One on One league

Franses · December 15, 2002, 19:47

From my experience with CTP multiplaying I know it is difficult (not impossible, just difficult) to finish games with more than two players. The simple reason is that it is hard to find the dates and times to all get together for the number of sessions that are needed to finish a game. Often (almost always in fact) games with more than two players stalled before they finished. It is one of the reasons why I like one to one games a lot.

It is not always easy to find reliable (= willing to finish games, not cheating) opponents. Especially for PTW it is currently hard to find any opponents at all.

The lagginess of PTW makes it hard to play with many players. Players must be on the same continent, have cable etc.

Finally many of us like to have a feeling for their own skills compared to those of other players.

Because of the above reasons I suggest to start a one to one PTW league here on Apolyton. Since there are not to many players yet we should not make things to complicated in the beginning. So I suggest that participants play against eachother using the settings that they both agree upon. After finishing a game they post the winner here on Apolyton. A winner gets one point and we (I to start with) will keep score of the number of games played and the number of points of each player that participates. Definitly not the best scoring system one can think of but an easy one to start with.

This way we can find reliable opponents, finish games, deal with the lagginess of PTW and get an idea about the skills of ourselves.

Edit: The league has started. This post will be used to define the rules as well as the results of the finished games. We are always looking for new players. If you want to participate in the one to one league post your interest here and/or PM or e-mail me.

Rules
1. All rules defined in this post may be waved or changed if both players explicitly agree on it.

2. Games will use unmodded PTW with the latest patch (currently 1.14f).

3. Cheats are not allowed in the 1T1 league whether named below or not. If in doubt whether a certain action is regarded a cheat, ask your current opponent whether he regards it as such. If so, let one of you post the supposed cheat in this thread to suggest to make it a named cheat.
Named cheats are:
- Unloading armies
- Rush buying cheat (rush buy and then change the item build)

4. The settings below will be used in the 1T1 league unless both players agree upon changing the settings.
Timer: None
Mode: Simultaneous moves at the start but must be changed to Turn based if one of the players asks for it.
Barbarians: Sedentary
Map size: Small
AI players: None
Victory conditions: Default settings
Others: Random

Current playing scheme

Round 1...........................Status
Crousto - Rusty Nail...........Started
Coldark - Franses..............Started
Tom Red; Free

Round 2
Rusty Nail - Coldark
Tom Red - Franses.............Won by Franses
Crousto; Free

Round 3
Tom Red - Crousto
Rusty Nail - Franses..........Started
Coldark; Free

Round 4
Crousto - Franses
Coldark - Tom Red
Rusty Nail; Free

Round 5
Rusty Nail - Tom Red
Coldark - Crousto
Franses; Free

Game results.................date:January 12, 2003

Player.................Played...........Won
Franses..................1...............1
Crousto..................0...............0
Rusty Nail...............0...............0
Coldark..................0...............0
Tom Red..................1...............0

Crousto · December 16, 2002, 12:53

I think that someone already created such a league, check this thread
By the way I signed up to this league and I'm looking for a first opponent

During business days, I'm usually available from 20:00 to midnight (GMT+1).

Franses · December 16, 2002, 13:14

Thanks, Crousto but from what I can see that also supports multi-player games and I want to limit this to one to one games.

You found your first opponent. It is me. Let us have a game together. Perhaps tonight (but I promised to help out Rusty so that probably will not work) but if not tonight, I have Wednesday evening free to play. Let me know if it suits you.

Rusty Nail · December 17, 2002, 16:58

Count me in.This is a good idea.I also have a thread looking for players for one and one.

Franses · December 18, 2002, 19:27

Well we got several games going now. Did not start the league yet. I suggest we need at least one more for that. That must be possible before the year ends.

ColDark · December 28, 2002, 14:31

I've been playing Franses One on One, and he's invited me in the league. So I'll be available from now on.

ColDark · December 28, 2002, 14:33

I would like to try with more players too, so I was wondering whether or not you guys would be willing to try a four way MP - I can host if required.

We're all in Europe, we can see how laggy it is. All we need to do is make sure we are all available at the same time (obviouse).

Franses · December 28, 2002, 14:38

Great to have you here Coldark. It would certainly be nice to also have a four player game. My experience is that it is difficult to finish but if we all play in the same league and regularly meet, we might find the right times to play with the four of us. Count me in.

Franses · December 28, 2002, 14:59

We finally are with four now. The minimum I think needed to start a league. Since there are hardly any posters in the multiplayer section yet (perhaps only after a new patch?) I do not expect to get many more members soon and therefore suggest to start the league. After that more people might become interested.

Being with only four I suggest we start a real league where we all play against eachother. Gives us something to look forward to for some time to come

. I suggest the following playing scheme:

Round 1
Crousto - Rusty Nail
Coldark - Franses

Round 2
Rusty Nail - Coldark
Crousto - Franses

Round 3
Coldark - Crousto
Rusty Nail - Franses

Since we are not always available at the same time I also suggest to start multiple games (for those of us who want that and have the time. For example me

). That way we are optimally assured of an opponent if we have the time to play. We then just use a priority scheme: the game of round 1 has priority over the games of round 2 and 3. Games of round 2 have priority over games of round 3 and so on.

Edit: I suggested some standard rules in the first post. We may change/update that whenever we think it is necessary.
If you guys agree with the above playing scheme I will also add that to it.

Rusty Nail · December 28, 2002, 18:58

Sounds good. I think a standard map is much too big for a one on one, and would suggest tiny as the standard. Even smaller than tiny can work. We don't want these games to last too long or we will get bogged down.

Franses · December 28, 2002, 19:11

hm, you may be right, Rusty. I am not that sure about it. Of my current games the one on the standard map finished first and in the least playtime but a few games do not mean much yet.

Tiny maps will almost inevitably result in a lot of early wars. I would like to have some longer games myself. But I am not the only one here so what do the others think?
Perhaps a small map as a compromise? Remember, the two players can always deviate from the standard if they both wish to do so.

Crousto · December 28, 2002, 19:15

A small map is OK for me. And I'd suggest adding at least one AI too, otherwise a player may easily end up without a critical resource... like horses... pretty annoying when you're playing the Arabs like me in my previous game with Franses

(this is of course the only cause of my defeat... oh well yes maybe he played better than me too

)

Franses · December 28, 2002, 19:21

Well Crousto, you did get my hart beat a lot faster than the AI had ever done before. lol. I sure love the MP games I played thusfar.

OK, a small map will be the standard as two of us prefer a smaller map but are you sure about the AI? I mean, this may greatly unbalance the game. Besides we did have some serious lag problems already in some games (like in the last phase of our own game). Curious to know how the others feal about this.

ColDark · December 30, 2002, 14:46

I'm not too keen on AI at all really, especially in a one on one game. But as I'm new to "online" multiplaying I'll pretty much go with the flow.

I would like to have a long game though. And I'm still waiting to hear whether or not we all are available to try 4 player.

Franses · December 30, 2002, 14:49

After Coldark and I finished our first PTW game, we started our first official 1T1 game.

We played two sessions now and are in 400 AD. Not clear yet who has the better hand. I am quite a bit ahead in points but I had to endure several attacks by Coldark. I lost quite some ships already but was able to counterattack succesfully the land attacks which were no large attacks as of yet so I am preparing for a major attack by Coldark in the near future. Well, I am a builder by nature, so I should be able to handle such attacks. We will see. Perhaps I can even launch my own attack

.

Rusty Nail · December 30, 2002, 18:33

I think it best if there is no AI as it will usually be to one player's advantage, thus introducing an unnesssary uncontrollable factor.

Franses · December 30, 2002, 20:22

OK, so that means no AI in the standard. Sorry Crousto. But perhaps you can persuade us in the games against you to add an AI. It is all a matter of diplomacy

I suggest we all post here which games are running and, of course, the final result. I wish you all a lot of fun and a very HAPPY NEW YEAR

Franses · December 31, 2002, 12:48

Rusty and I also started our game. We ended up very close together and although we saved at 1600 BC many brave soldiers died already in the interest of their country. Persia (me) also lost an improvement due to the early attack made by general R.Nail of the Zulu. Fortunately the Persians had iron nearby and were able to connect it to their trade network. This made it possible to raise Immortals which until now could save the Persian empire from an early end.

We used simultaneous moves as I usually do in the beginning of the game. It makes the start a lot quicker. During the war I happened to just miss the quick Impi's several times. An example: the Impi moves and gets into a position from where I can attack it with an Immortal, I wait a while because I know it can move two steps but it seems not to so I attack with my Immortal. At that point the Impi moves away (in the last case to another position from which the same Immortal could have attacked). The result is there is no fighting but nonethless my Immortal leaves its position and can not be moved again this turn, making it impossible to strike the Impi with this unit. Fortunately I have other units to do the job when we resume the game but it remains tricky business because the Impi is close to my capitol and an important worker is nearby.

The above shows the implementation of simultaneous moves is not good and IMO unworkable. So I advise you all to turn to Turn based as soon as war starts or better still, a while before that so as not to make it obvious that one of you plans to attack.

Crousto · January 4, 2003, 12:06

Rusty and I have started our game. I'm Persia, he's Carthage.
I've been n°1 in the scores board for most of the game but Rusty is catching up and should take the lead in a few turns. It's a tiny map and we are on 2 separate continents. We also started with simultaneous moves and changed to turn-based when the first military assaults occured. Persians immortals had captured 2 Carthaginian cities but quickly lost them back to Hannibal's swordsmen and Numidian mercenaries.
To be continued...

Franses · January 5, 2003, 04:37

Coldark and I resumed our game. It was a very peaceful session (perhaps something to do with Christmas?) which brought us at 740 AD. I am quite a bit ahead in points but...... I already had my golden age and UU which is not the case for Coldark AFAIK. My capitol is in an awkward place. Therefore I am not yet convinced this game is in my pocket. It looks like we will at least see modern times in this game.

Tom Red · January 10, 2003, 07:57

HI Guys - I'd like to join your league - I'm avaialable for a game this saturday or sunday during the day (GMT).

Franses · January 10, 2003, 09:44

Welcome Tom. I added your name to the playing scheme. I wish you a lot of fun.

ColDark · January 10, 2003, 11:50

Welcome Tom Red.

I was going to tell Franses I am not available this coming weekend (visiting family all weekend) maybe you now have another opponent.

DuncanK · January 11, 2003, 12:36

Can I still get into this league?

Franses · January 11, 2003, 15:53

Sure DuncanK. The more the better.

There is one thing though. You are living in California which means our ping may be quite low. All of the current players are from Europe and you may therefore be in for laggy games until a new patch surfaces that solves this irritating problem. If you are sure about this we could try one time to see how good/bad it is. PM or e-mail me to define a time to experiment. I personally never tried playing my American friends because people said it will be laggy but I am sure willing to try.

Franses · January 11, 2003, 19:41

Rusty and I had our second session tonight. We are at 690 BC now and lots of exciting fighting is going on. Rusty, playing the Zulu is attacking me with all he has (I hope, LOL) but sofar I could hold him off while able to continue to build my empire. But for how long? And did I do the right thing?

It is all very exciting. Being a builder by nature I am not at all used to extensive battles this early in the game. And certainly not against a human opponent who takes smart decisions. I sure am looking forward to our next episode. I still have some aces in my sleeve. Let's hope I will get the time to play them.

DuncanK · January 11, 2003, 20:10

I think you are right Franses. There is a lot of lag, especially after the game has progressed. So much that we would have to finish by e-mail I think. Since all of you are in Europe I wont spoil your good set up. Have fun everyone.

Franses · January 12, 2003, 11:35

Thanks DuncanK. Hope to see you back again after the next patch.

Tom and I started and finished our game today. We were very close together and I discovered Tom's capital early in the game (2050BC). It was........ empty but when I threw my warrior against its walls there just entered an enemy warrior (we were still in simultaneous moves) and my warrior lost.

After some defense building I sent a new warrior to check on Tom's empire. That was bad luck for Tom. He just lost some units to Barbarians when I came by. This time the warrior attacking my warrior lost and I could freely enter and destroy Tom's capital. After some more rounds Tom decided to resign from office. A very fast game. I am sure I will get a more difficult time in my next game with Tom.

Franses · January 12, 2003, 11:42

After adding the rankings to the first post of this thread, I decided to split the thread in two individual threads, one for listing the players, the ranking, the playing scheme and rules (all those things that I have to keep track of) and one for questions, discussions and stories. The main reasons for this decision was to make it easier on me. The first post of this thread is just to large and experience with other leagues learned me that it is easier if you do not mix the two.

I therefore suggest that you do not post into this thread anymore but use the appropriate alternative.

******* THREAD CLOSED ****************************