ITz DENI3D's New Strategy

[RamblerMan]

So Ruthless runs into ITz DENI3D in a H2H room and of course ITz DENI3D picks the Zulu like he has a point to make or something. Anyway, he gets off to a great start and they battle back and forth flip cities and so on, but its just the two of them. Ruthless has 2/5 caps and Zulu have 3/5. After things settle down though Ruthless begins building elite knight armies as they both race through tech in democracy. Anyway, DENI3D get Industrialization and Ruthless gets The Corp. The whole time, he keeps messaging Ruthless telling him he's taking too long (mind you, he has 4 cities with AA's in them and Ruthless had like 12). Anyway, Ruthless had just finished his 15th elite knight army and was getting tanks next turn and was in the process of loading them on a fleet so he could drop them off on a hill next to DENI3D's city next turn. I guess this would be a good time to mention Ruthless was the Germans . But, just as his knights were galloping onto the ships, DENI3D quits, claiming that Ruthless used the strategy of "boredom" to make him quit. He then goes on to claim that the only reason Ruthless is 87-9 is because people "don't want to spend 5 hours on a game." Does this guy not get the German strategy? Apparently he has come up with his own strategy of "boredom" and is rather familiar with it because he was able to pick up on Ruthless using the strategy. I think I will start employing this myself, who knows, maybe I can win 50 straight and get in the top ten just like Ruthless did. So watch out when we play, I might take 5 hours .

[Jackoneill]

"boredom" LMAO......
I guess things didn't go his way and he just vented out of frustration.

[RamblerMan]

The attack of the century was about to happen and he missed it lol. I have only pulled off an attack this large maybe once in my career and it was out of desperation, but it worked.

[elthrasher]

Fairly common, I think. I was playing a game last night and I was playing as fast as I could and still using most of the clock every turn. It's not my fault when my opponent refuses to do much of anything with his turns!

So I don't think it's really fair to credit him with this strategy.

[REM018]

I don't think I have ever built 15 knight armies. Max was 8 or so in some games. What year was that? Must have been fairly late.

[elthrasher]

I don't think I have ever built 15 knight armies. Max was 8 or so in some games. What year was that? Must have been fairly late.

He was Germany so if they started as warriors, it's not really that many hammers. 15 armies = 450 hammers. Pretty doable when you have +1 forest production. And nothing says "time is on your side!" like a Zulu opponent who stays at 4 cities.

[REM018]

Well, yes, but still, even if you make "one upgrade armies" out of 3 cities w/ one barracks, it takes 15 turns to assemble 15 armies, assuming they are all close together so that the guys do not have to walk towards each other. 1500 years in the BCs or 750 years in early ADs. Maybe you got 2 or so already from the early game, but still, 12-13 turns is ideal. And then you still have to rush them and spend money. With 9 hammers/turn that money is not that much tho. But first you have to get to medieval and he had 12 cities. That eats up a bunch of turns too.

If you can do that from 6 cities, with 2 barracks that is of course much faster, but that means that you either had a ton of gold (which is not always the case) to rush 2 barracks or you spent a couple of extra turns to build those.

I know 15 is doable and if they can be delivered in the early ADs it is game over most of the time, but still it must have taken a while and all of them have only one upgrade.

The limiting factor here is the number of barracks cities. If you had only one, then it really took at least one turn per army.

[elthrasher]

Heh. Poor 15 tank armies...each with only one upgrade! That's hardly a force at all.

It sounds very much to me like he was playing with his food and I wouldn't be surprised if the game went well beyond 1000 AD. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying it's very easy to do that when your opponent is a Zulu player who thinks four is enough cities.

[REM018]

I agree. I was just curious by what time he achieved that since so far 5-8 armies delivered in the late BCs/early ADs always did the trick for me so far.

[Ruthless310]

REM -

I honestly cannot recall what year it was. Believe it or not, I actually had two things disirupt my German strategy. 1) I accidentally ran into Atlantis with a Galleon and got Iron working much sooner than I intended. So I only got 3 upgraded warrior armies. 2) He rushed me with a catapult army and a Galleon fleet so I had to use my scientist to pop feudalism to defend myself, again WAY before I intended to. At that point I had five armies or so. I hammered the crap out of Knights. I had four cities hammering at least 9 a turn, so it came together quite fast despite the Knights being 25 hammers. To be honest, I could've gotten him much sooner. Rambler was watching and mentioned how close I was to tanks so I decided I'd just hammer knights until I got to tanks since there was 0 threat of being attacked or disrupted.


It was not a particularly "early" rush I don't believe. I probably had 5-8 armies you mentioned around 400AD and then as Elthrasher said, I was "playing with my food" (I like that ) from then on.

[RamblerMan]

Yeah, he made SO MANY knights. It was not the "typical" German strategy, but it was AWESOME to watch.

[asmodeios]

What? His strategy of 4-5 "quality cities" didn't work against someone who expands more?

I thought he said his quality cities beats quantity. Lmfao. He probably had library in all 4 cities too right?

[Ruthless310]

Lol yes which he basically was just building for me. I took one of his cities and the library really helped me out

[Ruthless310]

And btw Thrasher, the Germans are quickly becoming my new favorite civ!

[HydroDragon]

And btw Thrasher, the Germans are quickly becoming my new favorite civ!

1) America
2) China
3) Zulu
4) Spain
5) Arabs
6) Aztecs
7) Rome
8) England
9) Egypt
10) Japan
11) India
12) Greece
13) Germany
14) Mongols
15) France
16) Russia

Care to reassess?

[Chug E]

1) America
2) China
3) Zulu
4) Spain
5) Arabs
6) Aztecs
7) Rome
8) Germany
9) India
10) Egypt
11) England
12) Greece
13) Japan
14) Mongols
15) France
16) Russia

Care to reassess?

Here's my assessment. Pretty close, but Germans are far better than 13th.

[elthrasher]

Russia is better than France. It's been proven!

[Ruthless310]

Definitely. I'm also warming up to India more as well.

My revised list:

1) America
2) China
3) Zulu
4) Spain
5) Arabs
6) Aztecs
7) Rome
8) Germany
9) England
10) India
11) Egypt
12) Japan
13) Greece
14) Mongols
15) France
16) Russia

[RamblerMan]

I'd put Egypt ahead of Rome there buddaaaaaaay!!

[Legatus]

Fairly common, I think. I was playing a game last night and I was playing as fast as I could and still using most of the clock every turn. It's not my fault when my opponent refuses to do much of anything with his turns!

So I don't think it's really fair to credit him with this strategy.

Before I went on vacation, I played some tool named something like WhiteBuccosboy who was sending messages whining that I took long.

He ended up quiting, claiming that I was boring him, though remarkedly it was after I took an AI cap sometime between 2000-1500BC.

Curse my slow wit though; I should have said afterwards that I "was taking so long" because I was reading his lame messages.