FFA Game Saturday 12th Dec 14.00 GMT
Just wondering if anyone wanted to play a game this saturday? I hope to be able to get online around 14.00 / 14.30 GMT. So most likely eupoean players - but hope to be on for most of the day if the north american people are around.
If anyone wants to play regardless of level please add me. Maniak76 on psn. I will play as the English and am effectively a new player and I wont leave or freeze the game.
Although I did leave a game the other day in 4,000 BC when I accidentally started out as the Monguls!!! doh!!
How about tonight or tomorrow morning?
I am in an exam period, and have to study all days, aside from today 19:00-22:30 and tomorrow morning from 08:00-12:00 (GMT+1)
I play any civ, but if you want an english vs english battle for tactics, just add me
I will try to be there tomorrow.
You can add me as well: VernerVerner and AllanVerner
I often play as Chinese and Americans - but mainly because it is the best defence against other Americans and Chinese. I like to play as Indians i as well.
I also never freeze or cheat - I even offer pease if the other player gets the GW
Last edited by Vernerverner; 12-11-2009 at 02:52 AM.
yes, no glitchers on this board.
this maybe is a good method of getting unranked games started. unfortunately, at this time i will still be sleeping. but i'll come online as soon as possible, add you, and ask for a game.
I'd love to join but that time is way too early for me. I'll be attending my son's Christmas performance during the morning (EST), maybe sometime late afternoon my time -- which would be night in Europe I can join if you are still around.
Showtek, please invite the others to the chat room if you make contact with them earlier.
I will be on during the day Saturday. Zso Zso I hope to run across you and get a game or two in again. I live on the east coast of the United States (Virginia). I usually play as Spain and would be a mid level player.
Just played 2 games vs Spatenfloot on playstation
First Rome vs Rome, but I started really bad, getting no more than 60 gold from barbarians, losing a warrior and expanding way to slow...
Above all that I used my great scientist for Monarchy, but apparently the English were in game, so no other GP for me...
Ended up with 4 cities, because I didn't see a way to crawl up from a +-10 tech behind race...
I ended up building the Samurai Castle and Hanging Gardens so I could spam some legions, and even managed to take a city, but I knew I lost the war, so I decided to quit...this was a bad start after 3 weeks of no games...
But the tide turned in the second game, all contributed to Hellogoodbye123!
Yes, both Spatenfloot and I were the almighty French, and using my regained knowledge, I horserushed Spain (getting...Bronze Working...).
Then I took Kyoto, and put the other frenchies in a locked part of the continent, were they would posses no more than 4 cities...
The tech race was easily won by me and my tactics, and by 300BC I had cruisers.
Didn't do much with them until +-1200AD when I had a tech lead of 17 techs, and I took the Russians with a tank.
Spatenfloot quit (he had to leave, and that was no excuse, he fought well but really had to go).
Respect for Spatenfloot and his good games, but we need a third match to prove who's the better player
i think we should have a threesome
You can try to buy BW from them or other AI before taking their cap (same for monarchy or COL for english and roman) this way you'll get the better tech.
Originally Posted by sn1p3rk1ll3
Hey ShowtechGER - i think we played in a ffa this afternoon. Did you say your psn tag is Randomshow? If so I was the english and you effectively walked in 3,300 BC with the zulu!!
That was no fair I would like a rematch
...I hope that during the holidays I can get some serious competition...
Just played on my new account to compete in ranked FFA, and got Americans froms random.
Not joking, really did random, but I saw the other players were Aztec, Zulu, China.
Got a GI to start, and got 2 horsearmies in 3200 BC.
Aztec horse popped by in 2800BC, I crushed it and took Tenochtitlan 2 turns later.
China was trying to expand, but my second horsearmy gratefully took a few cities, and on the way I made my horses elite from killing impi's.
Easy game, and I was able to expand so easy I ended up with a tech win in 1475...earliest tech win in ranked FFA I have ever known :P
Ah well, maybe it's the civ, the poor competition or just the guides from Morte I used, but this was so easy I almost feel bad...
hey maniak! i sent you a message on this board concerning that game. no, it wasn't fair but i only play random and refuse to not use as civ's boni. it was very bad luck for you that a barb showed me your position i 3600BC. but you also didn't begin to research BW after you pumped out 2 warrior even though there was another zulu in the game. that's a mistake.
i hate to play against the zulu too. you sure will get your unsuccessful revenge
I should have checked the mp before!! lol. It was funny. I was so not prepared for you warrior army.
Originally Posted by ShowtekGER
You are quite correct - I will obtain an unsucessful revenge But I am happy to give it another go.
how about now? i'm very willing to give you an england vs england match. i'm not so good with them, so this could be the ónly possibility for an english man to beat a german in some kind of competition
Sniper - I missed you by 6 minutes this morning, I got on about 11.10 GMT!
Dang...and I can't play for the rest of the week...MAYBE wednesday or thursday, but absolutely not certain at all...
Originally Posted by Jaguar-Man
I disagree. It's a mistake to spend the second five turns of the game researching Bronze Working. If early defense is needed, warriors will do fine. The advantage of warriors is you'll have more of them faster. You can counterattack and even go after your opponent if his rush fails.
Originally Posted by ShowtekGER
Playing the Romans a couple months ago (just before my RROD), I was the target of a quick American horse rush. I had just one city, so I just made a bunch of warriors and eventually killed two horse armies and was ultimately able to take a city from the American player. If I'd gone for archers, I would've just died because I wouldn't have had them as quickly.
Researching Bronze with one city in the early game is horribly inefficient. By doing so you are basically yielding the map to your opponent. You are hoping he won't expand enough or you'll get some great luck or something that will even things out. You do not want to waste time in the early game like that!
So playing the English up against two Zulu, the first thing you need to figure out is if the Zulu are close. If they are really close and beeline you, you might not have a shot. That happens. Planning to get Bronze won't help because you'll be dead before you finish it. The best thing you can do is fortify a warrior in London, try to get another warrior in there and see if you can't get some kind of gold with your man in the field. Ideally you'll have four warriors ready to go. You should have a little time because the impis should get wounded (or even die!) killing your fortified warrior.
If you can clear out some turf with your warriors, you may wind up with some breathing room to expand a little, then get Bronze, then get archers and expand more. Much better that way. If you are just pressed dearly, you can keep building warriors and hope for the best. More likely you'll just get camped. Uprooting fortified impi armies is next to impossible in the ancient era, so you just have to figure out if you have some hope of getting settlers out on a galley or if the game is hopeless. Really depends on the skill of your opponent. In any case, archers aren't going to help a whole lot because you just won't have them in time. Or if you could, you could also have a couple of warrior armies to beat off the impis once and for all. That's better.
What he said...Switching to bw after two warriors is a big mistake IMO as well. Ive defended Zulu who are right next to me many times, and the key is getting warriors out, rushing them after two, and scouting territory. It may slow you down early but its still better than getting BW. The four warrior trick works well to prevent camping, although sometimes they get there too early. However, that doesn't matter either. If you cant defend who cares, and if you can there is a good chance they will move on and not camp since you are the first person they have seen.
Originally Posted by elthrasher
Last edited by TyShine; 12-12-2009 at 11:07 AM.
you're right. i'm not sure what made me say that. i think i sometimes research BW right after two warriors when i am sure that there are rushers in the game. i will be able to use BW for my other cities, warriors not so much in case that they don't rush me after all. though, when i know that they are coming for me, i should indeed build warriors. not only for defending but also to counter attack and kill the army (i would most likely not build 3-4 archers). so, yes, you're absolutely right. Maniac76 just set his workers on grasslands after the 2 warriors which doesn't seem like a good idea when two zulus are in the game.
Originally Posted by elthrasher
1 year and a couple months later..
finally the first ever ps3 game settings! lol
Depends on how close the Zulu are. The most important thing is to figure out how immediate the threat is. Maybe Maniac failed to do that. However, if I think I can grow for five turns after the initial warriors, I will. You can do so much more with the extra population.
Originally Posted by ShowtekGER
Again in an English v Zulu game, it is critically important to get some dye cities out quickly. The Zulu will have more cities, more gold, more units. Dye is what will give the English a real shot. You won't easily make 100 gold if the Zulu are close, so you've got to grow London to build a settler there. Of course, if the Zulu are real close and money is tight then growing in the 2nd five turns is almost as bad as researching a tech. It's all about efficiency and the proper judgment call. If the Zulu is a decent player and doing well, you have to take some risks. I'd rather get stomped in 2900 BC because I don't have archers or because I couldn't get a settler out in time than just have one well-defended city with impi armies on all my trees and lose an hour later to tanks because I couldn't get anything done.
The other thing about growing London is your culture will expand some and this will make warrior defense more effective since the impis won't be able to heal.
well what use it is to find out that the zulu are really close in 3500BC? either you will get killed all the same or your game is seriously damaged. in this case, maniac saw me in 3400BC and i killed him in 3300BC. a perfect example. there's not much he could do but rush warriors immediately without knowing that i am close. which would of course destroy his play. that's why i hate to play against zulu opponents.
in essence, i want to say that if the zulu are close, it won't help you to find out that they are close. what will help you is to defend immediately. however, here's where you must decide if you take the risk and grow your cap or if you take the injury of your play and do not die. i usually pick the first one and am very pissed off if i get killed which i probably shouldn't as i know that this is how this game works.
I'd still say it depends. Did he have any cash in 3400 BC? If so, he should rush a warrior immediately, put workers on trees and try to rush another at the start of the next turn. Warrior armies lose to single fortified warriors all the time. He at least has a shot at wounding you forcing you to make a decision between healing or trying for a 3-2.5 attack.
Originally Posted by ShowtekGER
Of course if he hadn't gotten any money yet, that makes things really tough. I still don't think it's a bad decision to make two warriors and start growing if you haven't seen the enemy yet. Yeah, sometimes you'll just lose. Nature of the beast. I've galley-dropped quite a few Zulu in my day, so it all evens out.
he had enough cash to rush a warrior in 3300BC. i won 3-1. very unlikely for me to lose that one. even if he had had to warriors at that time i prolly would have won the match anyway. IF it is 3-1.5. i'm not sure. and i already had a two flag barb with that army if i'm not wrong so his next warrior would have had to stand up against a vet army. the odds would've been at least against him. however, he didn't have enough cash for two warrior and this also isn't a very unlikely case. you don't always find more than 10 gold with the average civ within 7 turns (4000BC-3400BC).
i have written some suggestions in the "what we want for civ rev 2"-thread for how to disarm and advance some civs to make this game more balanced. the zulu definitely must be disarmed.