Sorry, I missed the D, I will edit itOriginally Posted by MadDjinn
Sorry, I missed the D, I will edit it
thanks
..
..
..
I was thinking that because you mentioned that a hill doesn't provide 50% extra defence to your capital, which is useful information for new players that you may also want to mention that a wall in your capital only adds 50% defence, not 100%. This is also because of the palace bonus.
This is a less widely known fact and could be beneficial to new players. A wall in the capital is a rip off in my opinion. The maximum bonus defence you can have in the capital is 200%, not 250% as you would imagine.
Vet loyal modern infantry army with out wall in capital = 108
Vet loyal modern infantry army with wall in capital = 120 NOT 132 as you might expect.
I made them loyal just for easier math.
This is good stuff. It should be sticky.
Hmm I didn't know that thank you for the information.
Also is the creater of this thread still here? If not how will we get new guides on?
first, write good ones, then just post here asking for it to be posted.
morte's still around. (and writing more guides)
Sometimes I'll add strategies when I have more time but I usually add new strategies when it is asked by others. I am looking at some new strategies here like the Gotw guide and I'll add it
i read this forum ALL the time! my internet doesnt always work though... but u guys r awesome, i read the strategies and sometimes post questions. thanks for all the advice u guys give me
I ended up bookmarking this so I wouldn't loose track of it. Soo... Bump.
Who can we pester to get this sticky'd?!?!
Oh and maybe if you find the time, add my Gotw guide, it's not multiplayer but has enough tips to maybe make it worth adding. Either way I wish this didn't get bumped down and off the strat page.
I already talked about adding your strategy, however I added it now plus other strategies. Maybe I'm missing some strategies, then tell me
I will write a Japanese, Zulu and Egyptian strategy maybe.. Oh and French.. think I will start with Japan and Egypt
i thought you said you don't like the japanese und you have never played them?
I played them, and didn't like them.. I tried them in FFA and won against average players, however, I prefer other civs. When I tried them in SP, after the first games I could have 1000 beakers per turn by 1000 AD, not bad.
you should give the japenese another shot. obviously not in H2H, because they aren't as consistent, but in FFA they can be a decent civ.
Maybe you can make some improvements on my strategy. Granted, +1 Samurai attack is the only really good bonus they have other than +1 food from the sea, but they aren't too bad of a civ. I find playing them easier than winning games with a lot of civs. Expansion is easy, teching is easy, and the knight rush is great.
I gave them another shot and I think I will try to write a strategy.. I'm still not sure, there are two good ways to play them I think. Knights and teching (expanding obviously). The problem I see is defending..
why would they defend any different from other civs? Most civs don't have too much of an advantage for defense. I think they defend about as well as anyone. They can't rush to well early in the game, and don't have upgraded defensive units, extra movement, etc. But I have not had any problem defending with them, at least not consistently.
I don't think they are a top civ, but i do enjoy a lot of their aspects. Maybe just see if I'm doing something wrong in my strategy, or see if you can find a way to be more aggressive with them. I understand why you aren't wow'd by them, but I think they can be used well.
the only real literal boni for defense is the russian loyalty upgrade.
They are ok but I mean, as other civs, they can't defend well. French, Japanese and Mongols and maybe Egypt can't defend well without luck. I mean, let's say arabs attack, it's not really easy to build 4 warriors, defend then build the army and try to attack. If it is 9 it is a problem, and if things like this happen, there are few ways to defend. Archers would have 3-5 and that slow you if that doesn't kill you (this is why attacking or pressing is helpful)
There aren't many problems defending but there are times when a warrior army is just 3 v 3 or similar and you can do almost nothing.. Bronze working is 5 turns away. If you don't count this problem they are pretty good if you reach feudalism, build some knights armies then attack. 1 first with fundamentalism should be ok, or maybe 2
And the Japanese get the VERY SAME bonus in Modern era ! LOL
And you guys say they do not have any defensive bonus ...
I used them (the Japanese) for the first time tonight. I used Zso Zso's strat and went 3-1. They were a lot of fun, now that I sort of understand the trajectory of how the bonuses are supposed to be used. My one loss was against the Americans. So notwithstanding their defensive bonus in Modern, I can see how some of those strong rushers (and early aggressive types) could pose problems for them. I guess I'll just have to practice more: it's only 1:25 am, enough time for one more game.
Edit/Update: Make that 3-2 for tonight with both losses to Americans. The last one was frozen against ChetoFingers (SP?), but he was way ahead in tech so I quit and gave him the obvious win. In any case, I'm not sure I ever want to use the Americans---they're just too literally broken for my taste. Chinese and Zulus are easy too, but at least their bonuses represent the original intentions of the game. Well, it's 2:40 am. Time for sleep...
Last edited by Zefelius; 08-01-2009 at 11:03 PM.
I added some strategies and some tips
Hey thread, just where do you think you're going???? Back to the top...
We should post here at least once per day, so it could be as stickied.. At least more people can read
May we get Another French Guide? I noticed their is only 1 of those and 2 or 3 of other Civs.
Morte i read your peaceful arabs strategy, you said everything i knew...
the arabs get +8 culture with tripoli and 2 other cities..you are correct
but i think you need to upgrade the strat, we already know the ancient bonus for the arabs doesnt work. so they wouldnt really be good at an economical victory, unless you worked hard at it.
i tried playing a peaceful arabs game, and ended up rushing my enemies with knights and cruisers..
plz help
The French suck so no one plays them other than if you are unlucky enough to get them on Random.
They are hard to expand and tech with. Their bonuses are pretty useless and don't help or assist with anything much. No tech, growth or prod bonus, every other civ has a bonus to help with at least one of these areas. The French don't.
My guide isn't great, hence why I called it semi decent because that's what it is, but it gives at least some sound advice.
I think it would be interesting if someone could come up with a real aggressive French strat. Before catapults agressive but I never had any success horserushing with them... Maybe Legions could do well. Idk.
Morte can you put my strategy in this thread?...
the cathederal can indirectly help all three aspects (growth, tech, production)
I don't know, I will have to think about it. Other players should ask for that, just because you put almost everything on luck, would be a bad advice and a reason to not post that. If you edit that and better it, maybe, I will do
im trying to be unique..
not everything has to be laws and orders!!..
you just have to go with the flow, the french are very different from the other civs. and i dont mention everything being luck, acually i mention zero things about being luck.. i never said getting the builder will be the lucky part, i just said you will get one of these great ppl, all of which can help the french if used right..
read it and actually nothing there is based on luck.. i just used to it grab ppls attention, like a hook, a little thing i learned in high schoool..lol
pleeeeeeease grayson was even impressed, you friend person. dont you trust in what he said.. dont you think he's another good player like you. this is a much better strategy than my previous ones.
I say you should put in HGB's strategy. Its well written, and better than some of the strategies in there. He more mentions what you should do than luck, although it says some weird things about finding wheat on islands, but from my point of view it deserves to be in.
HGB's strategy is good enough for the archive in my opinion. I saw this because it provides probably the best way to make them powerful, and that is by trying to get the right GPs to hopefully win you the game.
There's not much there as far as expansion, the middle game, or end game other than just a brief overview.
But what he has in the strategy that the other French strategies doesn't is the way to get GPs, especially the Great Builder, by researching Masonary first, you have the better chance at getting an early great builder. Otherwise they are a tough civ to play with, so he rightly emphasizes the GPs, because it's really the only good bonus they have to stay in the game.
I don't really care about cannons, and maybe he could talk about half-priced roads a little more, but for sure his strategy is better than anything xbman ever wrote.
If it needs to be edited, I'm willing to help HGB make it a little more in-depth
3 agaisnt 1...
morte just add it..
ill edit it with time.. and new progress.
*sniff* *looks up with hope*.... my strategy has been added?.. huh? hurray!!am i in a bad dream, NO!!!!! what is this?... a beginning tooooo a newwwww friendship.. with this thread, i will be remembered for centries!!!!! maybe even forever!!!! tan TAN TAN!!!!!!!! ... well this is a change, i would just like to say a fe words..
i thank morte ( :| ), my friends, family, also tyshine, grayson.,mm who else every1 except 1 person.. thx everyone
Can we get better Aztec strategies.. the two we have here are not that good... Morte strats says no horserush, atleast that was unique.. but after that.. he says you might take one city quick.. but then he says nothing else
then xbmx says to rush a warrior the 1st turn, thats bad, because you would wait 3 turns for the next one, its better mortes way rush 1 warriors on 3900bc and another on 3800bc because there 12 gold and you have 25, so it works out.. then he says to rush the 2nd at 4 gold?!?!? thats no possible its only at 8 gold, unless he waits another turn, by putting only one tree, but then it would be a waste because you would of already had it built last turn if you had just worked on 2 trees...
the problem with 3900bc and 3800bc warriors is that it only works if someone is walking with settler or an american with GP. If everybody settles and starts building warrior, I just skips through 3 turns (until you hammered out your 1st warrior) and I never manage to catch it and go into the city screen to rush. I hate that in GOTW too that sometimes you do not get the manual end-turn option. It is rare in MP, but happens on the first 3 turns if nobody is walking around.
I think most of us know the Aztec horserush strategy, and it's not hard, and it's usually the best start for them.
As for the warrior start:
There's no reason to wait till 3900BC to rush the first warrior. Rush the 1st at 4000BC, put two on forest, and rush the 2nd warrior for 4 gold at 3800BC.
a lot of what you do with them depends on what gold you get in the first few turns, and if you are or are not horserushing. But there still is a little variety for what to do with them after that, but it's not anything that's not just basic game play and teching up.
I personally don't find the temples bonus changes my strategy from that of a generic civ, other than I may consider building a few more temples with them than I normally would. The %50 gold bonus makes them a decent economic victory civ, but that's about it. I don't find them to be very nuanced, as the only thing that challenges strategic thinking is what to do with the turns you save from auto-heal, which is their biggest advantage. The turns you save means you can start buildings settlers sooner, and start building building a little earlier too. I've never found them too deep, they are a good civ, but not thought provoking.
sorry to burst your bubble but..
if you work on 2 trees for two turns to build a warrior.. it will cost 8 gold, not 4
0 turns: 20 gold
1 turn: 12 gold
2 turns: 8 gold
all with two trees...
and i mean, and strategy other than horserush... with the warrior rushing you save 3 extra turns, and most people research horseback, so i was thiking what if instead ppl just dont research hbr and save te 3 turns for something better?..
Last edited by Hellogoodbye123; 08-28-2009 at 09:39 AM.
I thought danthechan or someone was promising to write an Aztec strat a while back.
Your math is off. It's like this:
4000 0/10 hammers toward a warrior (20g rush cost)
3900 4/10 hammers toward a warrior (rush him for 12/25 gold)
3800 4/10 hammers toward a warrior (rush him for 12/13 gold)
to get warriors in 3900 and 3800 and have 1 gold remaining.
or
4000 0/10 hammers toward a warrior (rush him for 20/25 gold)
3900 4/10 hammers toward a warrior (12 gold rush cost)
3800 8/10 hammers toward a warrior (rush him for 4/5 gold)
You get two warriors by 3800 BC either way and you get the first one a little faster the second way. The only advantage I see to waiting to 3900 BC to rush a warrior is you might accidentally step on a great land in 4000 BC and you'll miss the gold for it.
Why would the cost drop by 8 between turns 0 and 1 and drop by 4 gold between turns 1 and 2? Do you have some kind of special inflation DLC?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote