@Manoir Can you boot @villageois999 ? This player has been skipped 20+ times in a row and last played a turn in April. Perhaps we can just all agree on AI player rules.
2 Likes
just got my replacement hard disk, install steam etc.
1 Like
yaboo was defeated in round 123!
Well, I have no interest in playing on 1v3 and I have no interest in gifting cities to get an ally. Thus, Iâll resign instead. Poor niter locations killed me in this map/not knowing ahead of time where it was.
It will be very hard for me to come back if I come for 2v2 because you have too many science points. If I help you, you win. If I donât help you, maybe there is a little chance.
Cree now have a very good position. A favorable trade could have get a fair 2v2 but without souths cities, no one had a chance against you.
Iâm sorry to see you leave now.
Have fun in other games.
To say Iâm disappointed with the recent turn of events is something of an understatement. I can recall a couple of relatively recent games in which @petrojbl1 basically âwhupped my assâ by focusing on science and producing caravels and frigates whilst I only had galleys and quadriremes. I have been looking forward to a rematch and been really enjoying this game despite this pattern repeating itself and Persia achieving an impressive land grab for the central area containing lots of the available luxuries and Mount Kilimanjaro (providing lucrative tile outputs from the repeated eruptions). An impressive opponentâŚor so I thought.
In order to counter this I went early for religion and the Crusader belief but was unable to maintain units within the borders of Persian cities converted to my religion so the +10 military bonus only proved useful in chipping away at Wolin City State with quadriremes and galleys that took a lot of time and resources to conquer. I anticipated Persiaâs declaration of war against Macedonia but was unable to break out of my arm of the snowflake due the clever positioning of an encampment, units and a Great General. Meanwhile Persia went to war with Greece (canât recall which side declared war) and then @petrojbl1 declared war on England. At this point Persia was at war against 3 Civs and was doing well, resulting in victory over England and taking all of @yabooâs cities. I think Persia had made peace with Greece by this point.
As Macedonia was steadily losing ground in all aspects of the game, especially to Persia and Cree, I engineered a military alliance with @Brutalion to give me a fighting chance against Persiaâs scientifically advanced units. I knew this would likely result in Cree gaining an unassailable advantage over Macedonia, assuming our military campaign went well, but considered it my last âthrow of the diceâ, and after all, you canât win them all. It was also a brave move by @Brutalion who was very weak militarily and had only one city with walls at the time. As it turned out Macedonia and Cree were presented with the opportunity to vote for a 50% reduction in purchasing units with faith at the last World Congress and managed to push through that resolution due to our high levels of Diplomatic Favour. Persia had sacrificed Dip. Fav. in exchange for the benefits of waging war. Macedonia was also using the Press Gangs policy card producing Naval Units at a 100% reduction. Finally, the Macedonia/Cree alliance was looking in good shape, Cree had a large amount of Faith built up to buy units and I was able to capture and hold Sheffield with Tarsus next in my sights, Tarsus being strategically important as it was settled on Persiaâs only source of niter. My own source got destroyed twice by hurricanes which was a real nuisance to my plans of upgrading to frigates and musketmen but âthemâs the breaksâ. I was also aware of Portugalâs Nau âskulkingâ around Taruga (no offense meant @Manoir) and appreciated that a military alliance between Persia and Portugal made a lot of sense and would almost certainly have tipped the balance firmly in their favour. A really intriguing and competitive game where I look forward to taking my turns 
And then @petrojbl1 surrenders 
Persia is currently leading in score, has almost twice as many cities as everyone else, has way more science and culture per turn than its nearest rival and a huge military. So whatâs gone wrong? Thanks to @petrojbl1âs recent post we learn that itâs because Portugal were playing âhardballâ in their negotiations and @Manoir wanted a âbig slice of the actionâ. It was a big ask for @petrojbl1 to relinquish Gordian and Bristol so where was the renegotiation? Instead you just surrender, @petrojbl1. Is it because you thought you were beaten and didnât want to play the game out? You cited â1v3â as a reason yet you seemed quite happy with this arrangement when declaring war on England whilst at war with me and Greece (an AI). I guess itâs ok as long as youâre winning.
IMO you unnecessarily over extended yourself by taking all of Englandâs cities (it wouldâve cost a lot in amenities keeping twelve cities content/happy/ecstatic). You were steadily achieving a scientific and cultural advantage over me so would eventually have produced the advanced units to wipe me out. You also settled Tarsus on the niter making it vulnerable to my frigates and privateers and losing the opportunity to mine it at +3 niter per turn instead of +2. Instead of producing the Forbidden City you could have produced a Holy Site, formed your own religion, created Inquisitors and quickly removed my religion and my +10 military advantage in your converted cities, the advantage you knew I was just about to exploit. You could have employed some diplomatic skill and negotiated the military alliance with @Manoir. My alliance with Portugal only has 3 turns left so you couldâve have cancelled out my +5 advantage from my own alliance with @Brutalion. I was aware that Pellaâs harbour and fishing boats were vulnerable to a sneak attack whilst my navy was committed elsewhere. I suspect you wouldâve cemented your lead even if losing all of Englandâs former cities to Portugal as you wouldâve eventually replaced them with mine whilst still controlling the lucrative central area. You could have settled a city between Hagmatana and Sparda for the source of niter there instead of producing the Forbidden City so the âreasonâ that the locations of niter was unfavourable doesnât ring true. You seemed fully aware of the importance of the luxury resources in the centre of the map during our brief âpin conversationâ early on in the game when you were settling Tushpa and effectively boxing me in.
And to top it all off you post a screenshot revealing critical map information as well as the private negotiations with @Manoir. Fair enough if you choose to surrender but how about not spoiling the game for the rest of us. Not cool.
I wouldâve begrudgingly tipped my hat to you had you gone on to beat meâŚagain! Yet I wouldâve played the game out because thatâs an important way I learn more about Civ6 and particularly the combat aspect. I also like the idea that someone else is relishing the chance to pit themselves against another player and be victorious rather than leaving the inept AI in control with the deminished challenge (and lack of enjoyment) that would present. Weâve all played single player games!
So this appears to be a classic case of âthrowing your toys out of the pram when you donât get your own wayâ. Itâs a real shame you donât seem to be the worthy opponent I believed you to be. Iâm sorry if these words seem a bit harsh but I really am disappointed that such an enjoyable and challenging game has just lost a massive amount of appeal.
1 Like
If I offered him a military alliance without other benefit for me, that was just giving him victory and no options for me.
He should have find a way to negotiate an alliance that would have benefit both of us to go farther in the game. From my point of view, giving him 100% chance of victory wasnât a way to play well.
Thatâs why I ask him for 2 cities from âmy southâ part of the map. It was a way to say: âI support you that are already very good in science and will get us later BUT you have to slow down a bit and help me to get my support and my navy to get the winâ.
Itâs a hard move for him to do but I am sure that it was the good move to do. He could have take more cities than me, get science and kill me later. It wasnât a 100% sure win but he still would have a good position. Now he just tilted and lost.
Peteyboy says:
âI suspect you wouldâve cemented your lead even if losing all of Englandâs former cities to Portugal as you wouldâve eventually replaced them with mine whilst still controlling the lucrative central areaâ
Same point of view as mine 
A hard move to do but the good strategy for a certain victory.
Guys, letâs finish the game anyway if you are ok. Iâve already played some 3 players games that was very cool with the 2 victory conditions (because of a real futur era and real impact in this futur era politics).
1 Like