Civ 2 Email Exchange

9/22/04 from Bart:

Alan,

You ask:

"I'd like to know if you're playing against the computer at deity level and how well you do; also something about your basic strategies and how they compare with mine."

Before I forget, you wrote "Trade 2 or more at a time if possible to reduce the effect on your own research." I didn't know this; is it really true? Is there a link to it? (I know when you find tech the next ones take more -- for this reason I will sometimes avoid going into huts until I have discovered monarchy).

Also, I'm curious about how multiplayer games end. Is there an overall time limit, then, instead of playing until someone launches a spaceship or conquers everyone? Whoever is farthest ahead when you call "time" is the winner?

One other thing really easy that the Civ2 designers could have done to make easy would be to introduce trade arrows as a tie-breaker when it is automatically considering what square to work. I think they first go with max food, then if it's a tie, go with max shields -- but don't take that extra step.

=======

So, to your question:

I do play at Deity pretty often (dozens of times, surely) but most often play at Emperor, because I find it more relaxing not to have to worry about unhappiness so very early in a city's growth. I should also say that I usually play with "Villages only" barbarians, because I find they are a real distraction and not much fun, but I don't think it much matters to the strategies. I have never, ever lost a game (but I have never played against humans). With one exception, I have always won by conquering the world. ((If I don't conquer, it is only because I want to try out a different challenge)). The one exception was my very first game at Deity level, where I got stuck in an "unhappiness hole". I wasn't ahead when I got out of the hole, and that one I won by taking over the capital of an AI civ that had launched a spaceship, and got mine there first, so it was a marginal win.

You wrote about wanting to know how strategies differ. Maybe mine is what you categorize as "Maximum Growth and War", in which case the overlap with you may be less. (I actually am quite the pacifist in real life). But I guess I will go through your document,

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ2howplay1.shtml

and answer points that interest me as I go. I will assume we are talking Deity level against the AI.

I have never waited more than 3 turns or so to found my capital; I find an OK site and go for it.

My first techs are always the ones leading to Monarchy. I think Monarchy is essential to reduce corruption and waste, allow those 3-food squares to produce, and keep citizens happier. But if I'm on an island or otherwise seriously blocked from overland exploration, MapMaking will come soon too.

As for exploring, I will send a warrior or two as quickly as possible as far away from my capital as possible, to maximize the chance of finding land before the AIs do, and improving the chances of meeting other AIs quickly. For large parts of the late opening game, I will have 2-4 triremes mapping out the coasts, with some light units on board to go into huts, and meet other AIs. Explorers are cool in that you can go into a coastal hut and if it's barbarians, slip back onto the ship that same turn before they attack.

I find I rarely use money to speed things up, except in special cases; I just don't put the effort into it. Nor do I look at just how many shields are left to build something and move my workers around. I'm sure my game would improve. But when you win every game, there's not so much incentive to improve.

I go for lots of cities, stopping for very little else. One warrior to maintain order, then a settler for a new city, and repeat. It's exponential growth. But I am fairly picky about city sites so my cities will often have 3-odd rows of unworked squares between them. But when I have interior cities, a long way from a frontier, then I'll make one settler to build roads mostly, and go on to other stuff (mostly caravans for wonders). At Deity level (but not the others) I will build a temple pretty early. I do not need to build any other city improvements, though libraries are sometimes nice. You argue the effectiveness of barracks, true as far as it goes, but the main cost is the opportunity cost -- what else you could be buying. A barracks and two elephants may be worth three elephants, but you have spent 120 shields before you turn the profit. I can get my single elephant (if needed) and then spend the next 80 shields on another two settlers, or a caravan and a half -- which is about one quarter of Sun Tsu's academy...

I rarely build phalanxes -- it seems they just lose too often. I build warriors for keeping order, and for defense I will go for elephants to attack before I am attacked, and with roads I can go for less than one per city as I see trouble developing. Probably I would need a few more if I were playing with raging hordes. When there are AI civs nearby, I try to go for a frontier, with a few units out there (usually warriors) to make it so they have to attack to get through, and I have warning to build elephants then (and then I'll use some money to rush them).

As for improving terrain early, I will mine coal squares, and otherwise not do much. But before I get to Republic and PDS I want at least two squares producing three food (usually including the city square itself), so I can support the settler and also still grow.

Wonders. I never build the Pyramids. Just to be clear, pyramids is what gives you a granary in every city? Since they seem so popular, I'm dying to know if there's something I'm missing about them. This is because at Deity level, I like to keep my cities small to avoid the need for lots of troops for martial law. They will grow past 3-4 when it's PDS time.

(You wrote "Because the Chapel costs as much as three Pyramids..." -- it's just two pyramids, right -- 400 vs 200?). I like the Hanging Gardens, since it can reduce the need for martial law troops early, and it still helps later, and if the capital gets a 'We love the King' day, that's kind of like the Colossus, for a while. I often don't get Hanging Gardens, though, before the AIs. I agree that Mike's Chapel is essential; getting that is when I will try to go to Republic. JS Bach is very good too. If you want to avoid spending money on luxuries (and I do!) then temple, Mike's, and JS Bach can keep people happy up to size 8. After the opening, I'm always pretty far ahead in tech, so the GL isn't important. I almost always get Sun Tzu, Leonardo, and the Statue of Liberty (though I'm not sure SOL is really worth it -- I hadn't heard of the recent discovery about revolting on a precisely-given turn. But I also use it to go to Fundamentalism.). In general, I don't build any wonders that give an advantage in only one city -- except Shakespeare, when I want to conquer under Democracy. If I'm going to have 30-odd cities (some conquered) then in-every-city wonders are increasingly effective. Under Republic, one technique is to have a city with a fair number of shields, base all the "away-from-home" units there, and then just let the thing sit in perpetual disorder; doesn't work for Democracy, of course. I will often build Marco Polo if I can't readily find some of the other civs -- if the AI doesn't beat me to it. 6 diplomats for embassies is 180, while Marco Polo is 200.

I hardly ever actually set a city to build a wonder until I'm ready to build it the next turn. This means that if your capital sudden needs to make an elephant, you don't lose the wonder production. I just build pile upon pile of caravans -- sometimes have two dozen hanging around the capital waiting for the needed tech to build a wonder or two I need. In particular, I often find that the tech for Leonardo, Statue of Liberty, and Magellan all show up around the same time, and I want to build all three. Magellan is handy for a military strategy, to help avoid enemy warships that might sink my transports, and also because it just speeds the game up. Later, I want Cure for Cancer, to help keep my size-8 cities happy when I have ever-more cities. I never build Women's Suffrage any more.

I will trade techs with other civs freely, up until gunpowder. I won't give that away. I will rarely set up trade routes -- too much micromanagement -- though the recent reminder that trade deliveries also help research may get me to change my mind. One of the problems is that with other priorities I'm often conquering the big enemy cities before I get huge benefit from the trade, and when they're my cities the trade route is worth far less.

I don't get how the "early PDS" strategy works. It seems like you would have nothing to keep all those extra people happy, unless you are going to KEEP the luxuries rate above zero when you are done increasing the population. Maybe "early" doesn't mean that early -- is it after Michelangelo and JS Bach? To be clear, my version of PDS is to use a high luxuries rate (up to 80%) to make the cities grow, but then put the luxuries right back down to zero when cities reach size 8.

I think my strategy might be described as: "early PDS, then shift to conquest". I use some elements of your Max Growth and War, but not all. For instance, I do explore very aggressively, looking for huts, meeting other civs quickly, and staking out land, but when I meet the AI civs I act peaceful. Going for huts far and wide often results in a sort of positive feedback loop of friendly mercenaries, and wandering nomads and advanced tribes can be the seed for whole new "provinces".

I hardly ever demand tribute. I'm not above stealing tech. I hardly ever make horses, and even less often attack with them. When they show up as friendly mercenaries, I just explore more. I love explorers, though they often don't show up early because of competing tech requirements. Lots of land is one-point-max land, so they go three times as fast. They can often back off from hostile civs when I won't give tribute. I don't worry so much about hut barbarians. Not long into the game, barbarians show up on every surrounding square, so getting in the first blow isn't that useful. Generally, if I get barbarians, I just give up the unit as a lost cause -- unless I can load it back onto the ship if it's on the coast. Horsemen die nearly as often as warriors.

You describe using hordes of spies, and being under communism to allow veteran spies, which I have never done. Sounds interesting. Funny how you like mech infantry -- I almost never use them, but I do use alpine troops, mostly because they can quickly take key hilly terrain and have 1/3 of a point left to fortify as well. And the game is over before mech infantry show up.

You mention that Sun Tzu is like barracks, but the additional ability can be very important. If you have nonveteran units, like artillery, and you can find a settler or caravan or diplomat to attack with it, it suddenly becomes a veteran, safely! Barracks don't do that. That makes it go better with Leonardo.

OK, about war. My plan is to get a lead in tech. I don't like early wars. Even if your elephants win, they are vulnerable to counterattack.

There are roughly three kinds of wars:

Early war: I only do this if I have a nearby civ that is blocking my expansion in a major way, or is bellicose and keeps breaking peace treaties and attacking me. But fighting an early war is more responsible for making a long drawn-out game than anything else. In this case, I will build a few barracks, and whatever attacking units I can (crusaders are a good deal when Leonardo gives you them and you have monotheism). I try to put together four or five elephants (say) not right adjacent to the AI city, and then move them all in at once and attack. It's often not a pretty sight. I lose many units that way. But phalanxes, even on hills, seem to get beaten too easily, along with the catapults I have moved in with them, and settlers don't last there long enough to build forts. So the early war is bloody. As with other wars, taking a capital and then bribing the other cities can be a good deal. When the AI gets city walls, I pretty much have to live with that city as a thorn in my side.

Middle war: This I do with mostly dragoons, though cavalry and alpine troops come along pretty quickly. (I never build marines, and never research amphibious warfare. Cavalry cost the same and have the ability to cross a one-space gap and get in the first blow.) Dragoons are great when civs have not found gunpowder yet -- you win against units behind city walls mostly, and when they do have gunpowder you can still win if there aren't any city walls.

Late(r) war: I never need howitzers and armor or bombers, it's not that late a war. This is what works every time, against AI civs that are even equal to me in tech. It is based on (drum roll) artillery. I can get their tech without losing Sun Tsu, which is a huge advantage. For some months I didn't notice one key number, the double damage that artillery do. This means that while catapults are 6 (6x1x1), and cannons are 16 (8x2x1), artillery are 40 (10x2x2)! This means they pretty much always win against fortified alpine troops behind city walls. When the city's on a river, has a barracks, and alpine troops, sometimes I lose an artillery in the attack (and win with the next one), but that's rare. Now what makes this like shooting fish in a barrel against AI civs is the vital UN wonder. They always make peace with me, so I can (using spies or caravans to avoid ZOCs) use my engineers to do them the service of connecting all the AI's civs with railroads. (I usually have a complete RR network in my civ too, to facilitate instant around-the-world delivery of new artillery). I will sometimes have 6-8 engineers working on this. Now and then the AI will do a surprise attack, I can lose some engineers, then I build some more, and go back and take up where I left off. Then if I want I can move the engineers to safety, and then attack. Basically I use (but do not lose) one artillery per defending unit. Four are usually plenty to take a city. If there are other weak units, I can polish them off with cavalry or even riflemen. So with 20-odd veteran artillery, it's an easy matter to take a city, and then because of the railroads I can just keep on moving, limited only by how many artillery I have, blasting a path to the capital city if I want, and taking that. I have sometimes taken six enemy cities with city walls on a single turn. Now I do have a few spies around, largely to gather intelligence, but once the capital falls, if they aren't under democracy I can bribe other cities for cheap. Once I get machine tools/artillery, I switch to fundamentalism, 80% tax, and all those tithes bring me loads of cash to bribe with. I do sometimes use spies to attack city walls, but they do lose a fair amount of the time, and that's frustrating. The artillery almost never lose.

Now in a tough deity game, sometimes a series of wars are needed -- an early war if I have to, then with dragoons taking some nearby civs that don't have gunpowder yet. Then once they are taken, they turn into productive cities to help build up to the late(r) war. But the need to fight different layers of wars often means that I want to fight a war and discover tech at the same time, requiring (usually) democracy. The nuisance is that once you capture one city, the AI sues for peace and you have to give it. I can often speed things up by a couple means. One is to get rid of all the units anywhere near a couple cities I have made defenseless, so I can take two or more of them before they have an adjacent unit to sue for peace, which even the UN can't prevent that much, though I don't have the UN in middle wars. I think that if I leave a juicy unit undefended as bait, the AI will break the peace treaty quicker, letting me get back to conquest. I also use that strategy you mention of Shakespeare's theater, and building units and re-homing them there before sending them to battle. The other strategy is to take lots of my units and make a big attack. Lots of cities go into unrest, but to keep the government from falling, I move them all into cities the next turn so they are happy again. I can repeat as needed, as often as every other turn.

I hardly ever build ironclads, but do find I build destroyers and cruisers if needed -- the added ability to see two spaces away seems invaluable to me to get into battles I can win..

One idea that might blend some of your strategy into mine would be moving to communism long enough to finish 10-odd spies building in various cities, then switching back. Maybe I should compare just how much those tithes are worth (and the ability to not support the extra 7 units).

Oh well, that's some ideas, I would very much appreciate your feedback.

9/29/04 from Alan Nicoll:

(quotes in italics)

That’s what I’ve heard at Civ web sites.

I’ve never played a multiplayer game to the actual end. What typically happens is that the players who fall behind quit.

The assignment of workers is often flaky. The rule changes, however, as more squares are worked. The first assignment is always food, but after that there is apparently an attempt to balance between food and shields somewhat.

Lately I’ve played a couple of games at deity with maximum land and only three civs, with villages only. I find that usually one AI civ gets way ahead of me on the power graph even though I have Monarchy and Pyramids. I like unlimited expansion for my civ, but when the AI does it, that’s not so good. So there is more here to be learned...

For large parts of the late opening game, I will have 2-4 triremes mapping out the coasts, with some light units on board to go into huts, and meet other AIs. Explorers are cool in that you can go into a coastal hut and if it's barbarians, slip back onto the ship that same turn before they attack.

I occasionally use explorers, especially later in the game when my coastline has been defended and I want to find the other civs. It’s nice to pick up the extra gold and occasional “wandering nomads,” but it’s annoying to get a lone city far off from my others. When that happens I rush build settlers until the city disappears. I don’t want another civ to capture that city and so get a critical tech like Invention or Railroad. If I’m in a democracy, it occurs to me that I could just heavily defend the city; the risk otherwise is bribery.

Speaking of bribery, I find that a barbarian city can be bought very cheaply (under 100 gold); much easier than trying to recapture when they’ve gotten one of yours.

Micromanagement is rarely worth the trouble, but I use speed building very often, especially to beat the AI to what I consider critical wonders.

You argue the effectiveness of barracks, true as far as it goes, but the main cost is the opportunity cost -- what else you could be buying. A barracks and two elephants may be worth three elephants, but you have spent 120 shields before you turn the profit. I can get my single elephant (if needed) and then spend the next 80 shields on another two settlers, or a caravan and a half -- which is about one quarter of Sun Tsu's academy...

I have to build some military units in any case; the only question is how and where to build them. But then, I don’t usually go after Sun Tzu.

Sounds pretty sensible. I don’t always follow my own advice, you understand.

How did you get onto the PDS technique?

At deity level I often don’t both with the PDS, in which case the Pyramids are pretty helpful. You’re right about the effect of Pyramids.

(You wrote "Because the Chapel costs as much as three Pyramids..." -- it's just two pyramids, right -- 400 vs 200?).

Right, thanks for the correction.

I like the Hanging Gardens, since it can reduce the need for martial law troops early, and it still helps later, and if the capital gets a 'We love the King' day, that's kind of like the Colossus, for a while.

I don’t recall when the Hanging Gardens expire, but it seems like it’s too early to suit me.

I'm not sure SOL is really worth it -- I hadn't heard of the recent discovery about revolting on a precisely-given turn. But I also use it to go to Fundamentalism.).

I’ve gone to Fundamentalism only once or twice. I’m not excited about Fanatics as a unit; they’re okay defensively, but too weak on attack. The other effects of Fundamentalism I’m less clear on, but since research is always about my highest priority, I would be reluctant.

In general, I don't build any wonders that give an advantage in only one city -- except Shakespeare, when I want to conquer under Democracy.

Once you have Bach’s and Women’s Suffrage, conquest isn’t too difficult under Democracy. I usually end up building a coliseum in the cities that are supporting multiple units.

Under Republic, one technique is to have a city with a fair number of shields, base all the "away-from-home" units there, and then just let the thing sit in perpetual disorder; doesn't work for Democracy, of course.

I was under the impression that continuing unrest would cause a Republic to collapse; glad to know this isn’t the case. Do you know whether international incidents caused by spies (e.g., poisoning water supply or violating a treaty) will cause a Republic to fall?

I will often build Marco Polo if I can't readily find some of the other civs -- if the AI doesn't beat me to it. 6 diplomats for embassies is 180, while Marco Polo is 200.

It also usually takes quite a while to get them there, plus the ships to move them, etc. Marco Polo does seem to be worth doing in most games.

I hardly ever actually set a city to build a wonder until I'm ready to build it the next turn. This means that if your capital sudden needs to make an elephant, you don't lose the wonder production.

This should rarely happen if your defense is adequate.

I just build pile upon pile of caravans -- sometimes have two dozen hanging around the capital waiting for the needed tech to build a wonder or two I need.

Yes, me too.

In particular, I often find that the tech for Leonardo, Statue of Liberty, and Magellan all show up around the same time, and I want to build all three. Magellan is handy for a military strategy, to help avoid enemy warships that might sink my transports, and also because it just speeds the game up. Later, I want Cure for Cancer, to help keep my size-8 cities happy when I have ever-more cities. I never build Women's Suffrage any more.

I do like to get Magellan’s and Leonardo’s. Hoover Dam also comes up pretty quickly thereafter.

I don’t trade Invention or anything that comes from it (steam engine, gunpowder) or any tech later than that. But trade is essential to my pursuit of tech. I don’t recall whether it’s in my How I Play, but I’ve found that if you send a caravan to a city that doesn’t have trade routes, both the sending and the receiving cities get trade routes, while if you send it to a city that already has three, only the sending city gets the route. For a while I was under the impression that only the sending city got trade routes under any circumstance. Building the Colossus begins to look a little more attractive, since any number of cities can trade with a single city.

I only use the “early PDS” when I’m at King level. I may use a few turns of PDS at deity level, but usually not. When I’m in Republic or Democracy I often find it necessary to keep luxuries at 20%, perhaps especially after building aqueducts and sewers.

The point of MGW is pretty much to squeeze the AI civs for gold and tech, then conquer them when you’re ready. At deity, however, I think it’s hard to get powerful enough for this to work early.

Going for huts far and wide often results in a sort of positive feedback loop of friendly mercenaries, and wandering nomads and advanced tribes can be the seed for whole new "provinces".

I dislike “provinces” because I find them so hard to defend.

I hardly ever demand tribute.

I like to do this when I’ve had to pay tribute to an aggressive civ. After I overtake them it is satisfying to get my gold back and then some, even though I’m just playing against AI.

I'm not above stealing tech. I hardly ever make horses, and even less often attack with them. When they show up as friendly mercenaries, I just explore more. I love explorers, though they often don't show up early because of competing tech requirements.

Yes, seafaring is low priority for me until I need navigation.

Lots of land is one-point-max land, so they go three times as fast. They can often back off from hostile civs when I won't give tribute. I don't worry so much about hut barbarians. Not long into the game, barbarians show up on every surrounding square, so getting in the first blow isn't that useful. Generally, if I get barbarians, I just give up the unit as a lost cause -- unless I can load it back onto the ship if it's on the coast. Horsemen die nearly as often as warriors.

One reason I like to use diplomats to explore is that when they get surrounded by barbarians they can bribe some of them, then use the bribed units to attack the other barbarians. This also gets me more units (often support-free) to explore with.

Funny how you like mech infantry -- I almost never use them, but I do use alpine troops, mostly because they can quickly take key hilly terrain and have 1/3 of a point left to fortify as well. And the game is over before mech infantry show up.

I don’t usually build many mech infantry. I may build them late in the game, but riflemen are usually good enough.

Very true. I tend to do this more with ships than land units.

You’ve summed it up admirably. I don’t like to attack with phalanxes and catapults, or with elephants either. Early war is very difficult and always costs more than it gains.

At this point I’m typically concentrating on defense, trying to get my screen of ironclads set up, scrambling to build the big wonders (Magellan’s, Leonardo’s, Hoover Dam, Women’s Suffrage), building trade routes, building railroads. I have sometimes gone to war with cannon and musketeers, but I doubt that I’ve ever done more with this than capture a couple of cities.

The rest of your comments about war strategy are exceptionally interesting. I find conquering the world to be so tedious that even if I’m in the middle of a hot war I’ll usually start building the spaceship. In one recent game I was in an all-out nuclear war. I was able to capture the capital of my main enemy, and that made bribing the rest of his cities pretty easy, and that ended the game. There were three episodes of global warming... I think I described this game in How I Play.

I cannot claim any real expertise in much of this. I found a way to beat the AI at deity level, and added a few refinements, but your tactic of artillery plus railroads and switching to Fundamentalism sounds very effective.

Oh well, that's some ideas, I would very much appreciate your feedback.

It’s been a pleasure. If you don’t mind, I’d like to put this discussion on my web site.

Alan

9/29/04 from Bart:

Quotes marked with >

Hi Alan,

First, I don't mind if you put this correspondence on your website, AS LONG AS you don't include my last name, email address, or other identifying information. Please use care.

> How did you get onto the PDS technique?

I think it was pretty obvious starting in the old days of Civ 1. If the effect of "We Love the ___ Day" under Republic or Democracy is advertised as to grow the city by one per turn, it's pretty clear that's an opportunity to get a big population quickly.

> I've gone to Fundamentalism only once or twice. I'm not excited about Fanatics as a unit; they're okay defensively, but too weak on attack. The other effects of Fundamentalism I'm less clear on, but since research is always about my highest priority, I would be reluctant.

True, Fundamentalism is a bad choice if you want to be doing research. When you go to fundamentalism by way of the Statue of Liberty, then you can't make Fanatics, which is OK with me (when I do have them, I use them as cheap garrison troops as my empire is expanding). But I still find fundamentalism worthwhile for the other advantages: All citizens are automatically content, and the wonders and city improvements that under other governments keep people content are turned instead into tithes, meaning gold. So you need no luxuries, and with 80% tax and 20% science allocation, you can make money pretty fast. The other big advantage is that the first TEN units a city makes are supported for free, as opposed to three under monarchy or communism. That's useful if you want a sizable army for conquest. I just did a simple experiment with one of my old games, and found that with 80% tax and 20% science, I make 237 gold under communism, 385 under democracy, and 414 under fundamentalism! So you can also build up a big treasury, so when you go back to Democracy you can have taxes at zero. (In real life, I am fervently opposed to fundamentalism, but then neither of us is probably a fan of communism either. :-))

> Do you know whether international incidents caused by spies (e.g., poisoning water supply or violating a treaty) will cause a Republic to fall?

I think so, but I'm not 100% sure.

In a couple of different cases, we seem to favor different strategies because of differences in power. I am not worried about distant provinces on islands of their own, because the other civs don't get there (barbarians are another story), and that's where most of the advanced tribes and wandering nomads show up, not near the other civs. I have no problem getting way ahead of the AIs on the power graph playing on large land area with just 2 or 3. I do not make a defensive screen of ironclads. I find I'm taking the battle to them instead of giving them a chance to come to me. I'm not sure why my power goes up faster, but it might be more rapid expansion and not taking time to build improvements in my cities. I find it hard to stop and do that when I can just see how much more quickly I will grow by expanding instead.

> The rest of your comments about war strategy are exceptionally interesting. I find conquering the world to be so tedious that even if I'm in the middle of a hot war I'll usually start building the spaceship. In one recent game I was in an all-out nuclear war. I was able to capture the capital of my main enemy, and that made bribing the rest of his cities pretty easy, and that ended the game. There were three episodes of global warming... I think I described this game in How I Play.

It's interesting how tastes differ. I find it tedious to build the spaceship -- there are even fewer surprises with the construction itself than with conquest. As has been noted before, the AIs attack you if you sit back and build your spaceship. I find that annoying, and as often as not when I set out to build a spaceship, I get mad at the AIs and decide to conquer them to repay their insolence. With one little impotent AI city left somewhere (which still lets you get the spaceship bonus), then the spaceship really is pretty automatic. Now it may well be true that the AI shows you more different looks when it attacks than it does when you attack it, so that might make for more interesting play -- if only I could just keep patient and fend off their attacks.

So for much of this it comes down to what anyone finds fun. It's a game, after all!

--Bart

My email address is: alan_nicoll@yahoo.com

Main Civ Page

Home

Civ 2 Email Exchange

between Alan Nicoll and an unidentified gamester