hadn’t abandoned all of their cities, things could have had turned out differently. I don’t want to condemn Trip here at all, I can completely understand why he quit, because I think I would of done the same. I’m just stating something that could of had been addressed about this game before it started, and which should be addressed for future games. Abandoning a city (or more) can make strategic sense, although abandoning everything doesn’t.
Okay, so you want to give up. That is perfectly fine. Just give it to a sub, IMO.
This was a fantastic game. Congratulations to alexman. His amazing usage of all aspects of the Civilization 3 game, gave him the upper edge he needed for victory. If we could bet on this tournament, I would bet on alexman.
And so should you
Btw, Rommel2D has to organize another tournament... at least before winter |
It was your punishment for attacking me.  Alex was going to win anyways. I was the only shot at stopping him, but I was unable to do so, especially after you interfered. After having been attacked from behind when I was already the weaker power, I would be more likely to have teamed up with Alex to help him win than to act as his "roadblock" to give you a fighting chance.
Bitterness is more than skin deep. You reap what you sow.
Any chance of getting a final shot of the map?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
smellymummy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trip
Bitterness is more than skin deep. You reap what you sow.
Any chance of getting a final shot of the map? |
took you a while to come and chime in here
honestly, i never really thought that you would of abandoned all of your cities Trip.
anyway, no bitterness here! i understand completely what happened. i just wanted to point something out that seems to fit in well with the entire idea of competition. Really now, i think that in civ3, even if a player is faced with a similar situation, it doesn't necessarily reduces the probability of winning to 0%.
considering there is a pool of replacements (how they can qualify to compete in championships though, is beyond me), it seems logical to keep the game going with 4 players, since afterall the game map itself is made for 4 players. of course it's different if a player conquers another completely, however if one just quits, it can definitively be a game deciding factor.
taking all of this into account, if someone simply quits, it tips the balance of a fair tournament, don't you think?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-09-2004 05:59
... ... ...
)
Attachment: 
|