my H2H running record...

[dukeblue1987]

Poor Asmod: played 3 games against him recently and he got ALL island starts. I always enjoy playing him as he's a little bit better than I am, so it gives me just the right amount of challenge. But 3 island starts: no matter how bad I am I'm bound to win a couple of those! He went random each time, which makes it even more difficult. I remember the days when people used to say that Asmod would only play China, but he deserves some credit for branching out this year and expanding his play---while still staying in the top ranks.

Anyway, now that Duke and everyone else is retiring, I think I have one last shot to make it into the top 10 this year. If I don't make it, I deserve 20 lashes for posting over 2,000 posts and not making it!! I'd like to set up some kind of challenge, such as if I don't make it before the year is out I can't play Civ Rev 2 when it comes out---but I know I'd never keep that promise. I could get a pint of ice cream for everyone, but that doesn't seem possible either. Maybe when I go to Montreal next month MD and SPVM could give me the 20 lashes, but that would just be weird. I guess I'll just have to do it without the extra motivation! Here goes one more shot....

P.S. After a couple of those lucky wins against Asmod (my Romans vs. his Spanish and then my Aztecs against his Germans), I got myself back into the top 25. Just 15 more spots to go....

Zef, just play the Aztecs every game and you will get into the top 10.

[Pedal2Metal]

Zef, just play the Aztecs every game and you will get into the top 10.

Or Germans or Greeks or Spanish or America or China or Arabs or Zulu...

Seriously, any of the above will work out fine coupled with a little patience as there's natural ebb/flow in the game. If you truly want a top-10 rank w/least effort, no one beats America for consistency & map indifference/insensitivity.

I think it's ok to do that once because there's something that happens mentally when you crack any barrier, even if you use a giant battering ram (like America) to do so. The next time doing it w/another civ is easier. At least that's how it went for me.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Zefelius]

Thanks dudes.... I'm not going down without a fight! And I don't want to be remembered as the only forum player who never made it into the top 10! I think I'll push through with lots of Arabs and Aztecs, and maybe some power civs against power civs. I'm getting closer. Just got back into the top 20 just a few spots below Chief Rocka and about 6 spots below Duke's Russians. I'll just focus and focus and focus, and won't let any cheaters ☺☺☺☺-block me along the way!!

[Pedal2Metal]

Duke is right. Playing Russia against Zulu is hard. I just got Zulu-rushed had to do 4 warrior thing, got no gold, no nothing & had to quit lest I suffer through an hour of misery (I knew the player, he knows how to play).

From now on, I'm playing random unless I know it's a Zulu or American player, then I'm playing Aztecs or America. It's kind of ridiculuous otherwise sometimes.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

Played a few games tonight.

Played khaos factor. When I started, I thought I was the Greeks, moved my settlers expecting to get a courthouse, only to find out I got the French. Kind of funny! Anyway, I horserushed but it didn't work out too well. Took forever to get 100 gold, only got 1 cap while he got his 100 gold fast, choked me out & then demo-glitched me until he had CoL so he sat on my grass while my HA was across the world. He did a lot of damage with KT & galleon which cost me the game. Fine, I'll still play. I felt like quitting but I hung in there until it disconnected. I've got 31 disconnects now. Pretty sweet!

Played UAintACrookSon. He's strictly Zulu so I went Aztec. I crushed him. So after the game he sends me an all-caps message saying all kinds of vulgar crap. So I toy with him a bit & he sends me some more. I do it again & he finally shuts up. He seems to think that my ID: Pedal2Metal isn't my real ID. What a freakin idiot! All he seems to know how to do is build 3 WA. I ended up killing 2 of them w/my 1 HA.

Played MrFatSpliff a few times. A good guy who played fairly & seemed pretty low key. All our games ended up with me disconnecting every time. So I now have 31 disconnects in 103 games. Sweet!

It really does free me from rank fever though, which is nice.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Mawpawk]

it is a very low number of real players who acknowledge the blatant side effect of democracy, even the noobiest of noobs can avoid that, same with greatwall , only future beatings playing like a gentleman will convert the heathens

[Zefelius]

it is a very low number of real players who acknowledge the blatant side effect of democracy, even the noobiest of noobs can avoid that, same with greatwall , only future beatings playing like a gentleman will convert the heathens

Poetically said Mawpawk!

[elthrasher]

Duke is right. Playing Russia against Zulu is hard. I just got Zulu-rushed had to do 4 warrior thing, got no gold, no nothing & had to quit lest I suffer through an hour of misery (I knew the player, he knows how to play).

Well, you just have to dial up the aggression to a million. Most players, even the ones who win a lot, are pretty inefficient in their early moves so you can take down a Zulu or American player with a settler rush, even with Russia. We all know that if the other guy knows how to play at all, the long game is going to be really tough so you have to make it the shortest possible game. This is your best chance. Win in the first 10 turns or die trying. I have won a lot of games this way that would have been impossible to win the longer game.

I'll be back home this evening. Hopefully get a couple games in!

[Zefelius]

I managed to get my first mongol win vs the americans in a H2H today against ssgpoynter. He's no elite with a sub 2-1 win/loss ratio, america being fav icon. I'm quite happy though, america is a hard matchup for my mogols, even in the hands of the non-elite.

Well done. I think even average players with the top 3 or 6 civs can be dangerous. We used to say in the forums that noobs didn't expand, weren't agressive, used too many archers, etc. But compared to last year, this isn't quite as true. Sure we still come up against the American players who love libraries and keep to 3-5 cities, but I find them to be more rare than they used to be. And even these players will usually roam around with their GP, horserush, etc. before growing their cities.

Just last night I was up against a Chinese player who started on an island and went for rifleman defense rather then some other options. He was smart to get Oxford flight, to keep me from getting bombers and such, but overall he was average. Yet it was still a tough game---and I think during it I may have even gotten some messages from you but had to stay focused on the game. He got Navigation quickly, so I couldn't just go up to cats or knights and attack his islands---I had to prepare more before my attacks to be sure I could fund/sustain whatever attack I put together. A couple of lucky flips helped me immensely and my Arabs won in the end, a victory facilitated also by taking a couple of cities for his flight.

Still, it was a game. I can only imagine how much tougher it is with the Mongols against America!!!

[Pedal2Metal]

Well, you just have to dial up the aggression to a million. Most players, even the ones who win a lot, are pretty inefficient in their early moves so you can take down a Zulu or American player with a settler rush, even with Russia. We all know that if the other guy knows how to play at all, the long game is going to be really tough so you have to make it the shortest possible game. This is your best chance. Win in the first 10 turns or die trying. I have won a lot of games this way that would have been impossible to win the longer game.

I moved several turns w/settlers, got 1 barb total. I ended up moving closer to Zulu which made it even worse. So it wasn't going to happen. At least I quit quickly vs. dragging it out. I think I'm just going to use Aztecs against Zulu players. Works well.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[dukeblue1987]

Well, you just have to dial up the aggression to a million. Most players, even the ones who win a lot, are pretty inefficient in their early moves so you can take down a Zulu or American player with a settler rush, even with Russia. We all know that if the other guy knows how to play at all, the long game is going to be really tough so you have to make it the shortest possible game. This is your best chance. Win in the first 10 turns or die trying. I have won a lot of games this way that would have been impossible to win the longer game.

I'll be back home this evening. Hopefully get a couple games in!

Agreed. I remember having a game against a Zulu noob where he got an Army to Moscow in 3400. I managed to survive somehow (he got injured a few times).

Long story short, he did nothing and I got bombers in 1200 AD? I don't exactly remember, but Thrasher was in a chat with me so ask him.

All I know is he did nothing but take away all my gold. I think I got 1 hut total that game. He had 40 turns to bring 2 knight armies, but never did anything except send 2-3 impi armies at me. I got my 100g in 200AD or so.

I should have just quit because that win wasn't worth my time, lol.

[Mawpawk]

I moved several turns w/settlers, got 1 barb total. I ended up moving closer to Zulu which made it even worse. So it wasn't going to happen. At least I quit quickly vs. dragging it out. I think I'm just going to use Aztecs against Zulu players. Works well.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

i settler walked for 10 turns(and felt i was losing) and manged a 6-18(tech) comeback with my arabs vs english ,based on pure know how and it was all due to the fact my opponent didnt understand the bombing technique(and also the underestimation of some1 lacking in tech), yes he had steam and knights but i had multiple cats and legions all delivered by galley 2 hit the guy in the loins

gota say zef, arabs are unstoppable! better then aztecz

[dukeblue1987]

gota say zef, arabs are unstoppable! better then aztecz

Arabs are better in the long game, Aztecs definately get more powerful starts on average.

I think the Aztec are slightly better in H2H just because they can get a walk in the majority of games.

Both are great choices.

[sn1p3rk1ll3]

Arabs are better in the long game, Aztecs definately get more powerful starts on average.

I think the Aztec are slightly better in H2H just because they can get a walk in the majority of games.

Both are great choices.

I'd vote for Arabs, just because they kill everything the aztecs could throw at them

[Pedal2Metal]

I should have just quit because that win wasn't worth my time, lol.

Exactly. While I can certainly play long games, sometimes it's just not worth it. I'm well aware of how to attempt a comeback but trust me, if you're playing a good player that can play the game, you are wasting your time w/Russia against Zulu where you have 1 city & 0 gold by 2000 BC & have lost a WA already while they have 5-6 cities, 250 gold, etc....

Yeah, against a kitten, you can pretty much do anything & win. But against good competition, you are simply wasting time. I generally don't enjoy wasting time myself except if it's a pleasurable experience or I'm irrationally angry (in which case I derive pleasure from being spiteful).

In this specific instance, definitely a rare occurrence, it was neither. While Aztecs can get a bad start, I'll say that unless Aztecs start on an island, they are almost always in the game in H2H. Russia, not so much. You'll have to work virtually every time. This isn't a bad thing, it's just sometimes it's a 0% chance of success: good player + good start + better civ + horrible start for your Russia == you lose every time. Only against noobs do you have a chance. In that case, it also doesn't mean much when you win either.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[asmodeios]

Just got in a quick game.

My Random Aztecs vs another Aztec.

I contemplated moving my settler but as a general rule I don't when playing against the Zulu or Aztecs. Turns out to have been a good choice. My opponent decided to do so and settled with 1 tree 1 hill 1 grass 1 desert and the rest water.

I rush warrior turn 1 w/ tech set to HBR. Move out diagonally name a tile. Next turn rush another warrior (which was great as once I moved my warrior on the first turn I saw 2 different barb huts exactly the same distance from my cap. Got to both when they were 1 flag. First one gives me pottery? WTF. The friggin french weren't even in the game I find out later. This same warrior I have keep pushing on and it gets another barb hut and gets 50 gold from it and vets up and shows me London about 3-4 turns away. I land next to london at 3100. I notice the english have already named a tile. So I'm guessing no walk-in. So I attempt to sell pottery to them and they've already gotten at least 30 g. I sell pottery for 30g. Next turn I attack w/ warrior 1.5 vs 1.5 and win. Yay I get monarchy. Meanwhile the other warrior (2 of 3) finds a lone aztec warrior walking about towards a 3 flag barb my 2nd barb hut had shown me. So I just shadow his warrior to the barb. Turns out he had 2 warriors attacking this hut. I moved next to the barb hut when it had 3 flags on the same turn it goes down to 1. I make sure all 3 cities of mine are not finishing any production/research on this turn and nothing is set to move on it's own. I attack as soon as the turn starts and get 40 g from the barb.

Apparently this pissed him off as he attacks my warrior and loses. So at this point it is like 2600. I have 3 balanced cities. 1 HA and 2 horses with a 3rd on the way the next turn and I will be rushing a galley the next turn with the Horse army attacking the aztec capital from a hill (non vet ha). I proceed to set my tech to Feudalism hoping a friendly will give me a tech. I find 4 friendly huts within the next 3 turns. On 2300 the last of the friendlies I find (this one is 2-3 squares from beijing) gives me Feudalism. I have 10/20 on BW and am at 4 techs so I switch to gold. Pump out 2 knight armies within the next 3 turns. I get 1 of them to a vet as a barb hut moved out 3 units and still had 2 flags. they all attack my first knight army.

So at 2000 BC. I have 3 cities. 3 warrior units. 2 Horse armies (1 ninja) and 2 knight armies to go along with my galley wondering about. I take his capital and he quits although he had already gotten 100g and taken out the Japs on the turn before.

Fastest online game for me to have 2 knight armies out.

I know anytime I get monarchy from London I immediately switch my tech to Feudalism as i've gotten in a few times from friendlies through this method pre 1500 bc.

[MichiganHunter]

Took down 2 more power civs with the mongols, america (jims sister) and china (fayeb). America - got a walkin on athens, 3 barbs, make 1 HA . Met america at tripoli, after he takes the cap I kill both of his HA's making him quit. China - got walkin on egypt, 3 barbs, make 2 HA's. Sneak past beijing and take his 2nd city, he quits. The trend seems to be, getting a early AI cap.

Using the mongols I always walk my settler until finding a CAP. Not sure if walking this long (5-12 turns) is the best way to play, but when able to get one its always a competitive game. On the other hand, many games ive walked far too long and been unable to recover. I even had a stretch were I lost my settler within 10 turns, 3 games consecutively. Rank has fluctuated from 600's (didn't even know it went that high) to double digits though I have more wins than losses.

How do u guys generally use the mongols, walk endlessly to find a cap, settle on a good spot regardless of AIcap, or move just a few turns. My play might improve if I can force myself settling prior to 3000bc.

[elthrasher]

Took down 2 more power civs with the mongols, america (jims sister) and china (fayeb). America - got a walkin on athens, 3 barbs, make 1 HA . Met america at tripoli, after he takes the cap I kill both of his HA's making him quit. China - got walkin on egypt, 3 barbs, make 2 HA's. Sneak past beijing and take his 2nd city, he quits. The trend seems to be, getting a early AI cap.

Using the mongols I always walk my settler until finding a CAP. Not sure if walking this long (5-12 turns) is the best way to play, but when able to get one its always a competitive game. On the other hand, many games ive walked far too long and been unable to recover. I even had a stretch were I lost my settler within 10 turns, 3 games consecutively. Rank has fluctuated from 600's (didn't even know it went that high) to double digits though I have more wins than losses.

How do u guys generally use the mongols, walk endlessly to find a cap, settle on a good spot regardless of AIcap, or move just a few turns. My play might improve if I can force myself settling prior to 3000bc.

This is a complicated question. The answer depends on the measure of your opponent. If your opponent is one of those guys who only knows the ancient game and can't even fathom how to go into CoL and expand all over the place, then the safe road is a guaranteed win. If your opponent is better than that and has a better civ (America vs. your Mongols, for example), then you have to get aggressive and settler rushing is a great way to do it.

The trick is knowing. I find the better players take a little time but not a lot in the early turns. They don't just settle in place and wait for their first warrior to finish and they don't stare stupidly at their TV for 45 seconds every turn. They take enough time to have a solid account of their surroundings and the game state but not so much time that you're wondering if he's hoping you'll quit (good players don't need to do this). You can also look for other tells like an American player having a cultural milestone starting in 3900 BC means you're going to have an easy game.

I'd say if you think your power-civ opponent is good, you should always walk your Mongol settler and keep walking until you find a reason to settle. There are times that I go "oh crap, it's 10 turns in and I got nothing!" Settling still usually isn't the right answer. Sometimes there's no right answer at this point. But think about it. Mongols starting in 3000 BC vs. Americans starting in 4000 BC? How is that going to work? It's not. Keep walking. Maybe you'll get lucky. Probably you'll just lose a little faster and if you're going to lose, might as well lose fast.

The settler walking mishap is great fun when you face a weak player. I ran across my Zulu enemy with my settler once. I had no gold. I managed to give him the slip somehow and came back and won. That won't happen against a good opponent.

[dukeblue1987]

Took down 2 more power civs with the mongols, america (jims sister) and china (fayeb). America - got a walkin on athens, 3 barbs, make 1 HA . Met america at tripoli, after he takes the cap I kill both of his HA's making him quit. China - got walkin on egypt, 3 barbs, make 2 HA's. Sneak past beijing and take HER 2nd city, SHE quits. The trend seems to be, getting a early AI cap.

There ya go, fixed

[JackHall2003]

My Spanish v Germans

The Warrior rush

I move 1 turn with settler and find whale / 2 trees, fantastic. Build warrior, first barb gives 50g and shows another to the south.

Rush next warrior and bump into Germans a couple of spaces west, damn. But he offers peace. I’m able to choke, so put the warrior in defence stance and German wanders off, re-activate warrior and follow. Berlin only a couple of tiles away.

My (now vet) first warrior has taken the next barb for another 40g, he heads back up towards Madrid and I rush another couple of warriors.

Form the Vet WA and my other declares war and camps Berlin Trees. Few turns later my WA is in his other tree. Madrid working on a galleon.

Then get the message he has found 7cog. Feck. Contingency plan in action – I rush the galleon and a settler. He attacks my fortified warrior with his WA, kills it but injured twice, I kill his wa with mine. Galleon sails round and I fumble the buttons and unload my settler in his tree instead of the militia – doh – turns out this was a master stroke, he steals with single warrior that I then kill.

Militia unloaded & I go chasing after my settler with an empty galleon in the hope he wastes gold, it works as flags pop up in my stolen settler city and his 100g city. Galleon back to Berlin to give a bit of support, he loses another WA 4.5-5.5 thanks to the galleon no injury to me & Blitz upgrade. I attack and beat his archer getting 1 injury, attack again and take Berlin and BW. Rush archer, move militia on hill as he brings another WA to try and take back. He attacks militia, gets injured and my WA finishes the job.

Rush another archer and move to his 100g city, take that and he quits.

Guy should have probably left out BW and just built vet Warrior Armies to attack me.

[Pedal2Metal]

This is a complicated question. The answer depends on the measure of your opponent.

I completely agree. Knowing your opponent is extremely valuable in determining what to do in those early turns (settle or walk). Assessing the map is important as well. P2M2 is now kind of like Morte in that he recognizes over 50% of the maps so it's pretty irritating since I rarely recognize any maps & always have to use general indicators (poles, mountains, water, etc...).

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

Played as French vs. Spanish.

I played horribly. I got the 7C early. I decided to build a Granary in Paris (I had 1 spot + fish + grass). I built my 2nd city close-by. I got the AoC & SoC (timed it to get it right after 1st GP: GL). I settled GL, teched HBR & went to attack India 9 vs. 5. I lost. I built another HA. By time I arrived, it was 15 defense. Crap!

Spain avoided me as my culture was huge. I went after Rome w/HA. It now had 15 defense as well. But I stole a settler. Nice! So I have 3 cities. SoC gave me GH & GE. I decided I'll sell out for a cat rush. I've got vet AA in my cap & 2nd city & vet HA guarding my 3rd city so I feel pretty safe for a while. I finally get 3 vet cat armies together in 600 AD & start walking them toward India from where I'll launch an attack on spain. I'm moving a galley around trying to find spain, finally find a city way south. I use GS I stole from India for Navigation. I have a GL from Rome which i save since he has already gotten EIC. I take out India but lose a cat army in process. I get Galleon going. I put 3 vet cat armies, 1 vet archer army & 3 single archers on galleon & go after Madrid. I find wait until I research Monarchy (saving my GS for Industrialization or Corp). I also get Religion from Indians (they have a 2nd city I left alone). I switch on the turn I'm going to drop off & also build the Samurai Castle. He just gets Steam Power. We have a frantic button race/evade situation. Somehow I get them off but I have to dump them onto a garbage square instead of the hill I wanted. I attack. I lose 1 cat army & then begin to wear him down. After getting Blitz/March upgrades I take Madrid, he quits.

If I'd been playing anyone good, I would have gotten skunked. Geez, I suck w/French.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Zefelius]

This is a complicated question. The answer depends on the measure of your opponent. If your opponent is one of those guys who only knows the ancient game and can't even fathom how to go into CoL and expand all over the place, then the safe road is a guaranteed win. If your opponent is better than that and has a better civ (America vs. your Mongols, for example), then you have to get aggressive and settler rushing is a great way to do it.

The trick is knowing. I find the better players take a little time but not a lot in the early turns. They don't just settle in place and wait for their first warrior to finish and they don't stare stupidly at their TV for 45 seconds every turn. They take enough time to have a solid account of their surroundings and the game state but not so much time that you're wondering if he's hoping you'll quit (good players don't need to do this). You can also look for other tells like an American player having a cultural milestone starting in 3900 BC means you're going to have an easy game.

I'd say if you think your power-civ opponent is good, you should always walk your Mongol settler and keep walking until you find a reason to settle. There are times that I go "oh crap, it's 10 turns in and I got nothing!" Settling still usually isn't the right answer. Sometimes there's no right answer at this point. But think about it. Mongols starting in 3000 BC vs. Americans starting in 4000 BC? How is that going to work? It's not. Keep walking. Maybe you'll get lucky. Probably you'll just lose a little faster and if you're going to lose, might as well lose fast.

The settler walking mishap is great fun when you face a weak player. I ran across my Zulu enemy with my settler once. I had no gold. I managed to give him the slip somehow and came back and won. That won't happen against a good opponent.

Lots of good advice in there. I myself am not very good at timing it all, and so I find I do much better if I just go ahead and settle when the first good thing happens to me---even if it's just two trees, two trade, and a village within a couple of tiles. Sometimes I like to take a chance and go deeper into the mainland, which I'm sure pays off a lot for elite players like you and Duke, but all too often I end up bumping into my opponent when I have 10 gold to his 3 warriors already out. Unless I need a Hail Mary, more and more often these days I'm playing it safe by settling before 3500 (not hereby contradicting anything you said... just adding more thoughts).

[Zefelius]

Just used Romans against a decent Egypt player and really enjoyed a good come from behind game with them.

In this game and other recent ones, I think I've figured out another good overall plan (or once again I'm hallucinating visions of breaking through!). I've read so many posts and comments about being aggressive all game, as much as possible. But I think I've carried that too far and been too inflexible with it. Too often I've thought I can use 6-7 cities for a decent cat attack, and of course sometimes it works. But against good players who expand I often find they have the means to defend their turf as by the time I reach them with the goods they have more cities, more money, and a higher tech count which combined will help in their resistance. So now I'm trying to balance aggression with expansion more by putting expansion first after the initial horse rushes---unless the circumstances call for a quick legion or cat attack.

It's funny in a dumb sort of way. When I read all the posts last year about the need for expansion, I followed the advice excessively by quickly going up to 15-20 cities and then losing to players who were more agressive. Then I swung to the other extreme: trying to put together cat or knight attacks even when I couldn't sustain them or the other player would then be able to get to Oxford quickly after I took a mere 2 or 3 cities. This even happened in a recent game against Grizz.

But defense can be vital too. Jumping from 5 to 10 cities quickly will usually put you in a good position to be able to defend most incoming attacks if the opponent doesn't expand sufficiently. And then jumping from 10 to 15 or so makes a lot of teching options very quick, and once again even if your opponent takes a city or two, in many cases I think it need not be a huge concern if they themselves slowed down their expansion and teching on behlaf of their attacks.

Nothing major here, just writing in my Civ Rev diary....

[Mawpawk]

i like what you both say, its about knowing your opponent and finding the right degree of seperation between long and short game.

[elthrasher]

Lots of good advice in there. I myself am not very good at timing it all, and so I find I do much better if I just go ahead and settle when the first good thing happens to me---even if it's just two trees, two trade, and a village within a couple of tiles. Sometimes I like to take a chance and go deeper into the mainland, which I'm sure pays off a lot for elite players like you and Duke, but all too often I end up bumping into my opponent when I have 10 gold to his 3 warriors already out. Unless I need a Hail Mary, more and more often these days I'm playing it safe by settling before 3500 (not hereby contradicting anything you said... just adding more thoughts).

This is fine to do in a game where you've already got a fighting chance, like if you're playing Arabs against Spanish or maybe a mediocre Chinese player. All you need is access to some good map resources and you've got better than a fighting chance.

My advice was given in the specific context of a Mongols vs. America game in which the American player is likely to be a decent player. A merely good start won't typically cut it. You need an awesome start and ideally need to end the game by 3000 BC. That's hardly a requirement in a typical game.

The best way to deal with America's broken bonuses is to take them out before they come to bear. My recent Germany vs. America game is a good example of that. I got a warrior army to Washington before my opponent had really done very much. He might have saved himself by GSing Bronze (which would have been a victory in and of itself), but he just threw in the towel instead.

[Pedal2Metal]

The best way to deal with America's broken bonuses is to take them out before they come to bear. My recent Germany vs. America game is a good example of that. I got a warrior army to Washington before my opponent had really done very much. He might have saved himself by GSing Bronze (which would have been a victory in and of itself), but he just threw in the towel instead.

True. But you're missing out on the satisfaction of beating a decent American player in the 1900's knowing all the while they are pissed off, thought they should have walked all over you, so you have to actually take the game from them. It's quite satisfying to get that 5th cap in the 1900's & know that the controller just got thrown across the room as the Germans begin dancing their victory dance.

I find Germany can compete w/America so long as they get 1 lucky break like Navigation early or kill America's 2 HA w/WA/LA & then just let America build cities & tech for them. They'll get about even in cities/tech when America finally is able to stop them & by this time, you'll have the +1 forest bonus & the slugfest really begins.

I've really come to believe that if Germany can survive to Medieval, they can compete w/most anyone. The elite upgrade bonus & +1 prod/trees is quite game-changing & they don't require a large number of cities or intricate strategy to do well. They are one of the few civs that can expand via production (no gold) effectively too.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[elthrasher]

True. But you're missing out on the satisfaction of beating a decent American player in the 1900's knowing all the while they are pissed off, thought they should have walked all over you, so you have to actually take the game from them. It's quite satisfying to get that 5th cap in the 1900's & know that the controller just got thrown across the room as the Germans begin dancing their victory dance.

Me? No, I've done that a lot of times, but I'm trying to give good advice for winning. If Germany bests America in 1900, then the American player either sucked or screwed up royally. Period!

I won't deny those aren't the most fun games you can have, but you can't always count on your opponent playing badly. Sometimes you have to just go ahead and play well yourself if you want to win.

[Pedal2Metal]

Me? No, I've done that a lot of times, but I'm trying to give good advice for winning. If Germany bests America in 1900, then the American player either sucked or screwed up royally. Period!

I won't deny those aren't the most fun games you can have, but you can't always count on your opponent playing badly. Sometimes you have to just go ahead and play well yourself if you want to win.

Generally true but I can't agree absolutely as you've posed it. You've over-generalized. Maybe you've never played a good German player when you are America or vice-versa so that's all the experience you have to draw on.

The time I went to 1960's the American player had his first KA attacking in 900 BC, which no one is going to convince me that's "slow". That's a pretty solid time & all his cities had militia, etc.... It's just that I got Navigation & 3 cities on an island & 4 elite LA/1 vet Galleon Fleet/3 archers delivered by 900 BC & also started attacking. I don't consider that playing badly on either side. It was a huge slugfest the rest of the game so that's why it took so long. I think I must have built 3 dozen KA that game. Seriously.

I think you're the one that talks about how good players can change the timeframes so that time isn't meaningful, gameplay is. I think this game was that case, not the case where he screwed up. The game ended with me getting bombers in the 1900's & finally being able to beat back his cruisers & block his roads. He had a huge empire, plenty of techs, etc..., it's just the Germans can produce units like gang-busters as well + I banked production for Oxford. I literally was on all gold from 900 BC onward & simply used taking cities and Literacy/University & GS's for teching from that point forward. He did make one mistake in the game but it wasn't his fault per se. He got a GB from culture or tech in a city I was attacking & tried to move it or used it to build the HSC (can't recall exactly). We fought over the city & traded it a couple of times but ultimately I kept it. That HSC helped out for sure.

Ultimately getting Navigation early is what saved the game along with going for elite legion rush. They upgraded to elite knights as I took his cities. Otherwise, he would have skunked me & he was no slouch as a player.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

Ok, I've just got to admit something.

I watched P2M2 play French vs. America last night.

He crushed the guy (who wasn't very good) but it was like watching me play Aztecs. I've concluded I will probably never be that good. I just don't play as aggressively (he'll attack w/4.5 vs. 2.5 w/HA, I almost never do this unless it's a hail-mary). He also has this "instinct" about the game which is hard to articulate. I asked him "Why this & why now?" & the answer was always "I don't know, instinct.". Great, that helps a lot.
Anyhow, he got plenty of gold which of course any & all civs require to do well but he got his 1 cap & had 5 cities by 2000, Irrigation & CoL 5 turns later.

Paris was a cultural megacity w/3 granary spots & a granary. It was kind of ridiculuous frankly.

So ultimately, I'm more risk-averse in my playstyle & have to think things through more than simply intuitively know. Oh well...

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[dukeblue1987]

Ok, I've just got to admit something.

I watched P2M2 play French vs. America last night.

He crushed the guy (who wasn't very good) but it was like watching me play Aztecs. I've concluded I will probably never be that good. I just don't play as aggressively (he'll attack w/4.5 vs. 2.5 w/HA, I almost never do this unless it's a hail-mary). He also has this "instinct" about the game which is hard to articulate. I asked him "Why this & why now?" & the answer was always "I don't know, instinct.". Great, that helps a lot.
Anyhow, he got plenty of gold which of course any & all civs require to do well but he got his 1 cap & had 5 cities by 2000, Irrigation & CoL 5 turns later.

Paris was a cultural megacity w/3 granary spots & a granary. It was kind of ridiculuous frankly.

So ultimately, I'm more risk-averse in my playstyle & have to think things through more than simply intuitively know. Oh well...

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

Haha... kind of like when you asked me why I rushed that galley. Instincts really. I had to actually sit there and think why I did it when you asked.

I would sit there and build warriors all day if he wanted to attack me 4.5 to 2.5 with and injured HA though. Maybe the odds are better than i think....

[Zefelius]

My advice was given in the specific context of a Mongols vs. America game in which the American player is likely to be a decent player. A merely good start won't typically cut it. You need an awesome start and ideally need to end the game by 3000 BC. That's hardly a requirement in a typical game.

Nicely said and argued...

[Zefelius]

He also has this "instinct" about the game which is hard to articulate. I asked him "Why this & why now?" & the answer was always "I don't know, instinct.". Great, that helps a lot.

It must be a kind of unconscious knowledge. Some players know how to respond to a variety of situations because they've unconsciously absorbed lessons and patterns from previous games and scenarios. I think instinct is one way of describing this knowledge, but others shouldn't automatically assume that this mode of instinct is therefore devoid of a certain kind of real knowledge (and thus might very well be explained and elucidated if the player reflected upon it a bit more).

[elthrasher]

I think you're the one that talks about how good players can change the timeframes so that time isn't meaningful, gameplay is.

Yeah, that's me. In regards to your game, I remember reading about it when you first posted it. Obviously I didn't witness the game so my impression is only from what you've written.

But my impression is this: your opponent may have been a decent player, but he did screw up. Teching ahead in that situation was a horrible mistake. Okay, he'd already given you knights but he still had a production advantage as long as he stayed in medieval. When he moved on to industrial, he threw the production advantage to you. You never did any teching after 900 BC but managed to get Advanced Flight? Well, how did that happen? Your opponent gave it to you. If he'd stayed in medieval, that never could have happened.

I have beaten American players in much the same way. Don't build stuff or tech stuff for your opponent! Not only have I won games this way, I've lost games this way. Your opponent may have been good, but he was inflexible and underestimated you. If he'd played well, you should have lost.

My Mongol vs. Mongol matchup with TyShine is a great example from the other end. Our horse wars lasted well into the ADs. We had both gotten Nav off the Spanish (or each other) and Fundamentalism off the Indians. I gained the upper hand, taking a few of Ty's cities and some AI ones as well. Then I made a dumb mistake. I went to industrial and got knights. Ty came back at me with a galleon fleet and several fundy horse armies. Knights don't last long against that and they are prohibitively expensive to replace. By recognizing that I already had everything I needed, I could have kept the pressure up and won. Instead I erroneously felt that getting new technologies would somehow help. It didn't.

[Zefelius]

Knights don't last long against that and they are prohibitively expensive to replace. By recognizing that I already had everything I needed, I could have kept the pressure up and won. Instead I erroneously felt that getting new technologies would somehow help. It didn't.

I think I learned that lesson from you when your Mongols beat my UK knights. I didn't have much cash or much land, and eventually exhausted myself against your cheaper cats. In the end, if I remember correctly, you still lost in that player FFA match against an Egyptian guy who had a ridiculous handicap. You vowed not to allow that to happen again!

[Mawpawk]

as of my h2h runing record reading so far i have found the reason why the good players are giving up the good game, its because of the fact we know what should have been done and if given some sort of advantage ,then how could they screw up? so at the end of the day its a battle against yourself. because you or we know how it would have been better , so it becomes boring as we know 2 many answers.
2 pedal, if you wer americans and your opponent was german in the exact same game u described above ,who do you think wod hav 1?

[Pedal2Metal]

I would sit there and build warriors all day if he wanted to attack me 4.5 to 2.5 with and injured HA though. Maybe the odds are better than i think....

Not when you have only 1 city & no gold, you aren't. Easy to write the words in text, in the actual game it will depend on how strong your empire is. Prior to 2500 BC, doubtful you have a strong empire. If you burn all your gold on warriors & eventually stop his HA, it will still have achieved the goal & you will likely lose.

This is why having a HA is usually better. Just let him take the city & move in to take it back & kill his HA. Of course, in this case it was the AI so it's moot on that point but does serve to illustrate why building lots of warriors for defense usually sucks unless you're the Arabs/Germans (maybe Zulu).

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

Yeah, that's me. In regards to your game, I remember reading about it when you first posted it. Obviously I didn't witness the game so my impression is only from what you've written.

But my impression is this: your opponent may have been a decent player, but he did screw up. Teching ahead in that situation was a horrible mistake. Okay, he'd already given you knights but he still had a production advantage as long as he stayed in medieval. When he moved on to industrial, he threw the production advantage to you. You never did any teching after 900 BC but managed to get Advanced Flight? Well, how did that happen? Your opponent gave it to you. If he'd stayed in medieval, that never could have happened..

Maybe so. Obviously me building Oxford & getting a GS & saving it for Industrialization worked out for me while continuing to pressure him relentlessly w/KA, pikemen the entire game. I wouldn't say he gave me anything however. It was a 6-hour slugfest the likes of which I've never seen before nor since.

I have beaten American players in much the same way. Don't build stuff or tech stuff for your opponent! Not only have I won games this way, I've lost games this way. Your opponent may have been good, but he was inflexible and underestimated you. If he'd played well, you should have lost..

I don't think I would classify it as him playing not well so much but more like he didn't player better than I did. So I can probably agree with the aspect of inflexibility & underestimation. Seems fair. I definitely have my share of bad games but that game, I don't think anyone had a bad game. Rather it was a game that even slight mistakes could end up costing you. I can assure you if he hadn't gotten Steam Power, he would have lost long before bombers (unless he had built like 20 KA on his backside of his cap while I was coming w/literally dozens of my own KA) so I'm not so sure it was bad to get some techs. Since I got all 4 caps, he had to defend his cap immediately vs. banking up a large force behind it. Also since I had Religion (from Arabs) w/HSC, & elite/galleon support, I had a real juggernaut of a force even after he killed 2 LA, I still had 2 KA after getting Monarchy, rolling through cities at 1 city/turn until I hit his cap. I basically was stopped at his cap & we fought over that thing for centuries!

My Mongol vs. Mongol matchup with TyShine is a great example from the other end. Our horse wars lasted well into the ADs. We had both gotten Nav off the Spanish (or each other) and Fundamentalism off the Indians. I gained the upper hand, taking a few of Ty's cities and some AI ones as well. Then I made a dumb mistake. I went to industrial and got knights. Ty came back at me with a galleon fleet and several fundy horse armies. Knights don't last long against that and they are prohibitively expensive to replace. By recognizing that I already had everything I needed, I could have kept the pressure up and won. Instead I erroneously felt that getting new technologies would somehow help. It didn't.

Yeah, that's a good point. I don't think I would classify it as poor play on your part but maybe too "cookie-cutter" vs. adapting to the situation. I still think though it's easy to have 20/20 hindsight & it may be missing other possible paths that could have happened at the time but since the game is now over you can analyze w/o that uncertainty. In other games, it might have been just fine to get knights & go from there. I think the trick is in somehow figuring out when/how to make this distinction in the actual moment of decision, not after the game is over. That's the tough part I think. Maybe if you have a few great mountain cities, going to Industrial would have worked out for instance.

Anyhow, good insights & comments, as usual.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

2 pedal, if you wer americans and your opponent was german in the exact same game u described above ,who do you think wod hav 1?

I don't know. If the Germans show up at America's doorstep w/vet Galleon fleet, 4 elite legion armies, 3 vet archers @1000 BC & America has cities every 2 squares, it's going to be interesting to say the least as they can attack & defend multiple cities per turn & they will get techs for every city so it's a huge swing in momentum. The human factor of this game is that when such events occur, it can really frustrate you & make thinking clearly hard which further exacerbates the problem.

Germany can do damage. I know for a fact as I've beaten many a forum player with them. So I'd like to think I'd have won but frankly, I'm not so sure. More than likely I would have stopped teching completely & built like 10 knight armies & then killed him & taken all my cities back. Anything other than that, & probably I would have lost too.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[elthrasher]

Yeah, that's a good point. I don't think I would classify it as poor play on your part but maybe too "cookie-cutter" vs. adapting to the situation.

Tomato/tomato (I guess that doesn't work in type). I'm hard on others, I'm hard on myself. 90% of my games are played badly and my win ratio is higher than that. He didn't do awesome so he sucked. It's just a game. No need to be nice about it.