Unfair Multiplayer game?

[Hagbart]

Today I finished a game of PTW with a friend of mine. We played only 2 players and no computers, tiny map and sim turns.
We started on each our own continent ca. the same size (these were the only 2 continents of the map). After a while we had both filled our land up with cities and I decided to wait for tanks until I would attack (I have most expirience playing the game so I would definitely win, I thought). So time passed by and when I reached the time when oil and rubber get visible on the map I found out that I did not have a single one of those 2 resources on my continent... while my component had 2 of each (I know this because I explored his land early in the game before he placed cities everywhere). That sucked and I could do nothing while he built infantry, tanks, airplanes, battleships and so on. So I decided that I should try to get hold of some resources and I launched a grand attack of 5 galleons filled with cavalry, rifelmen, and most important artillery...and after many many casualties I conquered a city defended by infantry, and got a rubber resource. I quickly rushed a harbor and upgraded all my rifelmen to infantry (ca. 30 i think) and started building marines... but my city on the other continent was heavy bombarded and I lost the harbor quickly...
Later on I discovered that I did not even had a single aluminium or uranium resource either!
So I couldn't compete in the spacerace/nuclear fight... it all sucked and I knew I couldn't win the game. And my capitol was turned to rubish by a ICBM.

So all this shows just how important resources are and that luck can be very important to win a game.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

Well, I actually like games better when they are unfair. Makes it more interesting. In that game you could have saved up quite a few thousand gold and done a mass rush, and drafting turn. But still unfair.

I guess this teaches us that you should use your advantage when you have it. Dont wait when you can succeed now.

So yes, the game was unfair, but thats all part of the game

 

[zerksees]

I bet you will play differently next time!

With 20-20 hindsight, why not go and start developing on his continent earlier?

If you are the better player, certainly you should have had an economic advantage earlier and started attacking early. Many civ3 players like the simplicity of tanks, MI and MA for battles. Tanks are usually involved in the decisive battles in my games, but I am usually #1 or close to it before they exist. The game is almost academic by the time MI and MA are created.

(I do not play sim turns so I am not sure what effect that might have on the game)

Anyway, surely a rematch will allow you to prove your point.

 

[Jon3229]

it just Civ, sometimes you get a good starting locasions and sometimes you will get bad. It is what makes the game fun to play

 

[JMK]

To what I understand, you get Iron, Horses and Salpeter
Furtheremore you wrote that your are a more experienced player than your opponent
So, you should have been able to reach Magnetism and Military Tradition well before your poor opponent.
Tell us why waitting for tanks when you have the right weapons in your hands?

 

[wtiberon]

I always conduct early warfare...If I were you I would have gotten Great lighthouse early then launched alot of swords. You may have not completely killed him but you could have slowed him down enough to settle his land and have a foothole to get those resources.

Wtiberon

 

[CaptainCivFreak]

Why wait? That was an unfortuate mistake. What I normally do is build a 'wall' of cities so that my enemies cant get through without starting a war. Then I line up units along my borders so that he cant pass at all. Finally, when it is a good move; I go in for the kill by killing one city at a time (based on ring city placement) from the outside in, slowly making my way toward his captiol.