my H2H running record...

[Pedal2Metal]

We will just have to agree to disagree then. Because I know for a fact it is nowhere near 5 % from personal experience even when doing everything in your power to avoid it. 5% from just 4000 bc freezes maybe. But overall no.

90-6 is fact as Grayson stated which is before we started using Thrasher's method (which isn't perfect but definitely helps). So that's 6/96 = 6.25 %. Statistically, virtually equally valid as 118 games. At 118 games, that would be 7.375 freezes so I'll round down to 7. So I'd say I was perhaps a little optimistic (but perhaps not given no Thrasher improvement which might have saved 2 games worth of freezes) but accurate given this data. You could have a higher freeze rate in your specific location as it is definitely a localized phenomenon. You should try keeping a historical record for yourself over your next 100 games which will give you a pretty good idea of your expected freeze rate at your location.

In short, I don't see a disagreement myself, but different data.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[ScottieX]

if you can play 118 games get no accidental freezes (which might have a 5% probability) meet no good forum members and not meet any intentional freezers - then your obviously being very careful about who you play.

[elthrasher]

if you can play 118 games get no accidental freezes (which might have a 5% probability) meet no good forum members and not meet any intentional freezers - then your obviously being very careful about who you play.

I agree it's not a very believable record. I'm just saying that <5% freeze rate is attainable.

[MadDjinn]

I agree it's not a very believable record. I'm just saying that <5% freeze rate is attainable.

yeah, my mongol run only had 2 4000 BC freezes in it out of 61 games. (though some people really tried).

[Pedal2Metal]

I agree it's not a very believable record. I'm just saying that <5% freeze rate is attainable.

Precisely.

The same guy is: VEI2SATILE & IMMOI2TALIZED.
VEI2SATILE is 118-0 while IMMOI2TALIZED is 149-205.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Zefelius]

Only played a few games today. First one was a great win against klusion's chinese with my greeks. We met up early and he had access to most of the map, but sometimes that's okay with the Greeks as they often don't need much as long as they get their 100 gold. Neither of us got any artifacts until later in the game. I got my 100 gold and started growing. I noticed he had about 5 cities visible to me at around 1700, and possibly others covered by the fog... so I knew I'd have to be quick. I rushed my library and went for cats and galleons as I had hills (my thinking is construction is more tech related to irrigation/math/etc. than the CoL/Monarchy/Feud path). Plus he had some islands so I knew galleons would be helpful. I got the construction bonus but it actually put it in a city sans hills. Totally ridiculous! In any event, once I got my free galleon (grabbed Atlantis for free Market via Currency), built a barracks, and sent a cat army out with pikemen it was approximately 0AD---so not very quick, but just quick enough to take a city (and a few more soon afterward). He was always ahead of me in tech, beating me to Invention, Steam, Industrialization, RR, etc. But going on the offense can negate all that if they don't have units. He fought back with cruisers, but I won a couple of close battles. I also grabbed the KT tank, which really helped a lot.

Overall, I think the best play is to play aggressive. That seems obvious, but it's just so true: when you go on the attack first, if the other person isn't in that mode of thinking they're going to lose. That's def how I lose to elite players: they always build units even if they're ancient units and I'm expanding in Medieval, because those units will still defeat archers if I don't have counter units.

My Grayson games were really short.

First one he has 5 pop Thebes, so we reboot.

Second one Grayson has a lousy Mongol start so we start over.

Third one he exploited my dumb tendency to leave my cap open too long and snuck in a warrior (I think). I even got the message of Roman diplomacy, but I was really hoping to have one more turn available to get my 100 gold for the Arabs. Wow, that's dumb. Plus it's Grayson and he's of course going to have a warrior on a galley for drop-offs. Nice job.

The fourth game I definitely had the advantage with my Japs against his Indians. He got to one of my huts first, but other than that I was grabbing a lot of gold and got my second city quickly. I was starting to send out horses from my forward city and he attacked 2-1.5 against one of my horses but lost. Even if he had won I would have rebounded with a HA, as I got 50 gold from the English earlier and sold my CB and HBR to the Arabs for good cash, so I would have plenty of attack units. As it turned out Grayson quit as I was only a few spaces away from Delhi.

Too bad our games are so quick, with one person or the other gaining quick advantages, but always a pleasure to play someone who is fun, honest, and definitely elite.

Aheadatime: Tomorrow might be my last day of games for a while, so I'll look for you as we haven't played much (only our Russian/Spain game).

[bumbumalot]

Precisely.

The same guy is: VEI2SATILE & IMMOI2TALIZED.
VEI2SATILE is 118-0 while IMMOI2TALIZED is 149-205.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

VEI2SATILE is a guy with a cold who takes IMMOI2ATALIZED pills to help boost his cold prevention . thought this was common knowledge . he tried the same thind a few months back but was hit with a reset.

[Aheadatime]

versatile boosts. period. he plays with a 2nd account and constantly quits on his 2nd, giving his 'versatile' account the win. hes been doing this for a long while, i thought it was common knowledge. ive run into him plenty of times, along with brent and brents new account, and they all run from me. brent runs bc ill win through non dom, and versatile runs because hes trying to match up with his 2nd account. fact, not opinion.

on a subjective sidenote, 118-0 with the americans is doable by PM2 or morte, so long as theyre willing to wait out virtually every freeze and go pure america, which noone wants to do in this day and age.

[elthrasher]

yeah, my mongol run only had 2 4000 BC freezes in it out of 61 games. (though some people really tried).

I'm talking about freezes of all varieties, not just the 4000 BC ones. It's very clear to me now that bandwidth matters a lot. Doesn't even matter if my gf is streaming netflix. It has no effect on my game. I haven't had any at-fault freezes nor any disconnections since I've moved.

The same guy is: VEI2SATILE & IMMOI2TALIZED.
VEI2SATILE is 118-0 while IMMOI2TALIZED is 149-205.

That guy is a horrible speller. It's weird you can get to the top 10 with 118 games all against the same guy. Seems like you should hit a point of diminishing returns fast. I guess he waits for the booster account to drop and then plays a few games against noobs to get some points back?

[MadDjinn]

I'm talking about freezes of all varieties, not just the 4000 BC ones. It's very clear to me now that bandwidth matters a lot. Doesn't even matter if my gf is streaming netflix. It has no effect on my game. I haven't had any at-fault freezes nor any disconnections since I've moved.

ok, so toss in the double hard freeze and you get 3/61 = ~5%.


but on another note:
my first game last night (just turned xbox on) got frozen early game when another player quit. (no more spinning gears) I was host and didn't hit any funky buttons.

It just happens sometimes.

[elthrasher]

but on another note:
my first game last night (just turned xbox on) got frozen early game when another player quit. (no more spinning gears) I was host and didn't hit any funky buttons.

It just happens sometimes.

Yeah, obviously this isn't a problem in H2H (see the thread title, heh), but in a FFA any time somebody quits it can lead to a freeze. In FFA you are more subject to the whims and wiles of the cut-rate Internet connections (tin cans and jump rope) of your opponents. Probably another reason my freeze rate has dropped is because I'm only playing FFA about once a week these days.

[danthechan]

I have played him before and had no problems at all, maybe i just got lucky.

i really wasn't accusing him of causing the freeze. it was his immediate assumption that i did it, as well as his insistence that he would never quit (even though he ranks around 200) that led me to not want to play him again. the relevant info i was relaying was his claim of a second xbox and account (relevant since another member deduced he was a second account of the undefeated one).

[asmodeios]

I freeze less than 5%. My current H2H record is something like 39-6 (I forget) with 0 freezes.

Mine is currently like 116-17 of which I remember at least 7 of those losses are 4000 bc freezes. 2 more are xbox live disconnections. 1 is from my cat stepping on the power button on the surge protector. About 4 legit losses and the rest are regular freezes.

Anytime I get a freeze I'll reboot my machine. Anytime I've played 2 or 3 games in a row I'll either reboot or go to the dashboard. I avoid mashing buttons repeatedly and doing things at the end of a turn. So for me it is around a 9% rate at the moment. But that rate is just the losses. I had have a few frozen games that actually counted as wins for me. I'd say probably about 5 there as well. If you include those it is about 12 or 13%.

[elthrasher]

Anytime I've played 2 or 3 games in a row I'll either reboot or go to the dashboard.

If you're serious about avoiding freezes, you'll do this after every game. Playing three games in a row (even quick ones) without resetting is going to result in freezes.

[asmodeios]

If you're serious about avoiding freezes, you'll do this after every game. Playing three games in a row (even quick ones) without resetting is going to result in freezes.

Maybe. Maybe not.

What I do know is that I've had the same experience as Mad has had recently.
First game after turning xbox on freezes. This happens to me more often than it freezing after playing a couple of games in a row.

[elthrasher]

Maybe. Maybe not.

What I do know is that I've had the same experience as Mad has had recently.
First game after turning xbox on freezes. This happens to me more often than it freezing after playing a couple of games in a row.

So it's not worth it to you to try to minimize those "after a few games" freezes because you get more startup freezes? That doesn't really make any sense to me. I guess you don't believe that resetting between every game actually has a positive benefit. Fine. I've seen the benefit as I used to freeze at about the same rate you do and now I never do. I just hope that if we ever play and freeze and it's your 2nd or 3rd game running, you'll man up and quit because I guarantee it won't be on my end.

[Zefelius]

That guy is a horrible speller. It's weird you can get to the top 10 with 118 games all against the same guy. Seems like you should hit a point of diminishing returns fast. I guess he waits for the booster account to drop and then plays a few games against noobs to get some points back?

I would think so. A smart booster is good enough to build up their second and third accounts against average and nooby players. I think this is also why these boosters avoid good players in the lobby: they won't be able to build up these accounts so easily or quickly. Hence, build up those accounts against average players (and use a civ like America, Zulu, or Aztec for quick wins), and then play yourself to boost the main account.

[Zefelius]

So it's not worth it to you to try to minimize those "after a few games" freezes because you get more startup freezes? That doesn't really make any sense to me. I guess you don't believe that resetting between every game actually has a positive benefit. Fine. I've seen the benefit as I used to freeze at about the same rate you do and now I never do. I just hope that if we ever play and freeze and it's your 2nd or 3rd game running, you'll man up and quit because I guarantee it won't be on my end.

Since I've followed your method I haven't had any problems.

[Pedal2Metal]

That guy is a horrible speller. It's weird you can get to the top 10 with 118 games all against the same guy. Seems like you should hit a point of diminishing returns fast. I guess he waits for the booster account to drop and then plays a few games against noobs to get some points back?

I'd expect a better theory from someone who's actually been in the top-10. MadDjinn got in top-10 w/61 games w/Mongols with no filtering (which implies average ranked competition by definition) so it doesn't take much frankly to get into the top-10. If you use Americans, it's definitely easier. I got into top-10 w/America w/45-0 run back when I tried them. Aztecs/Arabs are similar. In fact, I think you took random to like 93-16 so less than 118 games & got to like #8/#9 before your reset. I'm absolutely certain you could do it easily in less than 100 games guaranteed w/America (this guy's current emblem), although 453 & the Aztecs is still a "magic" number/emblem combo for me.

It gets progressively harder to get points as you move up the rankings as Grayson has discussed many times. This guy's losing account is in the 70-100 range so it's hard to believe that's providing more than 1 point per win for his #4 account. To do better than that would require he possess the skills to actually move up the rankings expeditiously with his losing account which according to the reports (still hearsay but all I've got) isn't applicable.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[SVPM]

I would think so. A smart booster is good enough to build up their second and third accounts against average and nooby players. I think this is also why these boosters avoid good players in the lobby: they won't be able to build up these accounts so easily or quickly. Hence, build up those accounts against average players (and use a civ like America, Zulu, or Aztec for quick wins), and then play yourself to boost the main account.

You seem to know to much about that Mr. Zefelius... Suspicious...

[SVPM]

to actually move up the rankings expeditiously with his losing account which according to the reports (still hearsay but all I've got) isn't applicable.

If he got 118 wins on his boosted account, it's normal he has a losing booster account if he played 300 games... (236 to be sure, but...)

[ScottieX]

Nice german game against the spanish.

I was on an awkward thin piece of land.
I got the arabs as my early cap and spread out with vet fundy warriors. built my galley to see what else I could get to fast (without walking through the maze of land bridges) and found 7CoG. I then built some more cities and found the greeks and chinese who i threatened. by the time i found the spanish I had swarms of elite warrior armies. but only one was close enough to cause them a problem. so I kept building warriors and started to get them into position.

I attacked the greeks that were near him and against the odds had ot retreat.. how annoying - democracy and the extra city would hve cemented my position. But then i saw his city nearby and my close army took it.

I then prepared to build a very long road (around that stupid land bridge) to it. I also wandered along a road he had built and found his capital which had an archer army. my warrior wasnt enough. killed one of his warriors on the road and put an archer with it for protection.

But we were talking elite infl fundy warriors which could turn to legions any time i wanted and be backed up by another 5 or 6 of them without commiting any extra cash at all besides for the road.

then he quit. hmmm probably fair enough.

also had a spanish game agaisnt the mongols - both random.
I got pretty much all the artefacts and found him reasonably early so game over.

Both of these (consecutive games) against fairly good players who go days without loosing to the average joes. Of course the second was against a guy who didnt really have much mongols practice and they are a hard civ to play.

I also played a quick one with mongols this morning and got two caps around 3000bc including arabs.
yup nice.... +50% trade...

[Pedal2Metal]

Nice german game against the spanish.

I was on an awkward thin piece of land.
I got the arabs as my early cap and spread out with vet fundy warriors. built my galley to see what else I could get to fast (without walking through the maze of land bridges) and found 7CoG. I then built some more cities and found the greeks and chinese who i threatened. by the time i found the spanish I had swarms of elite warrior armies. but only one was close enough to cause them a problem. so I kept building warriors and started to get them into position.

I attacked the greeks that were near him and against the odds had ot retreat.. how annoying - democracy and the extra city would hve cemented my position. But then i saw his city nearby and my close army took it.

I then prepared to build a very long road (around that stupid land bridge) to it. I also wandered along a road he had built and found his capital which had an archer army. my warrior wasnt enough. killed one of his warriors on the road and put an archer with it for protection.

But we were talking elite infl fundy warriors which could turn to legions any time i wanted and be backed up by another 5 or 6 of them without commiting any extra cash at all besides for the road.

then he quit. hmmm probably fair enough.

also had a spanish game agaisnt the mongols - both random.
I got pretty much all the artefacts and found him reasonably early so game over.

Both of these (consecutive games) against fairly good players who go days without loosing to the average joes. Of course the second was against a guy who didnt really have much mongols practice and they are a hard civ to play.

I also played a quick one with mongols this morning and got two caps around 3000bc including arabs.
yup nice.... +50% trade...

Germany + Religion can be devastating as with +50% tree production, they will out-produce most anyone down the stretch. I've had good success once I've gotten Religion w/Germany.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[ATL_UNTAMEDBEAST]

My Indians vs English.

Start kinda slow. Get first HA in like 2400BC and another in 1900 BC. Press England early but I dont attack the cities because of long bows. Also, i take AI Egypt with collosus and AI Americans. Dont find AI zulu till around 500BC. I decide I'm not going to go fund and rush, accually i'll mega expand and get oxford. I get GB from SoC, GS from Monarch. Expand to 27 cities (kinda overkill) GS Industrial, GB Oxford in 850 AD (is that decent time for Oxford?), and game over.

The indians are absolute easy mode once you hit industrial. The English took like one city i made just to have easy access to them and i thought, "Oh you took a city, well i'll make 5 more!" The Indians are super strong IMO.

[sn1p3rk1ll3]

My Indians vs English.

Start kinda slow. Get first HA in like 2400BC and another in 1900 BC. Press England early but I dont attack the cities because of long bows. Also, i take AI Egypt with collosus and AI Americans. Dont find AI zulu till around 500BC. I decide I'm not going to go fund and rush, accually i'll mega expand and get oxford. I get GB from SoC, GS from Monarch. Expand to 27 cities (kinda overkill) GS Industrial, GB Oxford in 850 AD (is that decent time for Oxford?), and game over.

The indians are absolute easy mode once you hit industrial. The English took like one city i made just to have easy access to them and i thought, "Oh you took a city, well i'll make 5 more!" The Indians are super strong IMO.

English are waaay better IMO
-you just played a bad player

Altough 27 cities and Industrial = über ownage win

[elthrasher]

English are waaay better IMO
-you just played a bad player

Altough 27 cities and Industrial = über ownage win

I totally disagree. India is the superior civ. They expand better, have better culture (if no Arabs), have a quicker and cheaper attack. Fundamentalist legions will keep you safe from knights. You just have to wrap it up before double naval support, which isn't hard at all to do with half-cost settlers and access to all resources. I'm not saying England isn't good. India is just better.

He still may have played a bad player though not the worst though from the sound of it.

As for bombers in 850 with 27 cities, that's respectable. You probably don't need that many cities and might even have bombers a little sooner with fewer, but that's really a matter of taste.

[sn1p3rk1ll3]

I totally disagree. India is the superior civ. They expand better, have better culture (if no Arabs), have a quicker and cheaper attack. Fundamentalist legions will keep you safe from knights. You just have to wrap it up before double naval support, which isn't hard at all to do with half-cost settlers and access to all resources. I'm not saying England isn't good. India is just better.

He still may have played a bad player though not the worst though from the sound of it.

As for bombers in 850 with 27 cities, that's respectable. You probably don't need that many cities and might even have bombers a little sooner with fewer, but that's really a matter of taste.

I played HGB (India) as the English on my comeback after 3 months of no civ.
I WON

England has quick knights, the archers are good def against you legions, English Monarchy culture is working right from the start, so the first GP is in sooner, the galleys extra strength sinks you settler-boats, my hill bonus is more usable than your courthouses and even if you have oxford bombers, my battleships will eventually beat you

Also try expanding as India vs a few knights and great archers for back-up

India is good, but has to bow to the almighty English!

[elthrasher]

I played HGB (India) as the English on my comeback after 3 months of no civ.
I WON

One game doesn't exactly constitute a study. I have beaten America with France. Does that mean France is a better civ?

England has quick knights, the archers are good def against you legions, English Monarchy culture is working right from the start, so the first GP is in sooner, the galleys extra strength sinks you settler-boats, my hill bonus is more usable than your courthouses and even if you have oxford bombers, my battleships will eventually beat you

Also try expanding as India vs a few knights and great archers for back-up

India is good, but has to bow to the almighty English!

Cheap legions in fundamentalism kill expensive knights. India expands better than England and consequently techs better. Courthouses? That bonus is a joke but it doesn't matter because the game should be well over around the time India gets to modern. I'm of course not saying this will happen every game, but I would feel very confident as India playing against England, not so much the other way around if my opponent is good.

I have played India vs. England on both sides against decent players and feel that India is the favorite. All you have to do is plan for knights and end the game before modern.

[SVPM]

England has quick knights, the archers are good def against you legions, English Monarchy culture is working right from the start, so the first GP is in sooner, the galleys extra strength sinks you settler-boats, my hill bonus is more usable than your courthouses and even if you have oxford bombers, my battleships will eventually beat you

India are way better. You forgot to mention their best bonuses, the access to all ressources. Your archer will block their legions. Do you build archer army everywhere. Also, fundy vet legion takes down english longbow army if you have 3. If you have archer army everywhere you won't have that many city. India will out-expand England with the access to all ressources and no anarchy bonus.

They horserushe better too and since we are in an h2h thread it's important.

[MadDjinn]

India are way better. You forgot to mention their best bonuses, the access to all ressources. Your archer will block their legions. Do you build archer army everywhere. Also, fundy vet legion takes down english longbow army if you have 3. If you have archer army everywhere you won't have that many city. India will out-expand England with the access to all ressources and no anarchy bonus.

They horserushe better too and since we are in an h2h thread it's important.

ok, calm it down boys (you too thrasher)..

India isn't 'way better' than the English. A good match for them, ok, but not 'way better'.

let's take a look:

Ancient:
English: Monarchy (dye + more culture)
Longbows
Indians: access to all resources (+ free resource in cap)
no anarchy

so.. standard setup shows that the english will get the first and possibly 2nd culture GP before the indians get 1. (10 per turn beats 5 per turn)
The english will get more out of dye right away. meaning they will tech better than the indians until the indians hit industrial. (or get monarchy) no indian mass expands before then.

So the indians get religion in medieval. that doesn't translate to insta mass culture. remember, 1/city, and you don't have many yet since you're going for fundy legions.

As discussed in prior threads, both the English knights and indian legion spam get delivered at about the same time. so.. defenses? oh right, you've got none and my 22.5 vet fundy knights are crushing your archers.

now.. 13.5 attack legions are good. one longbow army = 27 (or so) defense. first attack you back away, maybe I heal, maybe I get vet adding another +50% def. do the probabilities. you have to get lucky and get a W,W the first time, else you're bringing a lot of legion armies to their death.

speaking of which, what, no counter units allowed? I have no problem with the thought that you stayed put and got attacked with the knight rush, and slapped some legions together for counters, but to assume that the indians are the aggressor and that the english knights are just fodder wandering around, at the same time as mass expanding, is a bit off.

pick 1 of the scenarios (expander or aggressor) but you can't do both at the same time and expect to win against an english player that is focused.

[elthrasher]

ok, calm it down boys (you too thrasher)..

What are you, crazy? Have you read any of my posts, like ever?

Your analysis seems to indicate India's plan should be to take London with legions in the early medieval phase. That's the wrong play, IMO. A cat/legion rush might work, but I'd be more likely to try to out-expand and kill in late industrial/early modern (with England still in industrial) with either bombers or cats/knights/legions and cruiser fleets. Time is on India's side on this one because just playing defense and pushing expansion will get them ahead of England. They just don't want to wait too long to have to deal with double naval support. Fundamentalism keeps them safe and half-cost settlers is game.

[sn1p3rk1ll3]

What are you, crazy? Have you read any of my posts, like ever?

Your analysis seems to indicate India's plan should be to take London with legions in the early medieval phase. That's the wrong play, IMO. A cat/legion rush might work, but I'd be more likely to try to out-expand and kill in late industrial/early modern (with England still in industrial) with either bombers or cats/knights/legions and cruiser fleets. Time is on India's side on this one because just playing defense and pushing expansion will get them ahead of England. They just don't want to wait too long to have to deal with double naval support. Fundamentalism keeps them safe and half-cost settlers is game.

India trying to turtle against English Knights (yes, capital for ownage) is just pure bollocks.
Legions to counter, ok, but you won't be expanding that much if a good english player presses you fast and keeps his knights out of legions way!

And before India's expansian (and thus tech) jumps in the industrial era, England will be a bit ahead....on it's way to the steamy cruisers!

Englaaaaaaand!

[MorteEterna]

In MY opinion, indians are way better than english

[elthrasher]

India trying to turtle against English Knights (yes, capital for ownage) is just pure bollocks.
Legions to counter, ok, but you won't be expanding that much if a good english player presses you fast and keeps his knights out of legions way!

How fast do your knights normally arrive? How is England going to research Feudalism and put together 75 hammer armies before I can make some 20 hammer settlers? How many knight armies will there be and when will they be delivered? For that matter, how many cities do you have to take before the knights are killed to make it a worthwhile investment?

And before India's expansian (and thus tech) jumps in the industrial era, England will be a bit ahead....on it's way to the steamy cruisers!

This makes zero sense. How does England get to modern before India gets to industrial? They have no bonuses that facilitate this and you're spending time on expensive knight armies that can be killed by cheap legion armies.

[sn1p3rk1ll3]

How fast do your knights normally arrive? How is England going to research Feudalism and put together 75 hammer armies before I can make some 20 hammer settlers? How many knight armies will there be and when will they be delivered? For that matter, how many cities do you have to take before the knights are killed to make it a worthwhile investment?



This makes zero sense. How does England get to modern before India gets to industrial? They have no bonuses that facilitate this and you're spending time on expensive knight armies that can be killed by cheap legion armies.

If you'd be on the ps3, I'd challenge you!
-I do not imply that cruisers = modern era, but close to the victory...
-English double dye cities = fast teching = quicker teching...not necessarily to modern
-20 hammer settlers are normal, but I meant the 10 hammer settlers in Industrial...you won't expand that much knowing some awesome knights are roaming the area!
-I don't always make a dozen knight armies, but 4 should be enough to give you quite the pain in the buttocks, and 4 armies does not mean all at once, but I start with 2 and attack, build 2 more a bit later and use them to choke you off offensively or make traps....



And now to Morte : If you'd play P2M2 both 5 games as English and 5 as India, how many of each would you win?

[MadDjinn]

What are you, crazy? Have you read any of my posts, like ever?

Your analysis seems to indicate India's plan should be to take London with legions in the early medieval phase. That's the wrong play, IMO. A cat/legion rush might work, but I'd be more likely to try to out-expand and kill in late industrial/early modern (with England still in industrial) with either bombers or cats/knights/legions and cruiser fleets. Time is on India's side on this one because just playing defense and pushing expansion will get them ahead of England. They just don't want to wait too long to have to deal with double naval support. Fundamentalism keeps them safe and half-cost settlers is game.

Actually, I took the info from your and SVPM's posts, which indicated aggression.

Ok, so you turtle and aim for industrial for mass expansion while having legions/religion going. uhm... Time is not on india's side in that case. you have to be in republic for the expansion, or are doing really poor expansion. meaning - either you're defending against the english and not expanding, or are expanding and not getting the fundy bonus.

In H2H, assuming we both horse rush and cap a few AIs, (ignoring tech related AIs for simplicity) England can still pull off knights in ancient. so 'expensive' they are not. My usual timing with them is pre-0 AD having 3-4 vet knight armies in fundy (yes I get the barracks and grab religion as my 5th tech before attacking) and more on the way. I also expand with them. granted, timing is 100% determined by the number of dye around. 1 dye = longer, but still doable. But the above is with no horse rush and no extra caps. if there are extra caps, then expansion is faster meaning the time for the horse rush can be made back.

personally, I take as many tech cities as possible (as the english) and caps are extra. the knights move fast (galleys work well) so if I see plenty of legions (or really high flags) in one area, I can switch to another. After I cross the medieval line, I go full tech as fast as possible to COL, push out a few more settlers while still teching, then straight to Dem (if things calmed down) or to Invention/Steam.

yeah, legions are nice, but they don't always kill knights. knights always kill legions. if you picked up Math for the cats and had a few around, then I'd be more careful.

I'm not saying that england will always win in that situation, but chances of you getting to industrial before the english deliver knights and start taking cities is slim.

I think that the English vs. Indians is a decent match, which highly depends on player skills, who can get AI caps (or more AI caps), artifacts (the great wall exists, so if the english get it, the indians need engineering to do anything to them and if the indians get it, the indians will get expansion running free with a much slower time for the english to start the press).

Though, I would assume that indians being aggressive with cats/legions is more likely to work than hoping for medieval. Even just teching to math and building counter legions/cats, kill knights, go press with what's left - is a more effective plan.

[sn1p3rk1ll3]

Actually, I took the info from your and SVPM's posts, which indicated aggression.

Ok, so you turtle and aim for industrial for mass expansion while having legions/religion going. uhm... Time is not on india's side in that case. you have to be in republic for the expansion, or are doing really poor expansion. meaning - either you're defending against the english and not expanding, or are expanding and not getting the fundy bonus.

In H2H, assuming we both horse rush and cap a few AIs, (ignoring tech related AIs for simplicity) England can still pull off knights in ancient. so 'expensive' they are not. My usual timing with them is pre-0 AD having 3-4 vet knight armies in fundy (yes I get the barracks and grab religion as my 5th tech before attacking) and more on the way. I also expand with them. granted, timing is 100% determined by the number of dye around. 1 dye = longer, but still doable. But the above is with no horse rush and no extra caps. if there are extra caps, then expansion is faster meaning the time for the horse rush can be made back.

personally, I take as many tech cities as possible (as the english) and caps are extra. the knights move fast (galleys work well) so if I see plenty of legions (or really high flags) in one area, I can switch to another. After I cross the medieval line, I go full tech as fast as possible to COL, push out a few more settlers while still teching, then straight to Dem (if things calmed down) or to Invention/Steam.

yeah, legions are nice, but they don't always kill knights. knights always kill legions. if you picked up Math for the cats and had a few around, then I'd be more careful.

I'm not saying that england will always win in that situation, but chances of you getting to industrial before the english deliver knights and start taking cities is slim.

I think that the English vs. Indians is a decent match, which highly depends on player skills, who can get AI caps (or more AI caps), artifacts (the great wall exists, so if the english get it, the indians need engineering to do anything to them and if the indians get it, the indians will get expansion running free with a much slower time for the english to start the press).

Though, I would assume that indians being aggressive with cats/legions is more likely to work than hoping for medieval. Even just teching to math and building counter legions/cats, kill knights, go press with what's left - is a more effective plan.

All true: Well spoken! (or written/typed)

[elthrasher]

Actually, I took the info from your and SVPM's posts, which indicated aggression.

I'm not sure what indicated that, but okay.

Ok, so you turtle and aim for industrial for mass expansion while having legions/religion going. uhm... Time is not on india's side in that case. you have to be in republic for the expansion, or are doing really poor expansion. meaning - either you're defending against the english and not expanding, or are expanding and not getting the fundy bonus.

I don't know that turtles spread over the whole world like a cancer, which would be my aim. No anarchy means India has no problem flipping between republic and fundamentalism. Fundamentalism should be the default going to republic every few turns for a round of settlers. This is such a spurious argument, I'm surprised anyone bothered to respond to it!

In H2H, assuming we both horse rush and cap a few AIs, (ignoring tech related AIs for simplicity) England can still pull off knights in ancient. so 'expensive' they are not. My usual timing with them is pre-0 AD having 3-4 vet knight armies in fundy (yes I get the barracks and grab religion as my 5th tech before attacking) and more on the way. I also expand with them. granted, timing is 100% determined by the number of dye around. 1 dye = longer, but still doable. But the above is with no horse rush and no extra caps. if there are extra caps, then expansion is faster meaning the time for the horse rush can be made back.

Well, that sounds like you're doing an awful lot while I'm not doing anything. Maybe if I did something the game would work out better for me.

But enough with the armchair quarterbacking. I challenge you to best of five games!

[Grayson]

In H2H, barring an amazing start for the English (maybe a ton of dye and 7 cities), I think Indians outclass the English. I don't think it's a gimmie, but the English are not a H2H friendly civ. In FFA, it could be a lot closer, but H2H should go for the Indians at leat 6-7 of 10. FFA might be a little closer, if the game is slowed down.

But, the initial statement was that England is better, which is not the case. You can disagree with how much better India is than England, and may even make a case that it's almost even in some cases, but for anyone that says the English are better, just doesn't know the power of India.

Acess to all resources, fundy, and then half cost settlers are very strong bonuses. The English get 1 great bonus (naval support doubled), one decent one (longbows), and the rest aren't really that great.

The English knight rush just might be the 4th or 5th best knight rush in the game. The Americans, Arabs, Japanese, and Germans do it better and more powerfully.

The only English knight rushes to fear are when the English get early knights and a Great Leader, or if they are able to get a galley or nav quick, load longbows, and take a cap or a few key cities with the longbows providing defense. Longbows on forests can be hard to uproot.

The English knight rush is so unreliable, that it's almost bad play to sell out for it. The production is not there, the element of surprise isn't there. The power isn't there without a Great Leader. It's not bad for them to make a few armies and keep up the aggression, but the English Knight Rush is not a game changer. At best, it should be just something to keep them competitive.

The longer you let India live, the more powerful they get as well. They usually have no problem jumping ahead before the modern and delivering a swift enough rush before a naval support attack can get going.

I'd love to take up the challenge on the PS3, but I think my 20GB PS3 has finally given out. Don't know if I'm going to get a new one or not. Most likely not just to play civrev.

[Pedal2Metal]

In MY opinion, indians are way better than english

This. India has a lot of options the entire game.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal