Civs where you need luck

[Cymru]

I think that part of the reason some Civs are good or bad depends on how big the role of luck is in their success. China, US etc. can almost always do well, no matter what their starting position is. By contrast the Mongols are very heavily dependent on where they find themselves. As an example: normally I find playing them the hardest civ, but recently achieved my fastest victory ever with them. It was totally because, for once the first three barbs were located at great growth sites. So I was able to develop a veteran warrior army very early and knock off two civs and then found a perfect block point against the other two. this allowed to me to build cities tech up fast without expending effort on defense.

One advantage of Mongols. If you lose; you can blame them for being such a bad civ, and if you win it was clearly your superior play. But, if you lose as the Chinese, there aren't too many excuses.

[ShowtekGER]

nice thread. i cogitate about that quite often cause i don't like luck based civs. that doesn't mean i only like power civs, but it means that i like civs that are controlled by me and not by the map.

the civ which is the most luck dependent is egypt imo. ironically maybe 50% of the games i lost were against them. as everyone knows they can be insanly powerful with col.+4deserts+river+maybe a good resource. but they are simply a weak civ with henge and often with the oracle. they usually walk around with the first settler to find deserts which also requires luck.
yes i dislike this civ. and i hate to lose against egypt colossus players.

China, US etc. can almost always do well, no matter what their starting position is.

i disagree on that because you equalize both civs. yes america and china are the two most powerful civs and yes america CAN pull off the best compared to all other civs. but america needs gold to do that and it can happen to you that you haven't gold around you. china doesn't need anything, their bonus is enough. i know it's unlikely for america not to get much gold but it happens. thus, china is more balanced = less luck dependent.

i also don't really like the spanish because of whale hunting, especially if it's whale hunting for the cap. in the last case you need a whole alp of luck imo and you could be easily screwed. the 'normal' whale hunting is just not my taste. you can have an awesome game when you find many whales and fast, your game can suck if you find no whales. and that happens.

in comparison i love the indians. you can say you have to be lucky to find the right resources. but usually you can use nearly all resources. the difference to luck based civs is that you don't rely on a special resource but instead you have to be flexible and engage yourself in regard to the specific resource.

[MadDjinn]

and here comes the anti-mongol threads again..

geez, I thought I got rid of these long ago...

mongols are not luck-based to win. they take skill. period. either you have it and can fully utilize their era boni, or you don't and think it just takes luck.

I've won from islands and from peninsulas with no barb huts. it sucks, but if you're good you'll get past that. just like if you were any other civ in that position.

and Spain is by far not a luck based civ. just stop whale hunting for your cap. same goes for the english with dye.

if you think you need to do any of the above 'lucky' things to win with those civs, then you aren't that good and it shows.

[Cymru]

and here comes the anti-mongol threads again..

geez, I thought I got rid of these long ago...

mongols are not luck-based to win. they take skill. period. either you have it and can fully utilize their era boni, or you don't and think it just takes luck.

I've won from islands and from peninsulas with no barb huts. it sucks, but if you're good you'll get past that. just like if you were any other civ in that position.

and Spain is by far not a luck based civ. just stop whale hunting for your cap. same goes for the english with dye.

if you think you need to do any of the above 'lucky' things to win with those civs, then you aren't that good and it shows.

I have no doubt that good players win consistently with all civs: that is not the point. The polls I have seen on this forum place the Mongols right at the bottom almost every time. So, for most players, they are the hardest to work with and the one people like the least. I actually don't mind playing with some of the lesser civs, it is their unpredictable nature that makes them more interesting than the powerhouses

[MadDjinn]

I have no doubt that good players win consistently with all civs: that is not the point. The polls I have seen on this forum place the Mongols right at the bottom almost every time. So, for most players, they are the hardest to work with and the one people like the least. I actually don't mind playing with some of the lesser civs, it is their unpredictable nature that makes them more interesting than the powerhouses

see. you missed the point in your own post.

I bolded it for you so you can see... just bc they're harder to play correctly, doesn't mean they are worse than other civs. and the fact that 'polls' are oh so accurate to reality.

It doesn't matter if 'people don't like them'. what matters is that for the most part, those same people don't have the skill to use them properly.

it's the old "I suck, but I find playing the americans/chinese/zulu very easy, therefore they must be the best and I'll just call anything I fail at as bad or 'lucky' or 'lesser' "

yada yada..

[ShowtekGER]

and Spain is by far not a luck based civ. just stop whale hunting for your cap. same goes for the english with dye.

well i don't think spain is a luck based civ and i also didn't write that. (however whale hunting for the cap is.) you'll prolly find some whales, in other cases you'll find plenty of them, in other cases you'll find none or few. i personally don't like that. it's arguable if it's luck or not.

[MorteEterna]

well i don't think spain is a luck based civ and i also didn't write that. (however whale hunting for the cap is.) you'll prolly find some whales, in other cases you'll find plenty of them, in other cases you'll find none or few. i personally don't like that. it's arguable if it's luck or not.

Spain is never about luck.. If you don't get whales, who cares? That's a normal civilization expanding and you can beat your enemies out-expanding them. The double exploration is really going to help and navigation can make you reach islands. Finding artifacts is not about luck, you get a galleon and you can explore.. Getting 3-4 artifacts within 10-15 turns is pretty lucky however..

Mongols are not much luck based but 2 cities are note enough to do a good job. To win with them you should get a friendly village or some gold from the AI or it will be really hard to do a good job. I will try to play them more and write a strategy soon, but I will try to explain how these new cities are worth:

Horse rush is still the key, then, you should build 2 warriors. Explore and take those cities, while you set your capital on production (wonder). After you take a barb, getting the city, you set the city on water tile. I will explain why science and not production:

Your capital produces 4 hammers and it's usually harder to reach. Your new cities need 10 turns to produce a keshik, and if you lose the city (it shouldn't be too far from the enemy), you lose all production. If you work on science you get it and can't lose it, then, after using these cities to get science, you work on tree in one city and use the other to grow to 2 if possible, or set production.. Then with the gold you get you rush keshiks and finish them in your capital. With a balanced start you can have a horse army after 12-13 turns hopefully. And warriors can still work ok to take AI. Not hard to have gold, it's easy to have 3/5 of a horsemen army.. Just declare them two times (old trick) and get 25 gold, then you attack another AI or human.

Hope this helps avoiding "bad luck" with mongols, however, if you meet rushers, you really need luck to defend to them, unless you have already got some choke points. Meeting a warrior army after 7 turns from zulu, will slow mongols, and you would need luck..

The real civ based on luck is egypt but good players can still do something with bad starts, other civs are just stronger than others, but skill is the most important thing you need.

[Dzenith]

I think there is an important distinction between civs that require luck to be good and civs that are good and can be great with specific luck criteria.

Egypt, for example, is really crappy most of the time and has one of the most powerful starts if lucky. English is a good civ that can be great if dye is abundant and/or a great scientist is used for feudalism early on or if they can get to modern era without vastly losing the tech race.

China is always great.

So if an equally skilled Chinese, English and Egypt player play a game, who will win (assume average map gold, layout, nobody on an island, AA's don't give an early advantage, etc)? If egypt gets the ultimate start, they will likely win. Otherwise, if English get decent money/dye and feud early, they have a good shot. Otherwise the china player will probably out expand and out tech both and end the game before english can get double naval support. And what happens if egypt walks for 4 turns and settles in an awesome spot with collossus a turn away from an english or chinese player's warrior? The other person is pretty much guaranteed a win after taking thebes.

The point is, that there are too many conditions when you play a game that can tilt the game in one player's favor, whether it is proximity to 7 cities or knight's templar, island starts, proximity to AI, proximity to a newb player, gold/tech huts, civ bonuses, etc. I wish the map and bonuses didn't play such a huge role. I wish newb players didn't give their caplitals away and give one of the FFA players an advantage. If I win or lose I'd like to know that it was because of what I did and not what was given to me. I know that over time luck evens out win percentages and that playing well creates better odds, but it isn't the win percentage that I find annoying. I find it annoying how hard it is to gauge performance and to try to min/max and analyze games. I find games that tilt greatly to one person's favor to be a waste of time - either I am winning easily or spending a huge amount of time expanding and trying to catch up and trying to determine if the player sucks enough to lose even with the advantage.

I hope I'm not ranting. I just hope for the next game they put more effort into balancing civs and maps.

[ShowtekGER]

Spain is never about luck.. If you don't get whales, who cares? That's a normal civilization expanding and you can beat your enemies out-expanding them.

i totally don't agree on that. whales are one of your main advantages. sure you can beat your enemies with "normal expansion" but everyone can do that. if you play against skilled players you should have a hard and usually don't win. an english player with dye vs. a spanish player without whales has the advantage when equally skilled and ignoring differences in the other bonuses. i can't see how you should argue for something else. at most you could differ between if it's "luck" (you find lots of whales) or "bad luck" (you find no whales) since it's maybe more likely to actually find a decent amount of whales than none.

[Hellogoodbye123]

mongols i think are luck based, sometimes i find games where there is no barbs what so ever, and huts are more rare in games. and even if there where barbs, they receiece no gold, no caravans, no spies, no galleys. its a curse of a bonus, also luck if the barbs contain the right resources, sometimes no food.

the mountains bonus is great, but who would like to settle near them in the beginning. plus with little gold you wouldnt expand as good, as to where you can get enough tech going to get to industrial era as fast.

communism isnt that great, i never use it, and with all the bad place barbs you got, you are destined to have to most horrific culture, culture attacks would crush them really bad.

[MadDjinn]

mongols i think are luck based, sometimes i find games where there is no barbs what so ever, and huts are more rare in games. and even if there where barbs, they receiece no gold, no caravans, no spies, no galleys. its a curse of a bonus, also luck if the barbs contain the right resources, sometimes no food.

the mountains bonus is great, but who would like to settle near them in the beginning. plus with little gold you wouldnt expand as good, as to where you can get enough tech going to get to industrial era as fast.

communism isnt that great, i never use it, and with all the bad place barbs you got, you are destined to have to most horrific culture, culture attacks would crush them really bad.

lol...

my point of a few posts ago is made.

[Grayson]

Mongols don't need luck, but it is tough for them to overcome bad luck. Bad luck for an civ= no huts, barbs, or anyway to get gold. Most people find at least 2 or 3 barbs on the map, and should have a decent shot at getting 100 gold. Mongols don't need the 100 gold, and if they get 4 or more barbs, then they are pretty strong, as long as they don't get rushed early on. But losing 1 or 2 1 pop cities isn't the end of the world, as long as you can get something out of them.

Bad luck is starting right next to the Americans or Zulu, and having nothing possible to stop their rush.

There are some civs that become more powerful on random events, so they are a little more luck based. France needs the luck of the GPs to work well, or a lot of gold. Russians need a favorable map, or they are just average.

But, when you're talking about luck in gereneral in this game, there are a lot of ways to think about it. Sometimes it's about getting lucky in early rushing, sometimes it's about gathering a lot of gold, sometimes it's about who finds the artifacts or gets the right GPs at the right time, or it can be the map and how favorable the terrain is for you. China can still be hard to play with on the wrong map, but have a better chance than most civs if they were starting in a similiar spot.

But the most important factor when you consider luck is how skilled the player is that gets the luck vs. the skill of the other players. I don't lose often to the Egyptians w/ Collosus, and it's usually because a lot of players just don't play it well. I also don't lose to it because I still don't think Collosus is a game-decider, just a nice early boost, and it's not to hard to counter it or put up a good fight.

If a noob finds 7 cities, he's probably just gonna rush a library, or spend it horribly. If a good player finds it, he's gonna leverage it into an advantage and make it a sustainable one. If I get 4 or 5 barb huts with the Mongols, I'll probably do ok, be able to find some ok moves to win, but if MadDjinn, who has a lot more experience w/ them gets that same start, he'll probably convert it into something way more powerful than I can. By the same token, he may not be able to take advantage of the Spanish the way I can, but that's just comparing two decent players...

I think good players can turn luck into way more than bad players can, and can play themselves out of bad luck better than others. It still comes down to skill, and yes, you may be at a disadvantage, and there may be nothing you can do to win some games because luck has been on your side, but you can still give ppl a hell of a run even if they do get the greatest of starts.

I really don't see many of the civs being exclusively luck based, except for the French, and they need luck just to be ok. The Russians need some luck to be good, but they are ok. All the other civs don't really require too much luck. That's just my opinion.

[Hellogoodbye123]

lol...

my point of a few posts ago is made.

...lol you got me there..

but i seriously think the mongols need lots of luck, even the best of the best would have trouble using them, for example i consider you a good player, and are they simple to use? no.. now if you get lucky, you turn the tables, lets say you find the 7 cities, and you have like 4 cities, u can rush a whole horsemen army in 1 turn, but how would you get that galley?? you wouldnt, unless you find like 2 huts and 1 tells you where it is and you can hopefully rush a galley with the 50 gold, that would almost never happen.unless luck kicks in,

..also if you do get rush you have no hope, a bunch of useless cities with no gold? how would that work out, even if you had gold and he took 1 city, you would lose a percentage of gold..

the mongols need to be not rush, first "luck" thing, 2nd the map/barbs has to be on there side, wat if ur against a early culture civ and you take a barb close to there cap?

[MorteEterna]

...lol you got me there..

but i seriously think the mongols need lots of luck, even the best of the best would have trouble using them, for example i consider you a good player, and are they simple to use? no.. now if you get lucky, you turn the tables, lets say you find the 7 cities, and you have like 4 cities, u can rush a whole horsemen army in 1 turn, but how would you get that galley?? you wouldnt, unless you find like 2 huts and 1 tells you where it is and you can hopefully rush a galley with the 50 gold, that would almost never happen.unless luck kicks in,

..also if you do get rush you have no hope, a bunch of useless cities with no gold? how would that work out, even if you had gold and he took 1 city, you would lose a percentage of gold..

the mongols need to be not rush, first "luck" thing, 2nd the map/barbs has to be on there side, wat if ur against a early culture civ and you take a barb close to there cap?

In the map, there are also friendly villages, giving you caravans, spies, etc.. If you get a caravan (it happens), you send it to an AI, you get 50 gold, sell them horseback and get other 10 gold (or more, if they explored), declare them war (trick), other 25 gold, and sell 1 warrior. That's 95 gold with one friendly village, and not really lucky.

[MadDjinn]

...lol you got me there..

but i seriously think the mongols need lots of luck, even the best of the best would have trouble using them, for example i consider you a good player, and are they simple to use? no.. now if you get lucky, you turn the tables, lets say you find the 7 cities, and you have like 4 cities, u can rush a whole horsemen army in 1 turn, but how would you get that galley?? you wouldnt, unless you find like 2 huts and 1 tells you where it is and you can hopefully rush a galley with the 50 gold, that would almost never happen.unless luck kicks in,

..also if you do get rush you have no hope, a bunch of useless cities with no gold? how would that work out, even if you had gold and he took 1 city, you would lose a percentage of gold..

the mongols need to be not rush, first "luck" thing, 2nd the map/barbs has to be on there side, wat if ur against a early culture civ and you take a barb close to there cap?

they are easy for me and a few others to use, but that's because there is skill involved. the more skill you have, the easier things become that use the skill. practise helps as well.

galleys take a couple turns to make. there are things called 'exploration tiles' and goodie huts that still give you cash (and tell you where things are. and if I made a few Keshik armies, I'll definitely take your gold and tech.

yeah, can't get rushed. you're sooo right... totally useless everything.

which is why I placed the mongols in the top 20/30 h2h standing on both PS3 and xbox. (before the freezes/reset of rank)

[GhOsTSidRev]

and here comes the anti-mongol threads again..

geez, I thought I got rid of these long ago...

mongols are not luck-based to win. they take skill. period. either you have it and can fully utilize their era boni, or you don't and think it just takes luck.

I've won from islands and from peninsulas with no barb huts. it sucks, but if you're good you'll get past that. just like if you were any other civ in that position.

and Spain is by far not a luck based civ. just stop whale hunting for your cap. same goes for the english with dye.

if you think you need to do any of the above 'lucky' things to win with those civs, then you aren't that good and it shows.

How could you say that the mongols are not luck based? Seriously... Mongols ancient game is dependent on finding a good amount of barb huts. Even if you get a decent amount of barb huts doesnt mean there placed near good land. IMO any rush with the mongols are hail marys especially if there already better rushing civs. That extra keshik movement BLOWS.

[elthrasher]

How could you say that the mongols are not luck based? Seriously... Mongols ancient game is dependent on finding a good amount of barb huts. Even if you get a decent amount of barb huts doesnt mean there placed near good land. IMO any rush with the mongols are hail marys especially if there already better rushing civs. That extra keshik movement BLOWS.

The argument is that while yes you need 2-4 barbs to be competative, this is true of all civs. Mongols without barb villages = teh suck. Other civs without gold = same.

I do think there's some merit to the placement of barbs adding an additional layer of luck. The last time I played the Mongols, I got three barbs, which is just fine, but two had no food at all and one only had plains. That's pretty bad, actually.

[MadDjinn]

yeah, sure. location of the barb huts are sometimes questionable, and maybe luck based to get 3 decent barb huts.

the extra keshik movement... hmm. I have a knight with the march upgrade. that's 4 movement/turn. which means I'm moving twice as fast through your cities as any other civ with knights. that gives you less turns to rush defenders /counter units everywhere.

keshiks with no upgrades still move 3. so you want to expand? guess you're going at 1 tile/turn to keep that archer army on your settler. that slows your development just by me being there. even still, unless you stick to forests/hills the archer army will bite it.

Want to horse rush me? your horses go 2, I go 3. you'll never catch me and I'll always have that 1 extra move/turn to attack you if you are chasing.

it's likely the worst of the mongol boni, but it's still more useful than say, 1/2 price riflemen or +1 move riflemen.

I find with the mongols that it's only ~40% of the time where I'll have the conditions to keshik rush early enough (Ie, read my supplementary strat for them for the 2 conditions). the rest of the time, I'll either do a different strat, or use the keshiks to harrass opponents and control the mainland.

[Hellogoodbye123]

they are easy for me and a few others to use, but that's because there is skill involved. the more skill you have, the easier things become that use the skill. practise helps as well.

galleys take a couple turns to make. there are things called 'exploration tiles' and goodie huts that still give you cash (and tell you where things are. and if I made a few Keshik armies, I'll definitely take your gold and tech.

yeah, can't get rushed. you're sooo right... totally useless everything.

which is why I placed the mongols in the top 20/30 h2h standing on both PS3 and xbox. (before the freezes/reset of rank)

yes but ten gold is nothing.. how is it gonna help, it be other 5-10 turns before you stumble upon another exploration, for the horses, first u need to research it, then build them, that takes time, and for them its pretty slow

..the first 5 turns you build your two warriors
..then the next 5 turns you get till 3 population
..now you probably have atleast one barb, and if you have both a barb city and your capital to max science, thats 8 beakers, that means 3 turns from now you will have horseback, and 3 gold..lets say you got exploration, thats 13 gold
..lets say on those 3 turns you got another barb..
..so its 2700bc, 3 cities, 13 gold, horseback, 2 warriors..
..if your capital has 2 trees every horse will take 5 turns, it will take 15 turns to build them, maybe 10-12, if you get to rush some later with maybe a 25 gold from huts, because you will need 40 gold to rush in ancient in other cities, and wasting that much gold can be a risk.
..in total thats 1500bc, maybe less if you get "Lucky"..this could be the skill part but.. you have to be lucky as to where your enemy doesnt have archer armies, and if they dont, you have to be lucky as to where they dont get lucky with 1 archer. like manyof us have gotten. just too risky to plan a too late horse attack, many good players would have the free wallls built. The only good for your horsemen is to sell them.

[MadDjinn]

yeah, see you don't even read my supplemental strat for how to horse rush with the mongols but decide to post a dumb way to do it here.

go read, then think, then post.

[Hellogoodbye123]

yeah, see you don't even read my supplemental strat for how to horse rush with the mongols but decide to post a dumb way to do it here.

go read, then think, then post.

ok ill go read it

[MorteEterna]

yes but ten gold is nothing.. how is it gonna help, it be other 5-10 turns before you stumble upon another exploration, for the horses, first u need to research it, then build them, that takes time, and for them its pretty slow

..the first 5 turns you build your two warriors
..then the next 5 turns you get till 3 population
..now you probably have atleast one barb, and if you have both a barb city and your capital to max science, thats 8 beakers, that means 3 turns from now you will have horseback, and 3 gold..lets say you got exploration, thats 13 gold
..lets say on those 3 turns you got another barb..
..so its 2700bc, 3 cities, 13 gold, horseback, 2 warriors..
..if your capital has 2 trees every horse will take 5 turns, it will take 15 turns to build them, maybe 10-12, if you get to rush some later with maybe a 25 gold from huts, because you will need 40 gold to rush in ancient in other cities, and wasting that much gold can be a risk.
..in total thats 1500bc, maybe less if you get "Lucky"..this could be the skill part but.. you have to be lucky as to where your enemy doesnt have archer armies, and if they dont, you have to be lucky as to where they dont get lucky with 1 archer. like manyof us have gotten. just too risky to plan a too late horse attack, many good players would have the free wallls built. The only good for your horsemen is to sell them.

After this post, I should say:

1) How ignorant you are to other posts, how ignorant you are when other people answer you and you don't even read their answers
2) Do you know how to use math? 24-20 = 3?? Horse army in 25 turns? Are you kidding me? No math again..

Ok ok, I would have a lot of things to post but I will post again how to have a horse army in 12-13 turns if you get a balanced start:

2 warriors (5 turns), explore. Set your capital on production (wonder/galley), and every barb you get should work on a water tile (horseback). If you can't get more than 2 beakers per turn, set your capital on 1 water and 1 tree, and get horseback. You should get some goodie huts that could give you a caravan, spy, etc.. Use the AI to get gold, and send caravans / sell tech to get gold. If you are pretty "lucky" you will get your second city fast enough to build your horse army in 15 turns or less. Not hard to do..

In one week I should have civilization revolution for PS3. I think I will start some accounts in h2h using only Romans, Mongols, and, I still don't know.

[Grayson]

One thing people always forget about the mongols is they get more and more powerful as the game goes on. Their later bonuses are extremely powerful. +2 production from mountains and Communism are great bonuses. We always group them with the Russians and French as the worst civs, but the French and Russians don't get any good bonuses toward the end.

If I'm surving with the Mongols, things usually turn out really nicely.

If you get a cap, or more than 4 barbs, things are actually pretty easy to do. It takes skill to use them with 2-3 barbs or less, but if you can expand with them, they turn out to be strong.

+1 keishek movement may be their worst bonus, but it's still not bad, especially for the knight rush. I still don't have the nuances down for the horserush strat, but usually I can find a way to still make them ok, if not really strong. But I'm not going to say they are up there anywhere close to the most powerful civs, though I've played MadDjinn a few times, and I've been impressed with what he does with next to no barb villages. He's usually rampaging the map.

[GhOsTSidRev]

yeah, sure. location of the barb huts are sometimes questionable, and maybe luck based to get 3 decent barb huts.

the extra keshik movement... hmm. I have a knight with the march upgrade. that's 4 movement/turn. which means I'm moving twice as fast through your cities as any other civ with knights. that gives you less turns to rush defenders /counter units everywhere.

keshiks with no upgrades still move 3. so you want to expand? guess you're going at 1 tile/turn to keep that archer army on your settler. that slows your development just by me being there. even still, unless you stick to forests/hills the archer army will bite it.

Want to horse rush me? your horses go 2, I go 3. you'll never catch me and I'll always have that 1 extra move/turn to attack you if you are chasing.

it's likely the worst of the mongol boni, but it's still more useful than say, 1/2 price riflemen or +1 move riflemen.

I find with the mongols that it's only ~40% of the time where I'll have the conditions to keshik rush early enough (Ie, read my supplementary strat for them for the 2 conditions). the rest of the time, I'll either do a different strat, or use the keshiks to harrass opponents and control the mainland.

Location of barb huts are always questionable. You can have 4 huts that are going to do nothing but produce 1 or 2 hammers. Most of the time barbs huts dont sit on ideal spots. I rather have the gold,tech, resource etc.

Mongols dont get horses or 5 techs quickly. I dont understand how you would hinder my expansion with late horses. I take aztec rushes off my land i wouldnt be bothered by anything later than that. As long as I have legions I dont see how it would be easy to harrass when i can have 2 LA to your 1 HA.

BTW Mongols were my first civ when this game came out. I know how to play them and had great games where I was Over Powered. But it takes luck to have enough good barb huts at a quick distance and have a successful rush to complement the good barb huts. Than you really got wheel spinning and you can play the game your way.

[Hellogoodbye123]

After this post, I should say:

1) How ignorant you are to other posts, how ignorant you are when other people answer you and you don't even read their answers
2) Do you know how to use math? 24-20 = 3?? Horse army in 25 turns? Are you kidding me? No math again..

Ok ok, I would have a lot of things to post but I will post again how to have a horse army in 12-13 turns if you get a balanced start:

2 warriors (5 turns), explore. Set your capital on production (wonder/galley), and every barb you get should work on a water tile (horseback). If you can't get more than 2 beakers per turn, set your capital on 1 water and 1 tree, and get horseback. You should get some goodie huts that could give you a caravan, spy, etc.. Use the AI to get gold, and send caravans / sell tech to get gold. If you are pretty "lucky" you will get your second city fast enough to build your horse army in 15 turns or less. Not hard to do..

In one week I should have civilization revolution for PS3. I think I will start some accounts in h2h using only Romans, Mongols, and, I still don't know.

1. i have been reading the post in this thread, i not speed reading this time
2. i made a mistake i was thinking of another thing
3. ok so you say of getting caravans, spies, using the trick with the ai,..
so you admit you need to luck to be good with the mongosl?

[Hellogoodbye123]

+1 keishek movement may be their worst bonus, but it's still not bad, especially for the knight rush. I still don't have the nuances down for the horserush strat, but usually I can find a way to still make them ok, if not really strong. But I'm not going to say they are up there anywhere close to the most powerful civs, though I've played MadDjinn a few times, and I've been impressed with what he does with next to no barb villages. He's usually rampaging the map.

how will they tech fast enough, by the time they get to knights the enemy is probably close to gunpowder or alreadyresearched it, after that whats the mongol player supose to do, just hang in there and let the other player win eco? or domination? with tanks?

[MorteEterna]

1. i have been reading the post in this thread, i not speed reading this time
2. i made a mistake i was thinking of another thing
3. ok so you say of getting caravans, spies, using the trick with the ai,..
so you admit you need to luck to be good with the mongosl?

So you should admit you answer without even reading the real content..

I said using the trick with the AI --> this is NOT LUCKY, there are other 1-3 AI in the game and it's not hard too meet them.
Getting goodie villages is NOT LUCKY but you get 1 at least with a balanced start, and, you still keep posting everywhere or spamming saying excuse. Why don't you stop now and try reading more and spamming less? It could help, and many people could consider you more serious in your posts

PS: When I will play on the PS3 I will show you with a balance start how I would have knights faster then you or at the same time, ok?

[MadDjinn]

how will they tech fast enough, by the time they get to knights the enemy is probably close to gunpowder or alreadyresearched it, after that whats the mongol player supose to do, just hang in there and let the other player win eco? or domination? with tanks?

I'm beginning to wonder if morte's assessment of you is actually not far from the truth.

you don't know anything about the civ, yet you make these wonderfully stupid comments all the time.

you know, I did post a strat for getting to knights and rushing with them. oh wait, I guess actually knowing anything is not your thing to do before posting.

[Hellogoodbye123]

So you should admit you answer without even reading the real content..

I said using the trick with the AI --> this is NOT LUCKY, there are other 1-3 AI in the game and it's not hard too meet them.
Getting goodie villages is NOT LUCKY but you get 1 at least with a balanced start, and, you still keep posting everywhere or spamming saying excuse. Why don't you stop now and try reading more and spamming less? It could help, and many people could consider you more serious in your posts

PS: When I will play on the PS3 I will show you with a balance start how I would have knights faster then you or at the same time, ok?

if theres 4 human players, and one takes out the ai, then what? no more 25 gold?

[Hellogoodbye123]

I'm beginning to wonder if morte's assessment of you is actually not far from the truth.

you don't know anything about the civ, yet you make these wonderfully stupid comments all the time.

you know, I did post a strat for getting to knights and rushing with them. oh wait, I guess actually knowing anything is not your thing to do before posting.

you wont admit there luck based, you know you need a little luck to use them. The babrs/huts, the map, the other civs, the timing, they all need to be on your side

[MorteEterna]

if theres 4 human players, and one takes out the ai, then what? no more 25 gold?

Do you see that? You keep *spamming* with these useless questions (and you sometimes keep writing new posts before others answer you).. You can sell them technologies, name tiles, find caravans, spies, more goodie huts, etc.. Why mongols should start with less goodie huts?

[Hellogoodbye123]

Do you see that? You keep *spamming* with these useless questions (and you sometimes keep writing new posts before others answer you).. You can sell them technologies, name tiles, find caravans, spies, more goodie huts, etc.. Why mongols should start with less goodie huts?

if they just took out the ai, how will you sell them tech?

yes caravans, huts and everything, so that requires luck, most of the time you'll just get the 25 gold

[Hellogoodbye123]

All civilizations with luck do good, but suddenly the mongols one of the worst civ requires no luck and still do good???? thats the part i dont get, you hide it with this kind of thing you call "Skill"

anyone else agree with me?

[Grayson]

All civilizations with luck do good, but suddenly the mongols one of the worst civ requires no luck and still do good???? thats the part i dont get, you hide it with this kind of thing you call "Skill"

anyone else agree with me?

well they would need luck + lots of skill to beat a skilled american player.


But, as I said earlier in the thread, the only Civ that ***requires*** luck is the French. They are hopeless otherwise. The need great GPs or gold to work, nothing else really saves them. All other civs don't need luck per se, but in certain matchups against good players, there are a lot of civs that might need some luck, but also lots of skill to take advantage of luck.

[MorteEterna]

All civilizations with luck do good, but suddenly the mongols one of the worst civ requires no luck and still do good???? thats the part i dont get, you hide it with this kind of thing you call "Skill"

anyone else agree with me?

Any spammer will agree with you saying they agree with everything you say.

More I answer you, more I seem that you are insulting me, posting all this spam..
I said they don't require luck, just a BALANCED start. Ok, if you can't understand what means balanced, I will tell you. 1 goodie village and 2 huts is balanced, plus naming 2 tiles (exploring for many turns).

And I sell the AI technologies BEFORE I kill them. After saying this, you really seem to want to insult me, or maybe, you have never played Civ Rev yet. I sell them technologies before I kill them so they have few gold to defend, and, I won't kill the AI I'm in peace with

[Hellogoodbye123]

well they would need luck + lots of skill to beat a skilled american player.

so there we go they do need luck...

And I sell the AI technologies BEFORE I kill them. After saying this, you really seem to want to insult me, or maybe, you have never played Civ Rev yet. I sell them technologies before I kill them so they have few gold to defend, and, I won't kill the AI I'm in peace with

i meant another player killing them..

and im not insulting you, im just saying the mongols need luck thats all.

[Grayson]

hgb:
I said they need luck+skill against an American player. So do a lot of civs. You quote my post and don't even acknowledge most of it. I guess you've got selective reading, kind of like my son has selective hearing. If I tell him he can have some candy if he's good at the store, he starts fussing for the candy right away.

Kids don't understand conditional clauses very well, as may be the case here.

[Hellogoodbye123]

hgb:
I said they need luck+skill against an American player. So do a lot of civs. You quote my post and don't even acknowledge most of it. I guess you've got selective reading, kind of like my son has selective hearing. If I tell him he can have some candy if he's good at the store, he starts fussing for the candy right away.

Kids don't understand conditional clauses very well, as may be the case here.

but they still need the luck..
its true they need the skill, but luck is involved for them to have a great start..

[MorteEterna]

but they still need the luck..
its true they need the skill, but luck is involved for them to have a great start..

They need a balanced start to do a good job. If they get lucky, they can do a really good job, like getting 4 barbs, 1 capital, free settler, and then getting irrigation.

[Hellogoodbye123]

They need a balanced start to do a good job. If they get lucky, they can do a really good job, like getting 4 barbs, 1 capital, free settler, and then getting irrigation.

thats what i am saying, there talking about doing really good with the mongols with only skill.. not just "ok" with skill/balance

you and grayson are also saying luck is needed it, but when i point it out, you suddenly feel like you never said that.. and then call me a little kid/spammer, do you have anymore names to try to make me quit now?