Thanks!Spoiler :krikav's Alex map is certainly a better breather than the Alex map I posted I while back.
Spoiler :Makes me wonder which of the two Alex maps would, on average, be considered the harder of the two. One would assume the Continents map, since on a Pangaea you can meet/manipulate the other AIs...but the same is true in reverse, and the continents map has you eventually take control of so much land (you're not going to get anywhere trying to stay peaceful, let's just be honest here) that it'd take a nightmare scenario to stop you. The Pangaea, meanwhile, forces you into a very early war that's going to drag on for at least a bit, after which you'll need to recover your economy and bulb/trade your way back into the tech game. Certainly doable, especially with a PHI leader. But I wonder if the vulnerable time you spend recovering and the chance of someone throwing a surprise wrench in your plans (decide to DoW someone without metal? Someone trades them Copper for a Cow
) is worse than a nightmare scenario on the Continents map, given the amount of land you'll have access to.
Just came across this map. Should be pretty fun to watch on video if you decide to play it. The early game is pretty sparky, if you know what I mean (I'm sure @Fippy would love this map btw). The rest should be a piece of cake (I only played the first ~80 turns as always, a nightmare scenario can always happen)
Anyways, here's the start:
View attachment 505993
(sorry for the Antivirus thingy, having trouble taking a screenshot on my workplace computer, leader is Churchill)
Oh and it's a continents map btw (medium seas, cold climate, unedited)
Oh, and to anyone else playing this, have fun
Edit: Combat 1 warrior on screenshot is because original leader was Toku (agg), changed him to a leader you hadn't played on video yet. Just corrected this and reuploaded the save.
IIRC the originalhappened because Civ I didn't have unit HP, so a Spear only needed to get lucky once to beat a tank. Civ II introduced it, though it had it's own quirks because of how it handled ties in a combat round.
I can easily believe that odds shown are incorrect, but also I know that probabilities are hard to understand. I find the constant complaining of bad luck a bit off-putting. 90% is not 100%. 99,5% is not 100%. It's easy to ignore the times you win a +90% fight and get upset when you don't win it.