We need to play again, so that you can give me a refresher course on the power of the Mongols.
We need to play again, so that you can give me a refresher course on the power of the Mongols.
I faced the warth of MadDjinn of the mongols the other day... he was pretty good.. i was japs and 4th in tech race for a long time coz of crappy start and war with other japs and megacity plans. MadDjinn you were good with your horsemen attcking behind enemy lines with your extra movement. Good to see someone playing well with mongols!
But i dont know why everyone quit that game around 1000 AD so i rose from bottom to top after that
Last edited by bravo1717; 04-14-2009 at 12:26 PM.
I can't remember why everyone left either.Originally Posted by bravo1717
I faced the warth of MadDjinn of the mongols the other day... he was pretty good.. i was japs and 4th in tech race for a long time coz of crappy start and war with other japs and megacity plans. MadDjinn you were good with your horsemen attcking behind enemy lines with your extra movement. Good to see someone playing well with mongols!
But i dont know why everyone quit that game around 1000 AD so i rose from bottom to top after that
I think I was well ahead of the other 2. I had the Egyptian locked into a corner and the other Japanese player open for killing.
you should really join the text chat room when you play. it's a good spot.
Luck was with me tonight. I played three FFA games, going random in each. I got the Arabs in the first game playing against Japanese, Zulu, Germans and Spanish AI. The Zulu and Germans both settled their capitols in weird places and then quit. I put together a couple of horse armies and took out all the AI, but the Japanese found the Knights Templar and took Tripoli. I killed the Knights and got Tripoli back with my horses (yay Fundamentalism!). I eventually found Japan on an island and tried for Kyoto, but lost one army to Japan's archers. The Japanese player got Feudalism and killed the rest of my horses (but it was kinda close, I briefly had a Great General). Anyway, I had the whole continent compared to the Japanese player's one little island. All I really had to do was make sure the Japanese knights never made it to the mainland or at least kill them if they did (I had a few vet Legions ready). The Japanese player quit shortly after that.
I got the Russians in game 2 against Americans, Zulu, Greeks and Chinese AI (didn't last long with the Zulu around). The Greek player quit early, but the Americans and Zulu fought all game. I kept a low profile and expanded to islands. While my opponents spent their energies on engines of destruction, I researched Industrialization and Corporation, never bothering with tanks. I eventually got an economic victory with neither the Americans nor the Zulu gaining the upper hand in their war. Very lucky for me. The Americans culture flipped two of my best cities and took another with tanks, but that was about the extent of my interaction with them.
I discussed game 3 in the English strategy thread. I'll only add here that it's very unusual to find myself in the modern era having only settled three cities (including my capitol) and to go an entire game without ever using the Republic government.
I see this a lot and have to wonder... does anyone build/buy temples anymore? or does everyone leave that to the free stuff (Arc, Monarchy, Impressive Cathedral)?
seems if you want to make nice cities, you should build some sort of culture to prevent GA flips. At least in the cities you want to keep.
I do when I can in MP, and it keeps me a little ahead of everyone else in culture so that someone else is the default target.
Last edited by MadDjinn; 04-17-2009 at 06:23 AM.
I had a temple in the city he flipped. Also, I had just gotten a Great Artist and had just been given the option to flip a Greek city. I chose that but instead my city was flipped and the GA was settled there and I didn't get the Greek city. So I lost my best city (was larger than my capitol with more buildings thanks to fish and cattle resources) and the GP I'd just received.
At this point, I've been culture flipped enough times that I don't really let it get to me. I just try to have enough cities that the loss of a couple doesn't really matter that much. Losing a city to culture is better than losing to tanks because the my enemy isn't going to have a Great Artist factory, but probably will have a tank factory. In this game I lost cities to both GAs and tanks. I'm kind of crappy at the early game and much better at the late game, so I'm used to having to come from behind. Most people I play are good at the early game and either so-so or terrible at the late game. It all evens out (in my favor).
Keeping my cities is nice. Winning is nicer.
that is horrible, getting flipped in that case. i had an awesome h2h game last night as americans vs. arabs. i almost won early, taking tripoli, and losing my horse army to his warrior army in the indian capital he took. then he drove me out of tripoli. after that i turtled in my 2 mainland cities and went to the islands. i was behind 10 techs and about to concede, but i started closing the gap and eventually got in the lead in time for some of the best bonuses. i though we were sprinting to the finish in dem. when he dropped 8-9 tank armies off with a battleship fleet next to washington. i had a mod inf. army with engineer and loyalty and luckily had my other local city building a wonder. i built a road and changed to inf. he attacked, then i would get a chance to form an army, he attacked more, i managed to move one in, etc. in the end i barely held him off and accepted his surrender with mutual respect.
Yeah, it seemed mightily unfair at the time, but my favorite way to win is to get good and bloodied along the way.
Probably I was just a victim of the Americans not having found any of the Greek cities yet. You can't flip a city you can't see.
I'm still relatively new at this game and these threads are really helping me. I played 3 FFA games last night while only winning 1. I don't know why but I enjoy using the Egyptians. I can tech very quickly with them. Colossus or not. I'm not a good "rusher". I prefer to expand and play peacfully. But I am good at stopping the rush. I will talk about the games I lost. The game I won I just jumped out to a massive tech lead and everyone quit. HG was my starting GW in that game. The 2 games I lost were very similar. Aztecs, Chinese, Germans in one game, and Aztecs, Chinese and Zulu in the other. HG as starting wonder in both games. First game I had Chinese directly above me and Aztecs very close to the East. I found 1 hut before the aztecs had armies at my door. I already had an archer army within 15 turns. He attacked immediatly called it off and no upgrade for me. I hate that. Aztecs then left me alone and headed north. I was trying to build more defensive armies to stop more impending rushes. Within 10 turns Aztecs had captured Beijing and the AI controlled Indians. He found Angkor Wat, got the GP and went to Democray. He jumped to a massive Tech lead and I couldnt recover. I tried to hang in there but he had tank armies while I was still researching gunpowder. This Aztec player was a top 20 player. 2nd game was the same. I stop the rush against me, but other players fall to the rush. The rusher gets extra cities and I have trouble keeping up. What is the way to research? BW first or do most people research HBR first and get the armies out there? I guess it depends on who you are playing. A couple of Zulu players and BW first is probably a given. I think all in all I have to get more aggressive.
Getting more aggressive can be a good plan. Depends on the situation. Getting Bronze early when you are Egypt is often wise, but if you can pull off a horserush, so much the better. Egypt has some advantage there with all the starting wonders except Stonehenge.
You got Hanging Gardens in three of three games? Lucky. I always get Stonehenge or the Oracle (this is really good on SP, but maybe not so much against good players in MP).
How many cities are you building? You don't mention anything about that. Sometimes you can expand enough to get a solid tech lead and then you just mostly have to defend or you can go on the offense with advanced units if you want. Really, the Aztec player going straight for Democracy says to me he's not the best player. In the ancient era (when Angor Wat gives you the Pyramid), you should always prefer Republic to Democracy (or Fundamentalism if you're still rushing).
I've had games where a rusher takes three capitols. At that point it basically comes down to whether he knows how to play the middle game. Many of them don't and you can out-expand and out-tech to crush your enemy. If your enemy does the middle game well, then you have an uphill battle to victory. You can win, but it's not easy. If you can get Gunpowder before your enemy has Combustion and get the Industrialization bonus (this can be done even when trailing in tech because Combustion takes so long to research), you'll have a shot. At that point, get Corporation, Mass Production and (maybe) Communism and you're well on your way to an economic victory.
Thanks for the advice. Yes HG in all 3 games was very lucky. Almost like being the Chinese. I usually get The Oracle. In the game where the Aztec player got AW, I only managed to expand to 5 cities. 2 island cities. He had a lot of offensive pressure so I was busy trying to build defenses. Perhaps he knew he was well in control when he went to Democracy I had 8 or 9 techs to his 11. I only had 2 cities this time. He must of had 5 or 6. 3 from the AI/Chinese player. He jumped out to a 22 to 11 tech lead. He had cruiser units quickly and pretty much cut off my expansion as I didnt even have Navagation yet. The only reason I know he was a top 20 player is because I looked up the rankings for FFA. He was 13th or 14th. I hope this doesnt mess up my matchups. I've had to change my PSN because on my old one I couldnt get 1 player in a FFA or team lobby. Generally though I expand to 9 or 10 cities. Should I be expanding more? By the time I have 10 cities, I'm producing massive amouts of science and the game is almost over. I've read threads about people expanding to 15-20 cities, but I dont know if I could defend them all or keep them from getting flipped.
look you doing good you cant expect to win every game and azteck is the cheapest civ from all other civs if he starts near you game is over there is no chance for you to get any golds or to expand in peace .
Yeah, more cities is generally better. Put a city every place you possibly can, especially islands. Having one or two mainland production cities is fine, but you just really cannot have too many science or gold cities. Just practice expanding and you'll get better at it, but you should always set a goal to have as many cities as possible.
Defense can be tricky, but all too often your opponents will let you get away with bloody murder and you barely have to defend a thing. Otherwise, just set your cities to build archer armies before setting them on libraries. Archer armies take only 15 turns working a single forest. Not bad. You won't tech up as fast as you would if you were rushing libraries everywhere, but that's okay. You may have a bunch of dinky cities spitting out 2 science now, but by the modern era, those cities are gonna be awesome.
As for culture flips, just don't build your city next to Paris. Culture flips can be a pain, but you won't experience very many of them most of the time. Also, you have a little culture boost with your free wonder so a lot of the time the flip will go to another civ (if there are any). But just think about it. You have three cities and one is flipped. How bad is that? You have twenty cities and one is flipped. How bad is that?
Of course, if you're absolutely killing with 10 cities, then that's fine. There's no reason to keep expanding if you don't want to. Just make sure you wrap up the game quickly so nobody comes from behind and beats you by out-expanding.
As for the Aztec player, don't know a thing about him and it doesn't matter anyway. In general, I would say a player who is satisfied with 6 cities and switches to Democracy is not making the most of things. In your case, maybe he felt he could keep you from expanding too much. Still seems risky to me. If I were that Aztec player, I'd either go Fundamentalism and try to take you out by dropping like 5 vet horse armies at your doorstep (this will work) or I'd expand to like 30 cities and watch you quit when you realize you're 25 techs behind. I guess whatever works is fine though.
playing as americans against a highly ranked spanish player i learned a valuable lesson. its early and i've already fallen behind 3 techs. my chance to catch up is an a.i. aztec city with my ninja horse army and militia blocking production. there is a 2 fish/ dye 1 square island right off the coast so i'm going to take the cap then rush a settler to get back in the game. i attack with my wounded army even though i still have a 6-2.5 lead. of course i lose and am buried from then on. moral of the story: don't count you cities before they are hatched. heal the stupid army first. arrrgh!
I'll play a peaceful Aztec game, if anyone's interested.
If you are winning with the Mongols in ranked MP, then yes, it has to be noobs. You will never beat a good player w/Mongols, period. They are competing w/French for worst-civ for MP.
But more power to you! I think it's great that someone else likes the Mongols!
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
I used to agree 100% with your moral & still do in general but after watching my son play, I'm not so sure. Often times if you wait 1 more turn, they are able to rush another unit, make an army, build a road & send reinforcements, etc.... You took a small risk in making a 2:1 odds attack & saving a turn when things are in the balance can make the difference. I think the moral is that sometimes you win, sometimes you lose & you have to weigh all the risk factors across your empire & compare to your enemies empire to see if it's worth the risk. If you feel it's a potential turning point in the game & waiting another turn could end that opportunity, you've got to be willing to "risk it for the biscuit" as my son likes to say. More often than not, he wins so he can't be all wrong.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
I think the French are worse. I have won a few FFA games as the Mongols and beaten at least one player who was higher-ranked than me.
Playing the Mongols, there's a danger period where any fast rusher is a real threat. After that, they can be quite good. With some luck, you will have more cities faster than anyone else. I've had six cities in 20 turns a couple of times.
to this point, i am by no means an exceptional player but do win more than i lose in ranked. i lost to his mongols with my americans in the 1 time we matched up. so to sum it up, a very good player with mongols can beat an average player with top civs. noobs are a whole different catagory. like the spanish guy i played who settled his 2 cities in a small triangle off from madrid. meanwhile he cruised the map getting artifacts. i guess he didn't get the memo about finding 2 whale islands.
I personally also like the Mongols better than French but they are so hard to win with against good players, virtually impossible.
It's key for the Mongols to survive the ancient era but can be difficult due to scarcity of gold. If you can have a couple of horseman armies in Medieval, they have a real shot at winning & can settler steal better than anyone as well as do hit & run tactics. You also need some well-placed cities near mountains for late game production which can be devastating w/Mongols.
However, a good chinese player will crush the Mongols virtually every time.
I've come to the conclusion that the Chinese are almost unstoppable in the hands of a good player due to their flexibility which allows them to adapt to anyone as needed. If their expansion isn't stopped early, they are going to dominate the game the longer it goes on. They can defend against rushers, can tech better than anyone, can spy spam folks for GP, etc....
The only times I've seen a good Chinese player lose is when they are hemmed in early in the game. Otherwise, it's simply a matter of time.
Note, good chinese players defend their cities. Poor Chinese players over-tech & are vulnerable to attack & there are LOTS of poor chinese players. I can't tell you how many times I've seen Chinese players tech up to tanks immediately only to lose due to poor defenses. It's kind of amusing actually. Tech-alone will not win games usually. Lots of people don't realize this.
thanks & best regards,
Pedal2Metal
A good Chinese player will crush any civ virtually every time. Their bonus is basically "the Chinese are 50% better than any other civ." This doesn't really say anything about whether any other civ is any good.
The real weakness of the Mongols is that if you end up being a rusher's first target, there's not very much you can do. Even if you research Bronze Working in time, you probably don't have the gold to rush archers. MadDjinn's strat of getting horse armies appears to be solid, but it seems difficult to get the armies together fast enough to defend the homestead (and alas, he stubbornly refuses to write a strategy).
So if you don't get rushed and find some barbs, you're be in good shape. Just like with Egypt; if you have a good wonder and some deserts, you're in good shape.
Agreed on all points. I go for broke w/Mongols w/horses but it's important you not lose the horses because limited $$ to rebuild so you have to be more careful in your movement tactics as well as compared to other civs.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
if you're settler stealing then you really need to relook at the Mongols best bonus again.
and please expand as much as possible with the chinese. it helps me win
@elfthrasher: I'll be writing a strategy guide sometime soon. (I'm doing it in my head atm). but unlike the other guides, I need to discuss more about the strats that the Mongols opponents are using. Ie, how you deal with a tech&turtle player is very different than how you deal with a mass expander player.
and well, the usual opponents on MP are starting to purposely counter me now when I play mongols, so I've switched it up a bit for now
I'd like to see the strategy guide. Yes, over-expansion is a common error w/Chinese. However, good players don't make this mistake so by all means bring your horseman army to my city & watch it get destroyed.if you're settler stealing then you really need to relook at the Mongols best bonus again.
and please expand as much as possible with the chinese. it helps me win
@elfthrasher: I'll be writing a strategy guide sometime soon. (I'm doing it in my head atm). but unlike the other guides, I need to discuss more about the strats that the Mongols opponents are using. Ie, how you deal with a tech&turtle player is very different than how you deal with a mass expander player.
and well, the usual opponents on MP are starting to purposely counter me now when I play mongols, so I've switched it up a bit for now
Yes, 50% trade is very nice but you've got to be playing horrible players for them to allow you to take their cities. I can't imagine ever losing a city to the Mongols as it would require a complete breakdown of any rational thought. It's going to be virtually impossible to have a horseman army at their door prior to 2500 BC & it's bonehead easy to have an archer army by then or rush one if needed because unlike the Mongols other civs actually get $$. There are much better horse-rushing civs than the Mongols.
I know you like the Mongols which is great but to suggest a good Chinese player can be beaten by a good Mongol player implies you aren't playing good players in my mind. There is simply no comparison between these 2 civs & a good Chinese player will kill a good Mongol player, every time. Feel free to rent a 360 so you can experience this first-hand.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
if you're making archer armies and walking settlers out, then sure, it's harder, but you're spending a lot of time building archers so your expansion is much slower.
besides, it only takes a few horse armies to get through a single archer army.
Nevermind how long it takes for the Mongols to build several horse armies! By that time, we've got bombers/tanks! Never mind if we decide to attack a Mongolian city, will it have any defenses?!? C'mon man, I know you love the Mongols, but you're playing the ostrich & putting your head in the sand.
The only way to settle this discussion is through a H2H tournament. Let's say best of 7 so it's not some "luck" thing so neither of us will have an excuse. Rent the 360 + game for a weekend & use a free 1 month Gold membership, if you win 4 of 7, I'll reimburse your cost + you'll have the satisfaction of victory. If I or my son wins 4 of 7, you keep playing the Mongols on your PS3 but realize the Chinese can eat the Mongols for breakfast, lunch, & dinner & you've been playing guys who don't know how to use the Chinese. Or we can beat you with the Spanish, or the Zulu, or the Aztecs, or the Americans, or the ... (except the French which also suck for MP).
If you're game, private message me & we'll set something up that works for both of us. It would be fun in any case!
thanks & best regards,
Pedal2Metal
lol...
well I already have a X360 and a gold live account. speaking of which, I think some people miss me there... been months since I turned it on.
I really don't understand how you think that Mongols are that bad. either that or you never really tried to use them.
the Chinese are one of the (if not the) best civs in the game. yes they'll win most games. but I'm saying that they aren't invincible.
maybe if I'm bored some day I'll rent the 360 version of the game.
I'm not suggesting the Mongols have an advantage versus the Chinese and I don't think MadDjinn is either. I fully expect the Chinese to win that matchup. That being said, the above is a bit of a strawman.
Yeah, Mongols will probably not have a horse army at somebody's door in 15 turns (theoretically possible, but not gonna happen often). That doesn't mean horse armies are useless. If the Mongols are not the first target of a rusher, the Mongol horse army can probably take out the enemy army. Even before extra movement, the Mongols should have the advantage by knowing the turf better.
I never see players sending archer armies along with settlers when they expand. I don't think I've ever seen it. Sometimes they send a single archer. Usually they just walk the settlers, sometimes to a location where there's already a fortified archer (at least that's how I usually do it). Then when the city is founded, there are few turns before there's an archer army, even if archers are being rushed. Even a non-vet horse army has an opportunity here.
So consider Mongols vs. Chinese expander. The Mongols get two huts and put together a horse army. The Chinese are cautious and make archer armies in their first two cities. Nothing bad happens to them, so they settle a third city on the mainland and work on archers there while sending another settler to the islands on a galley. The Mongol heads to the Chinese, taking another hut along the way. It's maybe 1500 BC now. Reasonable? The Mongol gets a little lucky and wins that 3rd Chinese mainland city.
So now you've got the Mongols with three barb cities, all of which are small right now, but which may turn out all right (not all barb cities suck) and a nice 3 pop city with +50% trade (so up to 9 beakers with three sea tiles and you know the Chinese love sea tiles). The Chinese have two cities, but will take some good island spots real fast. The Mongols have the only offensive army around and will make it tough for the Chinese to expand any more on the mainland, thus they have more space to spread out. Oh, and the Mongols got a tech from the Chinese on taking their city.
Okay, it's contrived and the Chinese still have a real shot at winning the game, especially if they get a number of good island cities. Heck, I've won games without _any_ cities on the mainland with weaker civs than the Chinese. My point is just that the Mongol horse army can keep things close. If the Mongol player had just gone for defense and expansion, he might get an okay start, but before long the Chinese will have many, many more cities. Then half price libraries kick in and it's all over except for the sound of tanks rolling through Mongol streets.
that's the crux of it.
and well, let's not discount the Mongols grabbing a boat and wandering out to those islands as well to pillage multi-tiled islands. (even I wouldn't suggest hitting 1 tile islands).
everything depends on staring positions. if we're in H2H there's 3 AIs around. both players will likely rush one (unless very unlucky on start positions) before the AI gets to archers. which means that there's more targets out there for the Mongol, not just the chinese cities. though, the AI sucks at expanding, even if it's the Romans.
All I need is 2 maybe 3 nice barb huts (1 grass, 2 forest) and I can get many horses out fast.
but.. it's the luck of the draw for the mongol. I played one game last night where my cap had 3 grass and 4 forests. the *only* other hut in the region had 3 grass 4 forests. that's some nice production. unfortunately it was the only other hut in the region and the guy I was playing was Aztec. he started 10 tiles away and went in the right direction to find me, so the game didn't last too long.
I played a different H2H game against a Zulu player and he rushed me relentlessly. thankfully he started far enough away that we met in the middle of the map, after I got 3 barb huts and took out the Russians. He really did try to rush me, but there was 2 choke points (other than the Roman city) where he could come through. I dropped a vet warrior army on the hill of one and left the other open. he took one of my small hut cities, but I took it back shortly thereafter with a horse army. After that, we played cat and mouse with him trying to get me to commit my units by him backing up then coming forward later in the turn. unfortunately for him I'm more patient than he was and I got to medieval so my horses went 3 tiles and his Impi's only 2. I ran him down easily at that point. too bad he only knew how to rush and didn't know how to make defenses, as he left his cities near empty most of the time.
imo you have to try to take under-defended cities with mongols. it is their potentially best bonus. it is not a stretch to think that people don't start cities with archer armies in place.
I think we all agree that the mongols would typically lose agaisnt two evenly-skilled players with mongols vs. china. not every times, but probably close to 8 or 9 of 10 matches should go to china...
the thing about using any average or less than great civ versus a power civ is that you got several factors playing into whether the "weaker" civ comes out on top:
1. the skill levels of the players
2. the layout of the map
3. the flexibility of both players. The weaker civ player has to be more flexible and adapt faster, whereas someone using china or zulu can usually dictate their strategy regardless of the map or what strat their opponnet is using. this is kinda related to skill, but when you find a zulu, american, chinese or other power civ player that wins a lot of games, a lot of times they stick with their "tried-and-true" strategy to a fault. Taking advatage of this with a weaker is civ is often the key to success.
4. luck of battles,
and there's more things too...
this is what I have learned from runs with the Russians, French, and Indians. The indians can be quite powerful, but also putrid with the wrong map, and they require a lot of skill to play with....
I'm actually starting to put the Mongols above the Russians and French as far as overall strength... Much like the Indians, they take lots of knowledge and discipline to be successful. Flexibilty is crucial, because you've gotta a lot of crappy assets to defend, but you need all that **** to succeed. It's tough, and you've gotta anticipate when to defend like mad, and recognize the window you have to rush and bother the other guy a few turns a head... Mainly it takes practice, and my Mongol skills are probably no where near that of Madjinn, but they are fun civ to use, and I'll be trying to play with them more...
I'm really starting to think their best bonus is usually the %50 from captured cities, but a close second is the +1 movement with horsemen. The horsemen in the medieval era is usually the line between winning an losing. Against weak opponnets, it's really easy to strike quick. Against tougher opponnets it's more about disrupting expansion almost like impis do... But the real clincher has to be managing all those crappy cities... Learning to use them all in unison or individually is a skill I'm still mastering as far as when to go in and out of these two modes..
I hope MadDjinn can write something up soon, it'll be nice to try out another "crappy" civ and learn to spank all those ppl that use the same civs all the time... (maybe i'll see some mongols finally beat my main account's single minded spanish).
Nothing like having a strategy that boasts a 10-20% success rate. Heh. I wonder if the developers wanted China to be unbalanced. It seems like such a no-brainer that +1 population would be busted.
yeah, I agree. But from reading interviews and talking with those connected to 2K and those who are into the other civ games moreso than this one, a lot of them don't recognize the imbalance....
Listening to the "RevCast" that they have over at the apolyton website, they don't realize which civs are powerful or not... They included the Russians into the discussion. I think a lot of people get caught up into the "every civ has it's own qualities, so they're all equally powerful", but we know that's not the case.... Maybe for half the civs you can make this type of arguement. But to include the Russians, the French (on other threads on this board), and the like, it's really a joke...
but this is the first time they've done a fast paced civ like this, and I hope the changes to the next installment doesn't slow the game down even more like they did in the PC series. for example, I wouldn't want pollution or corruption or and thing like that to slow down the game too much... the game should still be about winning powerfully and fast, but they should make a choice between balance or not.
I kinda like the fact that there are civs that are fun to play with, but really hard to win with.... I get more pride out of the game winning with a civ like the Mongols or the Russians as compared to winning all the time with the Chinese or Americans...
if only the mongols got to use the tile that the barbhut is settled on... then they'd be powerful...
as is, it's one of the hardest civs to play. which is likely why most people refuse to play them and therefore don't understand them.
the +1 for china is a huge advantage, but it's really only that much more powerful if people are leaving them alone.
arg...
we had a sweet game going today but it got cut short due to Rawjos having to leave which then caused me to freeze... (good timing since I had a phone interview at that moment).
Rawjos took the Spanish (funny
I had 2 cities right on the mountains that were growing pop quick, and my cap hit 15 pop (via HGs at 10 pop). I had ~10 cities when we froze... 2 from the AI and 2 from rad. sad part was that rawjos abandoned the mainland so I had the entire main continent to myself (except for his cap) which rather sucks. I don't like going republic and making my own cities as the Mongols.
there was only 1 useless barb hut city (no food). I didn't even want it but rawjos got owned by the barbs lol.
I was keeping within 2-3 techs of both of them, and picked up the Literacy and University boni, along with railroads. (just missed engineering).
I was starting to consider a non-dom win, maybe culture but likely tech or gold. I could produce anything I wanted since I had mass mountains, lots of pop and communism first.
only annoying thing was that rawjos kept getting GS's :P 3 in a row arg...
sweet. was it a normal game or peacful? this time tomorrow i'd love to get in on some action.
normal game that stayed peaceful as the other 3 tried to tech ahead a lot.
Absolutely true. I guess since I have to play my son who is actually one of the better Chinese players on the 360, I find it demoralizing because he ALWAYS wins, no matter what I play as. He's just too adaptive in his play style!
I like the Mongols because they are so "unique" with their bonuses but geez they are hard to play. I'm still trying however. I actually won once in H2H with them but it was luck mainly because the other guy quit. I do find if you take a city or 2, life gets much easier. If you keep those cities & make it to Ind age, they are a force to be reckoned with. I am definitely interested in the strategy writeup.
Romans have some "unique" bonuses as well but much easier for me to win with.
The Russians are actually an ok civ & can do some real damage if left alone. If they get on an island, look out, they will be hard to stop.
I don't care for the French much & think they are competing for worst-civ.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
That's great, I think it would be a good time.
Yes, I am not very good with the Mongols but I do like them. I just find they have little "margin of error" when it comes to "losing material" early in the game to use a Chess phrase. Other civs can lose material early ok due to getting $$ which allows for greater risk-taking earlier on. With Mongols, if you overplay your risks, you won't recover in time. I'm still trying to figure out how to play them just right but it's a real tightrope IMO vs. Chinese/Zulu/etc....
However, I'd love to play a few games as the Mongols & get some "on-the-job" training!
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
note to Elanza...
err, sorry
that was the best setup I've had for mongols in h2h that I've had in a long time. too bad you (or your sister, I forget) started on an island (I'm guessing since I didn't see your cities anywhere). it would have been more fun if you were on the mainland since you would have been able to take an AI cap before I did (or rush me).
though, you shouldn't ignore 2 barb huts when you know the mongol is on the map. the one warrior army that I saw by them wasn't going to get anywhere near my cities if it made it that far.
.....
for the rest:
7cities of gold for a mongol = 3 vet horse armies within 5 turns of getting it. (provided the few barb cities can make anything, otherwise only a few turns more) that many horses will take down anything. including the 22.5 def hoplite army. tasty greeks
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
