Playing after a bad start

[dukeblue1987]

I always try to analyze the games I lose (much more important than the games I win) to see how I can improve. I thought of this from the game with bumbum’s girlfriend. In that game I was Germans vs. Americans, although this thread can apply to any matchup.

Here is the basic situation. You have a pretty slow start and the opponent gets a much better start. You didn’t get too much gold and no walk-in or anything like that. You might have lost an unlucky 6 v 2.5, or a sold out on a 4.5 v 2.5 warrior rush and lost. Maybe you are able to sell some warriors and work gold for several turns for the 100g settler. Meanwhile you opponent gets a cap or two, might be a better civ, probably has either multiple horse armies or multiple cities out. He might even be in republic.

What are you options here? Here is what I can think of.

1. Build a horse army. It’s going to be slow and won’t be vet. It probably won’t take any AI caps because they will either have archer armies or it will have a good chance of losing 6-5. A big investment to take a chance. It might work if the AI has a hill by their cap. You might be able to press the human player, but they probably have archer or their own horse army. It’s not likely you will do any significant damage.

2. Expand slowly and tech to COL. Again, it’s going to be slow. The opponent might already be in COL, and you’re still 6+ turns away. You might be able to get COL in ancient and rush a couple settlers if you have any gold left. I think this might be the best option, although the other player can make cities faster. You basically have to expand freely with no defense.

3. Try a legion rush. This probably isn’t going to work as you need to tech iron working (30 beakers), probably need a barracks (40 hammers), and lets say 3 legion armies (90 hammers). That’s going to take awhile. Even without the barracks its slow (and weak).

4. Try to rely on you later boni. The English can survive if they make it to modern. The Germans can get at least 4-5 elite knight armies out in the early AD’s (200-800 depending on how bad your start is). Greece and China get ½ cost libraries.

5. Rush a galley and go artifact hunting. Maybe 7 cities or SoC can help turn the game around. Not likely.

I feel all of these options are OK against bad players and a waste of time against great players (or good players using America/China). Any other idea’s?

[TyShine]

When I read about how slow your knights were v a
America I thought why doesn't he go for legions.
March and inflitration are the only upgrades you want, blitz is ok.

Trying playing some games as France to get a feel of what is like playing from behind. I've been playing them again and it can be tough.

[Pedal2Metal]

Options 3-5 are ok (although you must put a unit on a galley for opportunistic drop-offs). You'd be suprised what 3 vet legion armies can do with 1-2 archers along for the ride. I've punished lots of American players using 3-4 legion armies but they were early enough in the game to do some good. Once you get Medieval, the +50% forest production is quite helpful so I tend to prioritize taking cities w/trees first if I can w/Germans. If America already had pikemen before you showed up, you're probably mostly screwed as you're only going to get 1-2 cities max before they stop you cold.

Sometimes, I'll just expand/hammer to 3-4 cities (if feasible w/local terrain) & then go for CoL. It's disturbingly slow however & usually I quit when they have 40+ techs, riflemen armies everywhere, they just built Oxford, etc.... when I was just about getting enough cities to try for Oxford. I'm talking non-Germany civs. W/Germany, it's all about getting aggressive using the elite upgrade, especially if you're trying to come from behind. I find striking earlier is more important than anything else, especially w/America. So I prefer elite legions to knights & let the knights naturally happen when I take a city & get Fuedalism, at least against American opponents.

In general, if you take 30+ turns to get your 100 gold, get no caps, the other guy gets 1-2 caps + 100 gold by 2500 BC, you're going to lose unless they are an idiot OR you get some major luck (7C, KT, drop-offs, etc...) & get it soon. It's just that simple. All the postings in the world by esteemed forum members with the "solution" won't change that fact. So option 6 is still a good one:
Quit & try again.

Most people, especially forum players (myself included), will probably stick it out due to various reasons (mostly pride IMO) but if you know your opponent is competent, I just don't see point in dragging out the inevitable.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[TyShine]

Sometimes you will just lose, but remember people will often quit for stupid reasons. Try doing things like using single horses to steal settlers. A ha is good for ai walkouts but you probably have to wait a while unless you can give them a 100 g.

As far as expanding that works against some people but it depends if they prefer knights or tanks.

[dukeblue1987]

When I read about how slow your knights were v a
America I thought why doesn't he go for legions.
March and inflitration are the only upgrades you want, blitz is ok.

Trying playing some games as France to get a feel of what is like playing from behind. I've been playing them again and it can be tough.

I thought about it, but she was so far away I don't think it would have mattered. I actually planned it a little wrong because I could have gotten knights earlier, but didn't have enough warriors out. I should have worked worked gold earlier and science later.

I don't play France a lot, but as you know I play Russia frequently. Russia is underrated, but still bad.

[dukeblue1987]

Quit & try again.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

I obviously understand that every game can't be won. That is just part of the randomness of civ. It's much different than chess for example, where everything is basically equal.

I was more just posting to see if there were any options that I have overlooked, because to be great at anything you always need to be looking how to improve.

[MorteEterna]

I've had one game as germans where my egyptian enemy had like 3 cities, Thebes with 6 pop, lot of buildings (like 6-7 buildings), hanging gardens, and his second city had 5-6 pop too, with some deserts like his cap, etc..

I wanted to quit because I moved my settler from east to west (like 20 tiles). He was in the middle, but at the end of the game I won. He had like 10 techs more than me, but when I attacked with few legion armies his cap (upgraded them with 2 cities. 8 science means iron working in 4 turns), and one old warrior army (elite, if I'm not wrong), I took Thebes (next to hill) and started building a lot of archers. At the end I didn't let him take it back, and he quit the game.

I prefer, like Pedal, option 3 and 5. You aren't going to win by expanding, that's too hard and stupid. Attacking is the best thing you can do. Your enemy could even think you aren't going to do anything, so it's even better. As Sun Tzu said (I'll talk about the concept, not the same words), if you make people think you are stupid, they'll never expect anything from you. So, if you are strong, make people think you are not.

[Pedal2Metal]

I was more just posting to see if there were any options that I have overlooked, because to be great at anything you always need to be looking how to improve.

In that case, here's the killer strategy:
Build the Shakespeare Theater & inspire him to quit with your wonderful culture!

Seriously though, if you're behind there are basically 3 strategic options:
Force
Expansion
Luck

I think Force/Luck are probably the best bets because they can turn momentum the quickest & most unexpectedly. Expansion is ok in some circumstances/civs but it slower to catch up & risky if they decide to launch an attack as you have to build a bazillion cities w/no defense & assuming everything is equal, you'll still lose. I've seen P2M2 do the expansion route several times & I've done it successfully a couple of times but it's risky against a competent opponent. The specifics behind those can vary but those are your options or some combination thereof. At some point, there are no options other than quitting. When you cross that threshold is a judgement call but it sounds like you quit once you knew it was unrecoverable (attacking cities & finding pikemen armies everywhere is a pretty good sign it's over).

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[elthrasher]

The way I see it, you really owe it to yourself to do a legion rush, if your opponent is good. If your opponent sucks but just had a way better start, then expansion might do the job. It might even be more effective as weak players tend to over-defend, making legions less useful. Against a good opponent, he'll come and kill you soon enough anyway, so you might as well try legions. If you manage to get a few (3-4) cities settled by 1000 BC, then you just need Bronze Working and Iron Working and you're all set to go. A barracks costs the same as two settlers and legions are cheap.

I had a really bad start in a recent game against Zef (though he wasn't having such a great game either, so don't see this as knock on his play). I still was able to have vet catapults and vet legions by the time he came to me, then turned it around and ran back at him. I got 0 barbs but did get a cap. Then I only researched techs I absolutely needed (math was needed as he was the English).

I think one of the main things is recognizing early on that it's hail mary time. I mean, if you tech CoL, build two extra cities, then try a legion rush, that is a massive waste of resources. Alphabet->Writing->CoL is 120 beakers. If you're going put that many work units into something, you sure as heck better get more than two cities out of the deal. It's far better to expand to like 4 cities and then go with legions. For 120 work units, you can have Iron Working and three armies. For 40 more work units you can add the barracks, so basically that's three vet legion armies for the same cost as CoL and two settlers. Which is going to get more done for you in the game?

The thing is that expansion is extremely useful but also very expensive. If you have three cities to start (cap, 100g settler and AI cap) and want to have 15 cities, that's 240 hammers, plus a fair amount of food, plus the 120 beakers for CoL. You also may want to defend some of those cities, so that adds to the cost. Unfortunately, America totally bucks the scheme here and basically gives you all that for free, so yeah, playing a good American player who has had a better start than you is kind of hopeless.

I don't like the quitting option and only use it against very good players or if I'm seriously screwed or bored. I've just had too many games where it seemed like I was hopelessly behind but I still pulled out the win. For example: http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/sho...862#post836862

[TyShine]

I've had one game as germans where my egyptian enemy had like 3 cities, Thebes with 6 pop, lot of buildings (like 6-7 buildings), hanging gardens, and his second city had 5-6 pop too, with some deserts like his cap, etc..

I wanted to quit because I moved my settler from east to west (like 20 tiles). He was in the middle, but at the end of the game I won. He had like 10 techs more than me, but when I attacked with few legion armies his cap (upgraded them with 2 cities. 8 science means iron working in 4 turns), and one old warrior army (elite, if I'm not wrong), I took Thebes (next to hill) and started building a lot of archers. At the end I didn't let him take it back, and he quit the game.

I prefer, like Pedal, option 3 and 5. You aren't going to win by expanding, that's too hard and stupid. Attacking is the best thing you can do. Your enemy could even think you aren't going to do anything, so it's even better. As Sun Tzu said (I'll talk about the concept, not the same words), if you make people think you are stupid, they'll never expect anything from you. So, if you are strong, make people think you are not.

I once had nearly te exact game. He had colossus and I was Germany. I eventuallly took his mega city with man inflt legion armies. Now when I find aw I often just go for legions w any civ. It's not always the best option but I love winning with legions.

[ScottieX]

I was playing a reasonably good american player and I was germans. I had a not very good start and I made it worse by screwing up an initial attack. But what probably got me back in the game was that he attacked me.

He landed next to one of my cities and I repelled his attack getting a spy and upgrades and loosing basically nothing. I then realised he was going to be weaker for a little while (and i was preparing a hail mary anyway) so i sent everything I had to take his capital (the closest city), stole feudalism off him in the process and it was all over.

If he had sat back with defensive and offensive units in his cities and much better tech than me, well I suppose I'd still go for the hail mary - but dont think it would have worked.

[Pedal2Metal]

If he had sat back with defensive and offensive units in his cities and much better tech than me, well I suppose I'd still go for the hail mary - but dont think it would have worked.

I agree. America can kill you 9 ways to Sunday & still have plenty left in the tank. Playing passively w/America can really throw people off too.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

The way I see it, you really owe it to yourself to do a legion rush, if your opponent is good.

and THAT is why I like the Germans for the Americans. The German legion rush is fast AND strong. It is quite difficult to repel & once it gets rolling, the Americans will tend to backpedal & they will have made a bunch of cities for the Germans that are all clumped together so the movement penalty for legions is mitigated as well. I think the Germans are a dark horse candidate against the Americans that most players overlook.

However, you do need more than 1 city to make it work, you need 2 cities minimum + 100 gold to make it work. Duke's game sounded pretty hopeless at the end of the day.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Aheadatime]

What you can do is accept defeat, and understand that this is how civrev works sometimes.

Options 3 and 5 were your best options, but youre probably going to lose.

Example -

Played a FFA game earlier, got random french. There was an american player in the game. Before 3400, he had moved his settler near me, settled in a spot that chokes me from the rest of the world, had his 100g, and HBR from a hut. So i teched BW after a walk-in failed, and got an archer army up with my 2 pop cap. Repelled him, but no problem, as hes already in medieval while im nowhere with no gold. Hammer out a galley, find SoC for GA and GE. GA flips a nearby american city, GE used to make 50g (wasnt even in medieval yet). Teched IW, rushed a barracks, hammered out 3 legion armies. Too late. By now he has 6+ knight armies, 20 techs, at least 20 cities, etc. Those legion armies killed 3 of his knight armies and took one of his cities with good tactics, but who cares, for every legion army i managed to hammer/rush, he had 3 more knight armies on the way. I can, and did, fight tooth and nail to make him deserve his win, but its a lost cause.

Sometimes theres literally nothing you can do but accept defeat. The only factor that would have made the game differently was luck. Say he moved north instead of south towards me, or say i moved my settler north, and got away before he settled. These things are impossible to determine, and therefore, it all comes down to an uncontrollable factor called luck, which is why i argued a few months ago that luck is an undeniable factor in this game when morte went around saying 'theres no such thing as luck' etc. I still stand with my statement, you cannot ignore luck in civrev, this is not chess, this game is not equal by any means.

[MorteEterna]

What you can do is accept defeat, and understand that this is how civrev works sometimes.

Options 3 and 5 were your best options, but youre probably going to lose.

Example -

Played a FFA game earlier, got random french. There was an american player in the game. Before 3400, he had moved his settler near me, settled in a spot that chokes me from the rest of the world, had his 100g, and HBR from a hut. So i teched BW after a walk-in failed, and got an archer army up with my 2 pop cap. Repelled him, but no problem, as hes already in medieval while im nowhere with no gold. Hammer out a galley, find SoC for GA and GE. GA flips a nearby american city, GE used to make 50g (wasnt even in medieval yet). Teched IW, rushed a barracks, hammered out 3 legion armies. Too late. By now he has 6+ knight armies, 20 techs, at least 20 cities, etc. Those legion armies killed 3 of his knight armies and took one of his cities with good tactics, but who cares, for every legion army i managed to hammer/rush, he had 3 more knight armies on the way. I can, and did, fight tooth and nail to make him deserve his win, but its a lost cause.

Sometimes theres literally nothing you can do but accept defeat. The only factor that would have made the game differently was luck. Say he moved north instead of south towards me, or say i moved my settler north, and got away before he settled. These things are impossible to determine, and therefore, it all comes down to an uncontrollable factor called luck, which is why i argued a few months ago that luck is an undeniable factor in this game when morte went around saying 'theres no such thing as luck' etc. I still stand with my statement, you cannot ignore luck in civrev, this is not chess, this game is not equal by any means.

Well, this game is not equal, we all know, but luck is not as important as you all say. In FFA as I said sometimes, I won like 220 games in a row (even with few freezings), as Americans, obvious, but I wasn't playing against newbs. In fact I tend to leave FFA rooms if I can't recognize some top players (at least top100 or people who I know). I have beat even top5-10 a lot of times while doing that, and maybe I only had one game that was even.

So skill is much more important than luck. Do you really think that luck could help me so many times? I've had games where I started with artist/humanitarian and nothing to do at the start. I still remember some slow games.

[englishhan]

MBT Shoes Clearance
MBT Shoes Sale
Discount MBT Shoes
MBT Shoes

[Aheadatime]

Well, this game is not equal, we all know, but luck is not as important as you all say. In FFA as I said sometimes, I won like 220 games in a row (even with few freezings), as Americans, obvious, but I wasn't playing against newbs. In fact I tend to leave FFA rooms if I can't recognize some top players (at least top100 or people who I know). I have beat even top5-10 a lot of times while doing that, and maybe I only had one game that was even.

So skill is much more important than luck. Do you really think that luck could help me so many times? I've had games where I started with artist/humanitarian and nothing to do at the start. I still remember some slow games.

I always said that skill > luck, but to say luck doesnt exist is foolish. I believe you and PM2 are in a league of your own, and sure, with how good you are tied with the americans, i wouldnt doubt that you could win 500 games and only lose a handful of games. Those games you lose? Luck plays a part. Regardless, most people arent as good as you, nor do they use as good of civs, so if someone with my skill level goes random and gets french with a bad start vs an american with a good start, it doesnt matter anymore that im technically 'better' than him, because the map is letting him have the win right now. Thats my point, and you always seemed to believe that luck didnt exist at all, which i disagreed with from a long time ago.

[MorteEterna]

I always said that skill > luck, but to say luck doesnt exist is foolish. I believe you and PM2 are in a league of your own, and sure, with how good you are tied with the americans, i wouldnt doubt that you could win 500 games and only lose a handful of games. Those games you lose? Luck plays a part. Regardless, most people arent as good as you, nor do they use as good of civs, so if someone with my skill level goes random and gets french with a bad start vs an american with a good start, it doesnt matter anymore that im technically 'better' than him, because the map is letting him have the win right now. Thats my point, and you always seemed to believe that luck didnt exist at all, which i disagreed with from a long time ago.

I have never said that luck doesn't exist at all, I think I've never said that. I've always kept saying that skill counts much more than luck.

[TyShine]

What you can do is accept defeat, and understand that this is how civrev works sometimes.

Options 3 and 5 were your best options, but youre probably going to lose.

Example -

Played a FFA game earlier, got random french. There was an american player in the game. Before 3400, he had moved his settler near me, settled in a spot that chokes me from the rest of the world, had his 100g, and HBR from a hut. So i teched BW after a walk-in failed, and got an archer army up with my 2 pop cap. Repelled him, but no problem, as hes already in medieval while im nowhere with no gold. Hammer out a galley, find SoC for GA and GE. GA flips a nearby american city, GE used to make 50g (wasnt even in medieval yet). Teched IW, rushed a barracks, hammered out 3 legion armies. Too late. By now he has 6+ knight armies, 20 techs, at least 20 cities, etc. Those legion armies killed 3 of his knight armies and took one of his cities with good tactics, but who cares, for every legion army i managed to hammer/rush, he had 3 more knight armies on the way. I can, and did, fight tooth and nail to make him deserve his win, but its a lost cause.

Sometimes theres literally nothing you can do but accept defeat. The only factor that would have made the game differently was luck. Say he moved north instead of south towards me, or say i moved my settler north, and got away before he settled. These things are impossible to determine, and therefore, it all comes down to an uncontrollable factor called luck, which is why i argued a few months ago that luck is an undeniable factor in this game when morte went around saying 'theres no such thing as luck' etc. I still stand with my statement, you cannot ignore luck in civrev, this is not chess, this game is not equal by any means.

You talk so much of luck, but its not a big deal. Luck will always balance itself out over time. There are plenty of games I cant win against good players because of the things you mention. I realize this, but instead of thinking oh well there is nothing I could do, I think what could I do better. Sometimes its nothing, but that kind of thinking is more apt to bringing out better play. From my perspective luck is loser talk(not calling you a loser by any means). I would hear it from people in poker all the time. They were generally right when they said they got unlucky, (sometimes but not always), but talking about luck helps nothing.

[elthrasher]

You talk so much of luck, but its not a big deal. Luck will always balance itself out over time. There are plenty of games I cant win against good players because of the things you mention. I realize this, but instead of thinking oh well there is nothing I could do, I think what could I do better. Sometimes its nothing, but that kind of thinking is more apt to bringing out better play. From my perspective luck is loser talk(not calling you a loser by any means). I would hear it from people in poker all the time. They were generally right when they said they got unlucky, (sometimes but not always), but talking about luck helps nothing.

Well said. Though one can contrive of a completely hopeless game (imagine the Aztecs galley-dropping you on your 5 tile island in 3800 BC), this is rare in the extreme. You could have done something differently. You could have moved your settler (or not moved it). You could have gotten archers instead of horsemen. You could have rushed a galley early on.

The only real lesson to be had here is when in doubt, go down swinging.

[Aheadatime]

You talk so much of luck, but its not a big deal. Luck will always balance itself out over time. There are plenty of games I cant win against good players because of the things you mention. I realize this, but instead of thinking oh well there is nothing I could do, I think what could I do better. Sometimes its nothing, but that kind of thinking is more apt to bringing out better play. From my perspective luck is loser talk(not calling you a loser by any means). I would hear it from people in poker all the time. They were generally right when they said they got unlucky, (sometimes but not always), but talking about luck helps nothing.

I agree to this. The bolded part is my whole point summed up pretty nicely. Sometimes theres nothing you can do, like in the game duke mentioned (america getting a nice fast, roomy start vs his slow peninsula start with no gold), and theres nothing to learn from this. Thinking about learning and the mistakes you made is important, but sometimes theres nothing to learn.. you just get screwed.

[elthrasher]

but sometimes theres nothing to learn.. you just get screwed.

In my experience, this is rare enough to be basically false. So okay you randomed the French against an experienced America player and you had a bad start and he had a good one and soon it's his eleventy-sixteen cities against your Paris. And you got a humanitarian as your first GP.

Impossible to win? Yeah, probably.

Nothing to learn? There's something to learn in any game. Can you make any gains at all? Can you steal a city somewhere? Can you kill his armies? Any time you have to do more with less, it's a good learning experience.

[dukeblue1987]

In my experience, this is rare enough to be basically false. So okay you randomed the French against an experienced America player and you had a bad start and he had a good one and soon it's his eleventy-sixteen cities against your Paris. And you got a humanitarian as your first GP.

Impossible to win? Yeah, probably.

Nothing to learn? There's something to learn in any game. Can you make any gains at all? Can you steal a city somewhere? Can you kill his armies? Any time you have to do more with less, it's a good learning experience.

Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want.

Or something like that

[Pedal2Metal]

Experience is what allows you to make new mistakes instead of old ones.

[Pedal2Metal]

The only real lesson to be had here is when in doubt, go down swinging.

Well-said. This lesson applies equally well in real-life too. Witness Flight 93 on September 11, 2001. Either way the chances were never good, all the choices distasteful (do nothing & "trust" the terrorists or risk one's life to kill/incapacitate the terrorists) but at least they gave themselves a chance by fighting vs. just being sheep. It's important to remember that such choices are the result of the criminal behavior that was initiated against others, not from those who simply got on the plane normally with no evil intentions. Sometimes that's just how life goes. We must choose whether to respond or not & definitely agree it's better to "go down swinging" than the alternative(s).

Back to CivRev & real-life application albeit less dramatic but equally illustrative. I think Brent's recent desperation has increased in the last few weeks & most notably his attempt to pollute the forums is due to the pressure that has been applied by the community both in informing the community & making it more aware, publicly ridiculing him, & explicitly lowering him in the leaderboards. Criminals of all kinds, virtual or real, don't like people standing up to them so your advice is solid on all fronts. Notice how many "would-be" terrorists have been thwarted since 9/11 by citizen awareness & action vs. waiting on the authorities. This is one positive effect of 9/11, people are more motivated to be proactive about their own survival vs. being passive.

Similar positive effects are occurring in our CivRev community, & I'm confident that the blight Brent represents will be blotted out of the CivRev universe in the coming months.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Cymru]

Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want.

Or something like that

Experience is taking the exam first, then learning the material

[MorteEterna]

Experience is taking the exam first, then learning the material

I don't remember who said that. Oscar Wilde maybe?

[Cymru]

I don't remember who said that. Oscar Wilde maybe?

Damn, I thought I could get away with people thinking it was an original brilliant thought. What's worst I got caught by the youngest forum member

[Aheadatime]

Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want.

Or something like that

Ive always hated this quote. You get experience when you get what you want too though.

Around my high school it was 'experience is what you get when you lose', and i always thought, rhetorically, 'so that means winning provides no experience?'.

Experience is everything, winning, losing, hating, loving, its all experience that you can build and grow from (life-wise).

Pertaining to civrev, its harder to say. I mean, sure, i guess i could have tweaked a couple of moves in order to go down a bit slower etc, but as far as being the french with 30 gold vs an american with GB and 100g within 3 turns, HBR from a hut, and he spawns 10 tiles from you, no, i dont believe theres anything i could have learned or gained from that game whatsoever, and itd be hard to make me see otherwise.

[Grayson]

Ive always hated this quote. You get experience when you get what you want too though.

Around my high school it was 'experience is what you get when you lose', and i always thought, rhetorically, 'so that means winning provides no experience?'.

Experience is everything, winning, losing, hating, loving, its all experience that you can build and grow from (life-wise).

Pertaining to civrev, its harder to say. I mean, sure, i guess i could have tweaked a couple of moves in order to go down a bit slower etc, but as far as being the french with 30 gold vs an american with GB and 100g within 3 turns, HBR from a hut, and he spawns 10 tiles from you, no, i dont believe theres anything i could have learned or gained from that game whatsoever, and itd be hard to make me see otherwise.

I can agree with this, at least in the sense that maybe there's a bigger benefit to not overanalyzing why you lost from a tough spot rather than trying to find something that might not be there that would have changed the outcome, or at least delayed it.

I think there's a few ways you can take a loss, one being that you can learn a valueble lesson, that you will file away in your memory for later. I often learn a lot more from my losses than wins, but that's because a lot of my wins are so easy, that I'd do better to forget them, as I often play even better when I'm losing in a lost game.

I also think there's value in not dwelling on a loss, and just moving on. I think it can be helpful to just forget a bad game, whether it's you that played bad, or it's just bad luck. I know a lot o players that never want to admit that they played the wrong moves, and they then go out and win a lot more games. It's that kind of prideful player that can be driven to go out and prove that they are better than the crappy game that was just played, and go on to new heights. Sometimes I have this in me, sometimes dwelling on losses makes me play worse, so I just try to press on.

If I really get smacked down playing some of best best moves from an average or pretty good start, then I probably need to look at my strategy. If I'm dropping several games in a row, I need to look at what I'm doing. But, if I lose to a fast rush or just a bad start, I'll send a "GG" message to the other guy, let him talk smack, and be out for blood the next time, and god help the next random foe I come up against.

[Zefelius]

I had a really bad start in a recent game against Zef (though he wasn't having such a great game either, so don't see this as knock on his play).

I don't mind being knocked! I'm a step below elite imo, but if I can just improve my tactics I think I'm going to be pretty good.

Anyway, this is an excellent and educative thread. Personally I think the legion rush might be best against good players (may not work, but worth a shot), and against non-expanders cats are the way to go, on galleons if the opponent is at a distance. Also, I never used to go for Irrigation much, but these days if I'm going for a quick cat and galleon rush I'll aim for it if it's still there, as it can add science and money to your teching and rushing, and is helpful when you don't have many cities.

[ohbuggerit]

Damn, I thought I could get away with people thinking it was an original brilliant thought. What's worst I got caught by the youngest forum member

talent borrows, genius steals- just ask morrissey

[Aheadatime]

talent borrows, genius steals- just ask morrissey

wouldnt this mean that there was never original genius or talent in this world?

[elthrasher]

Anyway, this is an excellent and educative thread. Personally I think the legion rush might be best against good players (may not work, but worth a shot), and against non-expanders cats are the way to go, on galleons if the opponent is at a distance. Also, I never used to go for Irrigation much, but these days if I'm going for a quick cat and galleon rush I'll aim for it if it's still there, as it can add science and money to your teching and rushing, and is helpful when you don't have many cities.

I've been using legions more and more. I'm probably using them in like a quarter of my games lately and that's saying something, since more than half don't even get to the point where anyone has Iron Working. They are very useful against good players. In one of my recent games against Duke, he had horses running around a city of mine that was on a hill. 10 hammer units that have 3 attack to start. Say goodbye to those expensive horses. If I lose, no big deal. I can just get more legions.

They can still be good against players who overdefend, but you obviously have to use them differently and sometimes they aren't that useful, depending on how bad the player is, but it usually doesn't hurt to have them.

As for Irrigation, I don't really see that being an essential part of a quick cat rush. You'd probably have like 4-5 cities, so you gain 4-5 pop, but you have to do 70 beakers (or 80 if you are getting Masonry too). That's a lot and it's going to be better to have 70 gold or 70 hammers. Let your opponent get Irrigation for larger cities and then take them. When going for a fast rush, you really need to cut the chaff. In that Mongol-England game we played, I never teched CoL until you were dead. I just wanted legions and catapults so there was no need or opportunity to expand. That's why it worked. If I'd gotten CoL, that's 60 work units, which is the same as a cat army, plus I'd need to build some settlers to make that worth while. At what cost? The same as another cat army? Then your knights take all my cities.

When playing from behind and preparing for serious war, you need to skip some of the usual paths and instead take a bare-bones approach to get the armies you need as quickly as possible.

wouldnt this mean that there was never original genius or talent in this world?

No, you don't get to pwn Morrissey!

[SVPM]

They can still be good against players who overdefend, but you obviously have to use them differently and sometimes they aren't that useful, depending on how bad the player is, but it usually doesn't hurt to have them.

Yeah these player usually don't have that many city, so getting 1-2-3 with legions will be a hard hit to them.

I'm also using them a lot more recently, they are really fun and efficient. You can raise multiple army really quickly and early in the game. They are the same price as the defensive unit they are fighting and it's a unique caracteristics of offensive unit in civ rev.

I found that I will use them if I see that I have a quick access to my ennemy by boat or if my ennemy is close to me. I used them efficiently yesterday in a game against a spanish player as I was France. Big comeback on my part by getting his 7 pop market city and 9 production city on the same island, and later get oxford bombers, sink his galleon fleet with my cruiser fleet (had 2 GS saved indus, steam power), but shhitheead turns on his overpowered air conditionner at that moment...

[Maniac76]

Big comeback on my part by getting his 7 pop market city and 9 production city on the same island, and later get oxford bombers, sink his galleon fleet with my cruiser fleet (had 2 GS saved indus, steam power), but shhitheead turns on his overpowered air conditionner at that moment...

That guy is a waste of time. Every time I have played him in h2h he turns it on as you say. I dont even get to start a game - he does it in turn 1, so count yourself lucky. I gave him the benefit a few times but he always does it.

Suffice to say I wont play him ever again. With idiots like him around no wonder my losses are so high....or is that because Im not very good??

Anyway you on tonight?

[SVPM]

Anyway you on tonight?

I will, I'll finish watching the game, then go do my everyday-physioterapic-exercice-walk-errand and I'll be on. We should try to play on team together against good team. I don't know that much the other player which one are good or not in the chat. So far, I think you are the one (with hydro) giving the biggest challenge. cbloyola is good I think, but the only game he beat me was the best egyptian start I have seen, 4 deserts 2 spiced colossus start... Liam is often there but he never speaks... Moogabid2 seems online, but never come to the chat room. Moogabib (1) was really good back in the days...

[Zefelius]

As for Irrigation, I don't really see that being an essential part of a quick cat rush. You'd probably have like 4-5 cities, so you gain 4-5 pop, but you have to do 70 beakers (or 80 if you are getting Masonry too). That's a lot and it's going to be better to have 70 gold or 70 hammers. Let your opponent get Irrigation for larger cities and then take them. When going for a fast rush, you really need to cut the chaff.

I see your logic, although I think this is open to debate. In my comment I mentioned a fast cat and galleon rush, which is different from a straight up cat rush. If we're talking about the latter, I think we agree: just shoot for cats and rush the enemy. But if the enemy is at more of a distance, I like to put those cats on galleons. Last time I went for Irrigation on the cat and galleon path, I asked myself if I would save or lose time. I haven't done the math recently, but I seem to recall that getting that extra 5 pop for 10 extra science a turn compensated for the amount of turns required for Irrigation, which might take a few turns but those turns get shaved off since less time is required for teching math and navigation---and likewise you can rush units a bit faster with that extra 10 gold per turn. Maybe it comes out equal, but then you've also also won the Irrigation bonus (preventing your oponnent from having it) and can expand from 3 pop cities better than 2 pop ones if the cat/galleon rush doesn't finish the game.

Those were my thoughts behind my earlier comment, but I won't be surprised if you have a pretty good rebuttal!

[Pedal2Metal]

I've been using legions more and more. I'm probably using them in like a quarter of my games lately and that's saying something, since more than half don't even get to the point where anyone has Iron Working. They are very useful against good players. In one of my recent games against Duke, he had horses running around a city of mine that was on a hill. 10 hammer units that have 3 attack to start. Say goodbye to those expensive horses. If I lose, no big deal. I can just get more legions.

They can still be good against players who overdefend, but you obviously have to use them differently and sometimes they aren't that useful, depending on how bad the player is, but it usually doesn't hurt to have them.

So perhaps the better question is:
When wouldn't it be useful to get legions?

Legions are good for killing knights or horsemen when defending cities.
Legions are good for taking single-archer cities.
Legions are good for making tons of armies which can be upgraded through Leonardo's to knights or tanks or w/Germany automatically if elite. Leonardo's is 200 hammers which is 2.66 knight armies or 1.33 tank armies. If you still have 3+ legion armies around, building Leonardo's is more efficient in both cases (although perhaps not more timely which is another factor to consider if you don't have GB).

So it seems like legions are always a good unit to have a few of unless you've lost the game already. Didn't Morte write up a legion thread in strategy archive? I think that legions are better than traditionally thought.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[elthrasher]

Those were my thoughts behind my earlier comment, but I won't be surprised if you have a pretty good rebuttal!

The main reason not to go for Irrigation if you're already behind is what if your opponent gets there the turn before you would. Now what? If you haven't picked your tech and have just been banking beakers, then it's not so bad, but still kind of setback. Losing it to host advantage is horrible.

If you have a good beaker count to start, so you can get Irrigation in just a few turns and you plan to go all the way to Navigation before attacking, then it can work out. But that's not really "Playing after a bad start" now is it?