Turns 123-140
- Thread starter Wotan
- Start date
We have 28 units in Council territory now. I have sent a few Galleys to threaten the coastline NW of our initial beachhead and it looks as if they are easy lanings to be found there. Should have put 2 MWs on a Galley and landed where our northernmost Galley is. 2 Workers could have been snatched up but OTOH that would have meant 2 less in the beachhead and not knowing there was an opening it was safer to land them all at one place.
Started Gunpowder, ready in 6 turns.
Any minute now Council will download the turn and I guess a big discussion will start as to "how" we could land on the tile they had a worker in.
Started Gunpowder, ready in 6 turns.
Any minute now Council will download the turn and I guess a big discussion will start as to "how" we could land on the tile they had a worker in.
Robi D
Minister of (Dis)Order
Thats because the silly people don't realise workers don't guard the coast.
ThERat
Deity
I think they really thought they can block with workers, fools
Kickbooti
Ecclesia Militans
"Once more into the breach, my friends!"
Well, it will be interesting to see what happens; and by interesting I mean fun
Well, it will be interesting to see what happens; and by interesting I mean fun
ThERat
Deity
since the turnlog doesn't specify where they hit us, I assume it was all on the mainland. that would mean they defeated 13/20 units. With 8 more units sailing in, we could still attack a little though we have 5 wounded units as well.
Would be interesting to see the save.
Would be interesting to see the save.
Unfortunately the battle report really stink. If they have a MI available why on earth start with a AC against the Pike, oh well there might be some reason for this, it could retreat etc. but even so? And the 14th attack is the most bizzare, a 1/5 AC goes in and win unscathed against a 4/4 MW to be followed by a 4 Horse and 3 additional 3 Horses. I for one would never attack with a severely wounded unit before using a fresh unit. Unless, I guess, I know it would win. And that would require reloading. This stinks of unworthy actions.
There is a very disappointing smell about this battle report. You guys who played in the first MTDG, is this the way you play the game? The order of attacks are highly suspicious, just want your opinion on this before playing the turn. If we are to play the turn that is, this definitely smells of foul play.
EDIT: Another example of the suspicious nature of things: Attack 11 is another AC after a few Horses, it win with 2/5 remaining, suggesting a 4 Horseman would retreat at 1 HP but the 5/5 AC remain and fight.
Isn't this the final nail in the coffin of the concept of MTDGs?
EDIT2: Would be interesting to know the outcome had they attacked in a more natural order. MI followed by ACs followed by Vet Horsemen and finally Regular Horsemen. Maybe one of the mods could do it? The 1/5 AC suddenly used is a real enigma, what a tremendous piece of luck! Maybe it should not be included...
EDIT3: Without being too much of a conspiracy seeker ( ) I wouldn't be surprised if the losing units they had were the ones not able to reach the city after battle while the survivors made it into it.
EDIT4: In light of everything else I am also curious about their reasoning regarding the order of Galley attacks. the most important attack, on our galley next to the mainland is the second attack first they attack the stack near the small island losing then go after the threat. The first attack is simply a sacrifice in my view, it contributs nothing but the second attack is valuable to win. They fight around the beachhead, then zip up to the small island and then back again for an attack near the previous site. Odd, would love to hear their reasoning. maybe I am seeing things where there are none but the battle reports from the main action do trigger a very inquisitive eye.
There is a very disappointing smell about this battle report. You guys who played in the first MTDG, is this the way you play the game? The order of attacks are highly suspicious, just want your opinion on this before playing the turn. If we are to play the turn that is, this definitely smells of foul play.
EDIT: Another example of the suspicious nature of things: Attack 11 is another AC after a few Horses, it win with 2/5 remaining, suggesting a 4 Horseman would retreat at 1 HP but the 5/5 AC remain and fight.
Isn't this the final nail in the coffin of the concept of MTDGs?
EDIT2: Would be interesting to know the outcome had they attacked in a more natural order. MI followed by ACs followed by Vet Horsemen and finally Regular Horsemen. Maybe one of the mods could do it? The 1/5 AC suddenly used is a real enigma, what a tremendous piece of luck! Maybe it should not be included...
EDIT3: Without being too much of a conspiracy seeker (
) I wouldn't be surprised if the losing units they had were the ones not able to reach the city after battle while the survivors made it into it. EDIT4: In light of everything else I am also curious about their reasoning regarding the order of Galley attacks. the most important attack, on our galley next to the mainland is the second attack first they attack the stack near the small island losing then go after the threat. The first attack is simply a sacrifice in my view, it contributs nothing but the second attack is valuable to win. They fight around the beachhead, then zip up to the small island and then back again for an attack near the previous site. Odd, would love to hear their reasoning. maybe I am seeing things where there are none but the battle reports from the main action do trigger a very inquisitive eye.
This is GONGs reaction to it:
If it smells like a rat it probably is a rat.
If it is too good to be true it probably is too good to be true.
Living by those simple rules has saved me a lot of grief over the years as I am sure is the case for most who eg. do not jump on the chance to be part when you recieve a Nigeria letter promising you the world or being the 1 millionth visitor at a web site. The thing is this whole mess, beginning with the reactions to our concerns about exploiting the game mechanics and up to this situation, is taking away most of my enthusiasm for a game normally I just love to play. I have yet to start the last couple of batches of GOTMs, Civ3 or CIV.
This last business is probably the worst in making my spirits drop, I definitely would not have given it a second thought Niklas would be a person capable of doing something like what we now see or at least believe we see. That was until I read the battle report. He and I play on the same team in a SGOTM and he was a solid and upstanding guy in my view, he also discuss risks with different scenarios, never talking about doing things on a "hunch". I am especially surprised he suddenly do not play "the odds" in this case. I would definitely play on the best odds possible in every attack. Which would suggest MI attack first followed by ACs (this part might be up for debate with the chance of retreats in the attacks on Pike and MIs the ACs have a better chance of coming out of the battle alive than the MI while the MI has a higher probability of killing the adversary), then Vet HMs and finally reg HMs. Not using the AC would have been an easy decision, according to Offa's battle calculator it had a 28% chance of winning.
When I do not "play the odds" are situations where I have few Elites and want to avoid throwing them at defenders when odds are low. Then I try to soak some HPs off the strongest defenders prior to using my most valuable units. So I guess there are situations when the simple straightforward solution to it is not the "best" solution.
I would probably sum it up in the two following proverbs:
If it smells like a rat it probably is a rat.
If it is too good to be true it probably is too good to be true.
Living by those simple rules has saved me a lot of grief over the years as I am sure is the case for most who eg. do not jump on the chance to be part when you recieve a Nigeria letter promising you the world or being the 1 millionth visitor at a web site.
The thing is this whole mess, beginning with the reactions to our concerns about exploiting the game mechanics and up to this situation, is taking away most of my enthusiasm for a game normally I just love to play. I have yet to start the last couple of batches of GOTMs, Civ3 or CIV. This last business is probably the worst in making my spirits drop, I definitely would not have given it a second thought Niklas would be a person capable of doing something like what we now see or at least believe we see. That was until I read the battle report. He and I play on the same team in a SGOTM and he was a solid and upstanding guy in my view, he also discuss risks with different scenarios, never talking about doing things on a "hunch". I am especially surprised he suddenly do not play "the odds" in this case. I would definitely play on the best odds possible in every attack. Which would suggest MI attack first followed by ACs (this part might be up for debate with the chance of retreats in the attacks on Pike and MIs the ACs have a better chance of coming out of the battle alive than the MI while the MI has a higher probability of killing the adversary), then Vet HMs and finally reg HMs. Not using the AC would have been an easy decision, according to Offa's battle calculator it had a 28% chance of winning.
When I do not "play the odds" are situations where I have few Elites and want to avoid throwing them at defenders when odds are low. Then I try to soak some HPs off the strongest defenders prior to using my most valuable units. So I guess there are situations when the simple straightforward solution to it is not the "best" solution.
I can't believe any player of that calbier would take a risk like that. It simply makes no sense. Here's my pm and exchange with Ginger Ale. I'm not sure if there's a way to check for reloads but this seems as good as case as any.
They should at least have some type of explaination why they'd attack with 28% odds.
I'll be honest, I learned to play c3c with honor with the SGers at CFC and pbem'ers at CDZ. In fact, as TheRat will tell you, we recently were given a hard time for not using exploits in SGOTM. This is the first time I've felt cheated and I think the admins need to step up. This is not whining it's trying to understand why all the sudden the risk taking.
They should at least have some type of explaination why they'd attack with 28% odds.
I'll be honest, I learned to play c3c with honor with the SGers at CFC and pbem'ers at CDZ. In fact, as TheRat will tell you, we recently were given a hard time for not using exploits in SGOTM. This is the first time I've felt cheated and I think the admins need to step up. This is not whining it's trying to understand why all the sudden the risk taking.
Whomp said:
Would still be interesting to know the outcome of a more normal use of attackers. AFAIK Niklas has the game on more than one machine, not sure either if the "problem" would show up.
Had they not "gloated" about it in their roundtable thread I could have let it pass but not now.
EDIT: I definitely feel cheated. And the gloating add salt to the wounds, I would have thought they would keep a low profile trying to avoid the topic of the redlined hero. I have posted a "congrats" in the roundtable thread. And asked for entries in a quiz as to what order players would allocate the attackers if they had to play the situation.
EDIT2: A few incidents come to mind, the first GH I popped gave us barbs, that would have been convenient to replay. As would some of the barb attacks when the situation was a bit worrying from low odds losses. Not to mention last turn when the two Council Workers showed up at the extreme NW. Sure would have wanted to land a unit on them and kill them... Maybe we too need to make sure we have the RNG gods in our corner? But that would just be stupid and then why should we even bother to continue this game if every team replay until the best possible result is had? OTOH that would give everyone the same opportunity to get good results. Not just the teams that give themselves that opportunity.
Oh well, I sure sound like a stupid whiner now don't I? Not what I had thought I would deteriorate into when signing up for this game. But I absolutely agree with Whomp, I definitely feel cheated in this incident and it is not a pleasant feeling especially since the (possible)culprit is someone I had not thought would be capable of the indiscretion at hand. I think that is the absolutely worst part of it.
Had they not "gloated" about it in their roundtable thread I could have let it pass but not now.
EDIT: I definitely feel cheated. And the gloating add salt to the wounds, I would have thought they would keep a low profile trying to avoid the topic of the redlined hero. I have posted a "congrats" in the roundtable thread. And asked for entries in a quiz as to what order players would allocate the attackers if they had to play the situation.
EDIT2: A few incidents come to mind, the first GH I popped gave us barbs, that would have been convenient to replay.
As would some of the barb attacks when the situation was a bit worrying from low odds losses. Not to mention last turn when the two Council Workers showed up at the extreme NW. Sure would have wanted to land a unit on them and kill them... Maybe we too need to make sure we have the RNG gods in our corner? But that would just be stupid and then why should we even bother to continue this game if every team replay until the best possible result is had? OTOH that would give everyone the same opportunity to get good results. Not just the teams that give themselves that opportunity.Oh well, I sure sound like a stupid whiner now don't I?
Not what I had thought I would deteriorate into when signing up for this game. But I absolutely agree with Whomp, I definitely feel cheated in this incident and it is not a pleasant feeling especially since the (possible)culprit is someone I had not thought would be capable of the indiscretion at hand. I think that is the absolutely worst part of it.
ThERat
Deity
okl, let me give my comments about the attacks
vAC (5/5) vs vPike (4/4), wins at 2/5ok, maybe they thought about retreat odds and wounding the pike first, so this is fine
vAC (5/5) vs vMace (4/4), retreats, defender at 2/4
vMace (4/4) vs vMace (4/4), wins at 2/4
why suddenly switch to a mace now??? weird
vAC (5/5) vs vMace (4/4), wins at 4/5
vAC (5/5) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 1/5
ok, here they stop using vAC which would be fine if none is left, but as you can see they now use 5 horses and 4 are regular. Why not use the vAC first? Well, as you can see the first attack here is a loss. Better to lose a horse than a AC
vHorse (4/4) vs vMW (4/4), loses, defender at 2/4
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), wins and promotes to 2/4
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 1/3
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), loses, defender at 2/4
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), wins and promotes to 2/4
vAC (5/5) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 2/5
as stated above, very weird to slot in the vAC at this moment
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 1/3
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 3/3
vAC (1/5) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 1/5
this is the ultimate...there is no way anyone would throw in a 1/5 vAC against a healthy MW. No way any sane person would do that. Of course, if you know it wins against all odds (what are the odds?)
vHorse (4/4) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 2/4
why the sudden shift to a vhorse? I mean they got 2 vets and the rest regular and use vets at 2 specific moments...
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), loses, defender at 2/4
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), loses, defender at 3/4
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 1/3I guess it was ok at this moment to lose 2 reg horses with no defense value as 1 more unit could be defeated in the end.
Overall, this particular sequence makes absolutely no sense at all. I guess you could theoretically ask someone to download the save from gmail and the replay donkey times. Once you figured the right sequence, you can then ask the turnplayer to download and play. This way nobody could ever detect reloads...
If this is what I think it is, actually it's too ridiculous to be true...but too obvious
vAC (5/5) vs vPike (4/4), wins at 2/5ok, maybe they thought about retreat odds and wounding the pike first, so this is fine
vAC (5/5) vs vMace (4/4), retreats, defender at 2/4
vMace (4/4) vs vMace (4/4), wins at 2/4
why suddenly switch to a mace now??? weird
vAC (5/5) vs vMace (4/4), wins at 4/5
vAC (5/5) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 1/5
ok, here they stop using vAC which would be fine if none is left, but as you can see they now use 5 horses and 4 are regular. Why not use the vAC first? Well, as you can see the first attack here is a loss. Better to lose a horse than a AC
vHorse (4/4) vs vMW (4/4), loses, defender at 2/4
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), wins and promotes to 2/4
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 1/3
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), loses, defender at 2/4
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), wins and promotes to 2/4
vAC (5/5) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 2/5
as stated above, very weird to slot in the vAC at this moment
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 1/3
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 3/3
vAC (1/5) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 1/5
this is the ultimate...there is no way anyone would throw in a 1/5 vAC against a healthy MW. No way any sane person would do that. Of course, if you know it wins against all odds (what are the odds?)
vHorse (4/4) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 2/4
why the sudden shift to a vhorse? I mean they got 2 vets and the rest regular and use vets at 2 specific moments...
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), loses, defender at 2/4
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), loses, defender at 3/4
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 1/3I guess it was ok at this moment to lose 2 reg horses with no defense value as 1 more unit could be defeated in the end.
Overall, this particular sequence makes absolutely no sense at all. I guess you could theoretically ask someone to download the save from gmail and the replay donkey times. Once you figured the right sequence, you can then ask the turnplayer to download and play. This way nobody could ever detect reloads...
If this is what I think it is, actually it's too ridiculous to be true...but too obvious
ThERat
Deity
I was thinking about it. The only way we can be sure they didn't really tinker with things, is to ask Ginger Ale to play the save from them in a normal order...
say attack with all ACavs, then the mace, then vet horses followed by reg horses. Then check whether there is a significant difference.
say attack with all ACavs, then the mace, then vet horses followed by reg horses. Then check whether there is a significant difference.
I would also like to see the outcome of the plan both I and Denyd would use With MI going first.
It is just that Niklas is too good a player to risk a redlined unit. That more than anything else in their battle sequence bothers me. It would be back fighting at full strength next turn if it was in a location with a Barracks else it sure could move to one this turn and be back in two turns. It just is not something a good player would do if it was not a question of taking a chance to win more than just a battle, say attack the final unit in a location. At least I cannot see a reason why but then again maybe I am really bad at Civ3 I was after all told so during the SABER incident.
It is just that Niklas is too good a player to risk a redlined unit. That more than anything else in their battle sequence bothers me. It would be back fighting at full strength next turn if it was in a location with a Barracks else it sure could move to one this turn and be back in two turns. It just is not something a good player would do if it was not a question of taking a chance to win more than just a battle, say attack the final unit in a location. At least I cannot see a reason why but then again maybe I am really bad at Civ3 I was after all told so during the SABER incident.
I have now read the exchange between ThERat and Niklas and I am still feeling cheated. I am also firmly convinced we made a bad judgement accepting to continue after the SABER incident, the game has taken to "kindergarten" proportions. I would definitely vote for us to either just bury the game now or initiate plan B as discussed when we agreed to continue, to gift everything to GONG.. There is no way to regain any confidence vs. Niklas and Council now. And continued play vs. opponents you simply don't trust feels very unappealing.
My big concern right now has nothing to do with this game. I play on the same team as Niklas in a SGOTM. I just don't know how to do in that game. As I said in an earlier post:
EDIT: I am very glad ThERat joined the discussion on Roundtable. I was worried it would be a Wotan against the world. I feel really uncomfortable with the many frakas we have had in this game. Civ3 should be a fun experience but right now it just bring uncomfort to mind. Sad.
My big concern right now has nothing to do with this game. I play on the same team as Niklas in a SGOTM. I just don't know how to do in that game. As I said in an earlier post:
EDIT: I am very glad ThERat joined the discussion on Roundtable. I was worried it would be a Wotan against the world. I feel really uncomfortable with the many frakas we have had in this game. Civ3 should be a fun experience but right now it just bring uncomfort to mind. Sad.
ThERat
Deity
Seems like I hit the right button
If they have their reasons for this attack which they claim they have, they could just come out and say so properly instead of clouding it...
I for sure would have used up all horses first before thinking about such a move, counting my defenders in the city etc...he lost 2 horses later on which he couldn't have known by then. So, at he time of attack, the situation wasn't desperate at that moment.
Whatever big picture he claims he has...anyway seems like they will hate me for the rest of th game
Sorry I couldn't add on to the conversation but I don't have access during the day. I think we should ask GA to replay the save based on what would be a reasonable attack sequence simply for our own sanity.
ThERat
Deity
yes, he should do that just for the fact that would the 'fishiness' would be eliminated, but he has ruled that there is no foul play
Similar threads
