Great Wall vs. Sun Tzu's - Page 2

Ming · May 1, 2003, 03:40

ST last longer... and even walls can't stop vet cannons

C-F-G · May 1, 2003, 05:29

All these peacekeeping/-getting measures i don't really like when i have the Wall (same with United Nations) and if an enemy has it it's really unfair because it can't be sabotaged - that's why I like playing without GW.
So my choice is Sun Tzu, but remember Sun Tzu IS NOT a barrack in every city. There's one important thing Sun Tzu don't give - the repair of a damaged ground unit in one round - could be important is some situations

-Jrabbit · May 1, 2003, 08:38

I'll take my chances with an all-vet army...

rah · May 1, 2003, 09:07

Yes, because there's a chance when the boats appears on surprise and the crusaders start hopping off, that a 2 or 3 vet pike might survive an attack. They can't repair if they're dead.

Old n Slow · May 1, 2003, 14:32

Narz, I voted for Sun Tsu over at Cfc & I’m surprised that my two reasons weren’t explicitly expressed here already

1) The opportunity cost of the Wall is higher -- the pressure for building wonders is greater with the ancients than at any other time.

2) Sun Tsu works well as an auxiliary with Leo’s -- after the units are upgraded, they can quickly becomes vets (again) -- so Sun Tsu makes Leo’s a little bit better.

rah · May 2, 2003, 09:08

Atawa metioned it for iron clads, but ST is also good for making vet tirenes. When another player builds lighthouse, it's tough to slow them down at sea without the equivalent vet ships. Or you keep a ship in vulnerable ports and rush build a second when you see a ship approaching. You will probably lose the first one but the second one will have a good chance to finish it off and be a vet.

C-F-G · May 2, 2003, 10:30

Quote:

Originally posted by rah When another player builds lighthouse, it's tough to slow them down at sea without the equivalent vet ships. Or you keep a ship in vulnerable ports and rush build a second when you see a ship approaching. You will probably lose the first one but the second one will have a good chance to finish it off and be a vet.

In different games three non-vet triremes were not able to destroy one vet-trireme - dunno if it's just unlucky, but it happens very often. That's why the guy with the lighthouse wins most duels @1x1xdeity

rah · May 2, 2003, 11:34

Three,

I would say unlucky. Of course I won't attack with the second unless the first one did some decent damage. I can only remember missing with three once or twice. If not enough damage, save them for the next try.

Ming · May 2, 2003, 12:30

Quote:

Originally posted by C-F-G
That's why the guy with the lighthouse wins most duels @1x1xdeity

It depends on what kind of worlds you are playing on.

Plus, if you opponent gets lighthouse, and you feel it gives him too much of an advantage... just outrace him to better ships

DrSpike · May 2, 2003, 14:46

Quote:

Originally posted by C-F-G
In different games three non-vet triremes were not able to destroy one vet-trireme - dunno if it's just unlucky, but it happens very often. That's why the guy with the lighthouse wins most duels @1x1xdeity

Statistically that is a little unlucky.

On water worlds I think it's best to agree that noone will build lighthouse. Your only hope is racing to make it obselete and get better ships yourself, like Ming said, but in a duel where your opponent controls the seas a tech lead is hard to sustain.......and you never know which coastal city he might try and take with some crooks.

C-F-G · May 2, 2003, 15:01

Problem with outracing is - he normally finds me and "trades me to death"

Ming · May 2, 2003, 15:29

IMHO... people playing duels on Large Water worlds... or island worlds... aren't looking for a quick finish.

In the long run, Lighthouse isn't really all that much of an advantage as you race through the tech path. Magelan's is another thing... it doesn't expire

rah · May 2, 2003, 15:45

On the small one continent maps that we play 2x1x on, the advantage of lighthouse is qreatly reduced.

RAH
one if by land, two if by sea.

War4ever · May 2, 2003, 16:21

well i remember when i dueled a x1x1 deity with Kenthur....we had played many times...and i kicked his Arse every game......

In his last civ mp game that i know of , its been years now since hes been around playing....

he had three triremes and they all attacked my trireme, the first made me a vet with no damage and i cheered over kings chat....

the second made a slight dent in my vet boat, and the third died hopelessly....

he *****ed, complained the game had cheated him the last time and promptly quit.....

he has not played civ2 mp since then....

i laughed....the outcome was already over....but to quit over a few lost boats was silly

anyways, i have found that if you make his boat a vet...do not attack again...many players will thank you in KC for the vet .... so look out hahahhaha

rah · May 2, 2003, 17:17

HAHAHAHAH, Yes I played another quite famous poster. (i won't say the name) and I had snuck a settler/vet pikeman combo into his territory and built in the middle of a river network on a river forrest. When he discovered the city he went all out to destroy it. By the time he had his force ready, I had a placed a second city two off the access river to keep track of what was headed towards the target city. He rushed the city with 4 (i assume vet) knights. and had about 8 more on the river system to attack the next turn. The 4 knights died a horrible death against the pikeman. On my turn, one of my other cities build GW and I sprung the ambush on the rest of his knights lined up on the river. All were destroyed. Within ten seconds, he had disconnected from the game and has never asked to play in another game with me.

Quit a game over loosing some knights. BAH.

RAH

Ming · May 2, 2003, 17:36

Yes... that is one of bennies of GW. Instant fortresses

Nothing better than having GW... and marching that pikeman/settler combo into enemy territory... and then building on that gold his capital is using. You get a lot of bang for your buck, because they always seem to go all out to knock you out.

War4ever · May 2, 2003, 18:09

i remember the first game i played with you lads and you did the pike set combo on my special...it was gold IIRC...i was pissed, learned from my mistakes....and got revenge.... the next game...

it was a good learning experience for me....one i am sure you two jokers relish to this day!

DrSpike · May 2, 2003, 18:12

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
HAHAHAHAH, Yes I played another quite famous poster. (i won't say the name) and I had snuck a settler/vet pikeman combo into his territory and built in the middle of a river network on a river forrest. When he discovered the city he went all out to destroy it. By the time he had his force ready, I had a placed a second city two off the access river to keep track of what was headed towards the target city. He rushed the city with 4 (i assume vet) knights. and had about 8 more on the river system to attack the next turn. The 4 knights died a horrible death against the pikeman. On my turn, one of my other cities build GW and I sprung the ambush on the rest of his knights lined up on the river. All were destroyed. Within ten seconds, he had disconnected from the game and has never asked to play in another game with me.

Quit a game over loosing some knights. BAH.

RAH

I want to know who this is.

Msg me on icq with the answer later.

Cruddy · May 2, 2003, 23:16

The banana.

Neither. I like to capture ST before it goes obsolete but barracks are not an expensive build (for the effect they give).

To hand build ST, I would have to sacrifce a vet SOD. OK, if a great leader is available , I'll build it - usually not. My early war efforts are quite pififul by most 'Poly members standards.

GW has only figured in 1 game of mine - I captured it the turn after war had been declared on me and the AI never recovered. An oddity.

Where IS that banana?

War4ever · May 3, 2003, 15:09

uh we looking at civ2 not civ3 mate

DrSpike · May 3, 2003, 15:31

Quote:

Originally posted by War4ever
uh we looking at civ2 not civ3 mate

*chuckles*

Some might say the thread being in Civ2-Strategy was a small clue.

War4ever · May 3, 2003, 16:43

you never know with some people

rah · May 3, 2003, 18:48

Isn't this the Democracy game forum

War4ever · May 3, 2003, 19:15

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Isn't this the Democracy game forum

Straybow · May 4, 2003, 20:48

Nah, we'd be getting a whole lot more +1s

DrSpike · May 5, 2003, 07:52

No, we'd spend 100 posts deciding whether to start the GW or STWA. Later on of course someone could propose a change of plan, which would require lenghty discussion.

rah · May 5, 2003, 08:28

Yes, I used to wonder where some people generated so many posts from, until I checked out that forum. It has nothing to do with the game.

Straybow · May 5, 2003, 10:26

Democracy Games

Advantage: lots of +1s
Disadvantage: reading everybody else's +1s

rah · May 5, 2003, 11:16

I think most of the +1ers don't read all the other +1ers.

RAH

lord of the mark · May 5, 2003, 12:34

I used to prefer GW, but as ive improved i find STWA better.

First of all I dont like to build that many cities, and so the expenses to build walls (which last longer than GW, and dont require upkeep) are not much of a problem. I tend to play on the highest barb setting, and im generally good enough at war not to need GW to get peace offerings. Although I havent tried the kind of things like planting a city on enemies gold that have been suggested.

When i played more expansionist on lower levels i certainly like GW.