Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: How bad do I suck?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    28

    How bad do I suck?

    So I'm playing on deity (naturally) and after a few runs where I made some really stupid mistake or another, I got an okay start (By okay I mean, I didn't do anything stupid)

    So I start out with the horserush, get it as late as you can possibly get it with the Aztecs (3000 BC, first village I believe gave me bronze working) and proceed to delete ghandi in 2700 BC to my southwest and then do a complete 180, taking out tokugawa to my northeast in 1700 BC. I rush to take out the Arabs but reach them around 1300 BC, by which time I'm sure they have archer armies, so then I decide it's time to call it quits on the horses and expand with an eye for feudalism. I have 9 cities and am producing close to 50ish science a turn by 0 AD and have democracy by 300 AD (Sometime shortly before). I switch over and am making 90 science a turn (by this time I have nearly doubled my city count from earlier). Soon after I get feudalism and proceed to build start building knights and after getting a couple other techs to help out I get religion so I can go fundy mode. I do that and my horses take German city of Munich (they were to the west of the Arabs, who were northwestish) And they're farming up for battle at Berlin. Lost both horse armies in the ensuing series of battles but it didn't matter, because I'd just gotten banking (100 gold, think this was around 700-800 AD) and rushed some knights. So then I proceed to get vet status on those knights and then I suddenly get general. At which point Germany gets deleted in 3 turns. Both the cities they had left. Poof. All this time I'd had Arabs pinned off to their one city and taking settlers whenever they popped out, then getting peace out of him. But I got another Knight army by the time I was ready to wipe out Arabs (they were still using archers) I was feeling rather aggressive. So I pushed for a kill, won a 15v15 and instant vetted them, then a couple turns and I win. Time? Well, cry for me, because it's really late, 1075 AD.

    At time of victory I was close to getting tanks, industrialization, and corporation. So can someone tell me whether this is okay time for Aztec win after horserushing through 1500 BC? How can I improve my time? Besides getting a better horserushing start or using another civ. (China or America, anyone?)
    Last edited by BS14cars; 03-19-2017 at 04:38 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    584
    Im inclined to say you were ok, though this is coming from someone who wasnt great at horserushing, nor was i real good at blasting the Ai quickly on Diety.

    I think the map was your enemy here, since it sounded like you were right in the middle. That 180 probably gave the Ai time to build those archer armies, and on Diety they can build a lot.
    Knights will beat them, but it can take a while.

    My fastest Deity dom wins tend to happen when i only need to go in one direction.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    28
    I see. Thanks for the feedback!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1
    Recently I've found the arabs to be so easy to win with since they have religion and can just start dominating very quickly.cities and gold/science seem to come too easy and after 2 captured cities it's over. Also the Zulu can make some insane runs if you play your cards right. My best gold per turn was over 150k by 2098 with the Arabs.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    28
    Nice one bcs .

    Did two deity runs tonight. One with the Zulu, and one with the Aztecs. Both domination victories came in exactly 950 AD, which surprised me.

    In the Zulu game I got two caps before 3000 BC. First I conquered Kyoto, though it wasn't exactly a walk-in, and then I conquered Washington. France ended my conquest run by having an archer army that refused to get wounded more than once even though I had 3 warrior armies attacking from a hill. So then I had to expand through the Zulu's negative growth bonus. I got to about ~10 cities which was enough to tech me to feudalism, currency, and religion in the early AD's. Then Zulu knights with two warrior armies as support went into French territory and fought a campaign in their territory that lasted about 5 turns before both Paris and their satellite city fell to two knight armies. Thankfully, because I was struggling to get the funds to rush them. England was shielded from me by France but I don't think that matters because their archer bonus would have put an end to my warrior armies' plans. Regardless, Elizabeth was generous enough to provide me a hill to attack from and I conquered London via 2 battles and an overrun and then conquered their satellite as well (apparently they had another city because they weren't eliminated), so then I won.

    The Aztec game was a little more interesting. Friendly village gives me alphabet even though I set tech to HBR, not sure what the deal was with that but I got HBR at 3300 BC. So before too long I get my first horse out and send it in the other direction and then Mongols take the barb I was attacking and it becomes a dumb Mongol city. And I'm not happy. So I 1v1 their warrior, lose, then send my sole horse over and conquer the city from them. Then he wants peace so I take it and about that time I figure out China is in the game to the west. Knowing they could get troublesome quickly if I didn't rush them, I got my horsearmy over their ASAP and conquered them, giving myself BW in the process. Then I send the same HA over to Karakorum. Then they lose 9v5 to a single Archer. I'm NOT happy. A few turns later I have 2 horses and not enough gold to rush the final one, so I sell the settler I'd built out of Beijing for 20 gold and then rush the final horse, create the horsearmy, then attack Karakorum again. I win a 6v6. Karakorum is conquered in 1300 BC. So I quickly get writing and Code of Laws, while meeting the Zulu and conquering their 2nd city, and then start expansion which is thankfully not hindered like the Zulu's were in the first game. I had more space to use as well. So I'm intending to go for Navigation first because I have a REALLY good trade city and want to maximize it with an eye towards eventually getting the free Market there. I achieve Navigation and then turn my attention towards Feudalism. I'm in Industrial a couple techs before I get Feudalism, and in the infamous Mongol city of Evil (the barb the Mongols stole from me) I've banked enough hammers for 3 knights for 0 gold, plus the free knight I get. I build several roads to connect to my Zulu city, while the settler city I stole from the Indians after extorting a city from the Zulu, is keeping watch over Delhi. Then, the Zulu fall shortly afterward. Next I conquer Hyberad as a convenient stepping zone to Delhi, as I'm building roads to make swifter maneuvers out of my knights, and then I conquer Delhi despite one of my knight armies getting killed in a 22.5v18. Needless to say Fundy Knights>Archers. At time of conquest I had 23 techs without having built a single library and without ever switching into Democracy. If I had chosen to get even more advanced I feel like I could have had tanks between 500-750 AD if not earlier, but if I needed to get more advanced than knights with the Aztecs I'd probably end up going for an econ victory to try to utilize their +50% gold and using their autoheal in a defensive fashion.

    These two games were a really good experience for me. Two average games with some crazy luck swings. But they have also reaffirmed my opinion of Aztec>Zulu.

    The Zulu can get some very strong games where they take out all civs before 2000 BC. The Aztecs won't be as likely to get these extremely fast conquests, but their rush is very strong and in average game, I bet both will conquer about 2 caps (or maybe 3). So they're almost equal rushers. So what happens after the rushing is finished?

    Lets look at both civs Medieval bonuses-
    Zulu-Faster city growth. This has a floor function of 20, which means it takes longer to grow at the lower pops, which is annoying when you want to spam as many settlers as possible. A negative bonus.
    Aztec-Temples produce 3 science. Let's be honest. No one builds temples, and this bonus is not worth much unless you find AoC after having many cities. (I did, but it was the turn I was going to win.) Great to support an econ victory if you get this but at least it doesn't hurt you if you don't.

    Now, Industrial bonuses.
    Zulu-+50% gold. Another negative bonus. You're not yet primed to go for an econ victory so this seriously cripples your ability to rush.
    Aztec-1/2 cost roads. Not a big bonus but it is helpful. Again, this one doesn't hurt you if you don't use it, but it can help you.

    So far, after Ancient, going through Industrial, the Zulu's have recieved 2 negative bonuses in a row, whereas the Aztecs have received situationally helpful bonuses that aren't negative. My games only lasted through industrial, so let me throw some numbers to you.

    Time I reached Code of Laws. I believe with the Zulu's I'd gotten to Code of Laws (and Medieval) at around 2000 BC. 1800 at the latest. With the Aztecs, I'd gotten Code of Laws at 800 BC after conquering Karakorum at 1300 BC. So I'm 10 turns behind with Aztecs at that point. At the end of the game, the Aztecs had 23 techs (3 from Atlantis I will exclude, so lets say 20). On my final conquest with the Zulu's, I had 18 techs. They won in the same year. So therefore, the Aztecs not only caught up to the Zulu, but surpassed them, thanks to not having an expansion handicap.

    Now lets look at modern bonuses, just talking theory at this point.
    Zulu-1/2 cost riflemen. Well...at least this one doesn't hurt you, but it doesn't help you win either. Especially in the modern era.
    Aztec-+50% gold. A negative bonus, but it comes at a point in the game where it is easy to leverage in a positive way. You can prepare for this by preparing to go eco if the game threatens to enter the modern era, because the set up partially happens in industrial.

    So, after these two games, this is my opinion on the bonuses and why the Aztecs are better than the Zulu. Note that this could simply mean I'm better at playing as Aztecs rather than Zulus. Maybe their negative bonus wasn't as negative as I thought it was and I didn't adapt very well to it. It's possible. My personal opinion on the +50% gold is that it is a handicap in Industrial and a bonus in Modern. I think the Aztec bonuses, though none of them are powerful after the ancient era, are all situationally useful and gel together well, especially when you have a powerful start. The Zulu bonuses I think are more discombobulated after ancient and don't come together to make a good plan after ancient.

    I do not Aztecs on even footing would be better than many of the other civs past ancient. They need their horserush, and it needs to get something accomplished, or they are in a tough spot. But, in a game that last more than 20 turns, I think the Aztecs would fair better than the Zulu after those first 20 turns.

    Any thoughts on these games?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    948
    I like your enthusiasm! Good to have some new blood. In general, the Zulu are considered a TOP 3 civ, better than Aztecs. Mostly because the Zulu are more consistent. 2 warrior moves + overrun advantage means that they clean out all the available gold on the map in no time. Which is a big disadvantage for everybody else. They also tend to get a galley from one of those huts, which sets them up for snagging artifacts quickly as well. Zulus can conquer 2-3 AI caps before 2500 BC if things are set up right. 1 cap is standard. For them it is crucial to do all the damage before the AI has archers set up. Even then it's doable, but it also means that your opponent most likely has horses by now. The overrun bonus comes in really handy with catapult armies in the mid game. A Zulu vet catapult army overruns fortified single archers in cities!!! That is a bonus that many of the run-of-the-mill Zulu players are not taking advantage of (what a shame).
    The growth bonus is negative only when growing from 2 to 3. Once you are at 3, it works heavily in your advantage. If the Zulu cannot win early on by taking your cap in MP, then they go into "super city mode". Use the 2-3 caps you have, plus 100g settler plus maybe 1-3 other settlers, settle the settlers with 3 pop in medival and grow all cities like crazy.
    The 50% gold bonus is a mixed bag. Good for economic victories and reaching gold milestones, bad for rushing costs.

    The Aztecs are very strong early as well. If you know what to do and the map is set up in your favor, you can have a horse army out before 3000 BC. If an Aztec warrior army finds your cap early and you cannot muster archers or a warrior army to defend, it is game over unless you win a 2.5 vs. 4.5 battle. Aztecs are also good at getting gold. Also a vet horse army is tricky to kill for those impi armies. The problem usually is that by the time the Aztecs get really going, the Zulu already have plenty of gold, 2-3 caps and archers. So your horse army is not a threat anymore.
    The temples like you said are only useful if from AoC. If you get that at 5+ cities, that's a nice boost. 1/2 roads are meh. 50% gold same as above.

    A battle Zulu vs. Aztecs in multiplayer H2H would probably be somewhat even with slight advantage for the Zulu. Versus all the other civs, Zulu will fare better. Zulu are quite vulnerable to a slow start (e.g. not finding 1 flag barbs or the first barb giving them tech instead of gold).

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    277
    IMO The Aztecs are FAR superior to the Zulu. I only play H2H multiplayer though, and don't play either CIVs myself because they are too easy/not a challenge for me.

    All the ZULU have is the initial Zulu WA rush. Sometimes it there is nothing you can do if they spawn right next to you. However, if you can not die early you have a great chance. That advantage can be negated early by BW or smart warrior tactics.

    With the Aztecs you are very versitile. The 25g gets a warrior out super early. With the combination of settler movement and that, a capital (or 2) is almost guarenteed. You also grab most of the gold huts/villages. If you want to go for the HA rush it is very tough to defend, although not automatically the best option with them as once thought. Even after the HUGE early advantage, you still have the auto heal benefet, which is really helpfull in attacking and defending.

    When I start a H2H MP game the Aztecs, USA, and China scare me the most. Next would come Zulu, Spain, and Arabs.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    28
    This morning's games were a mixed bag.

    The first game I did with the Zulu I conquered 3 of 4 enemy caps with warriors, had knights at 600 BC and dom victory at 200 BC, my first ever deity victory in the BC. Oh yeah, I got 7 cities of gold very early as well. I moved my settler, settled at 3900 with 25 gold from a friendly hut, and had a walk-in on China in 3800. Sweet. So then I rush the Aztecs with several warrior armies and then kill a single legion to conquer Kyoto, leaving only the Americans. I conquer their second city with my warriors and camp their production squares while I get Samurai Castle and Knights with Fundamentalism. Needless to say, as soon as my knight army gets to Washington my 1 knight army and 6 warrior armies conquer it and win me the game. Apparently as long as I keep population up expansion is a little easier.

    The Aztec victory gave me an economic victory in my personal record time despite me playing around trying to get markets and banks in 20+ cities. I think that was a little bit excessive. LOL. The time was 1625 when I finished the bank but could have easily cut that to 1000 AD or better if I'd played it smart. I had a pretty rough start. I did walk in on Rome and get Code of Laws but that was about the extent. First horsearmy died 9v7.5 to an English Archer. The second one conquered Thebes but that was the extent of my horserush so not a very strong start like I'd had with the Zulu, so I need to go get something. So I'm on the way to Feudalism, it's in the early AD so I decide to go get an economic victory instead. So I start planning accordingly for this, getting democracy, currency, and then going for the money techs. But then I get excessive with trying to get a bunch of markets and banks. Honestly I think 1k gold per turn would have sufficed but I pushed it all the way up to 8k gold per turn. Then didn't have hammers to build world bank so was just getting lots of gold. I know I had at least 100k gold by the time I won. Probably spent 50k rushing stuff lol. Next time I'll go for a speed time instead of playing around with this lol.

    I've read the comments for this morning.

    To Rem018-Thanks for your feedback on the Zulus. I have seen how powerful of a game they can have this morning. It wasn't insanely fast but it was stronger than anything I've been dealt before with any civ. I'm guessing the consistency has to do with faster starts, which I have found to be true. The Zulus have consistently demonstrated that they achieve at least a 5 turn advantage over the Aztecs, since the Aztecs have to research HBR, but I also think the Aztecs' rushing window is a few turns wider than the Zulus' usually. Do you think that is a fair statement? Also, another question, who would you prefer to have in a H2H game where the Zulu's got 2 caps, the Aztecs got one, and they both got their 100 gold city, and they've gotten to medieval with their horses and warriors. I can't say that scenario would happen often as I would need to first get an XB1 and then get a backwards compatible version of the game, in order to play multiplayer, but still, what do you think?

    @glenn-I won't go as far as to say the Aztecs are FAR superior to the Zulu. I think they are roughly equal and could swap 3rd and 4th place in the power rankings. I do agree with Rem that it would be a roughly even split in the number of games they won, and in a 1v1 with the 3 AI's, he is probably also correct that the Zulu would take slightly over half. I do agree with you that Aztecs are more versatile in a game that lasts past ancient. In the ancient, I don't think I've yet found a situation where I shouldn't have horserushed, and I would think in a H2H it is almost a requirement to at least rush the AI's.

    Ultimately, I think Aztecs and Zulus are roughly equal. In the ancient era, the Zulus are faster. Post-ancient, I think Aztecs are going to be stronger, but by no means are either of them very strong past ancient unless they have firm control of the map. Of course, though the "rapid growth" utilization strategy has been explained to me I'm having trouble seeing why I would ever want my workers on food while I'm trying to get science for Knights, which is usually my next attempted rush. It seemed to me that being in code of laws and keeping settler pumps at about 3 pop worked just fine. But then, I'm still relatively new, so there's that as well.

    In a game without both of them, I think it is a given that both civs are capable of taking over the map and are powerful early game rushers.

    I may yet revise my opinion and swap 3rd and 4th place. But even if I do, I will still prefer to play as the Aztecs. Worse case scenario, only get 1 cap and I can at least plan to go knightrush or eco. In the worst case for the Zulu, they get one cap and don't have a significant advantage. It'll be a tough road. Now, the worst case for the Zulu might not happen as often, but I think that the worst case for the Aztecs is better than the worst case for the Zulu.

    More feedback is welcome. Trying to become the best I can be at this game.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    28
    Well...the Zulu got to fight a long war against Egypt. After a walk-in against the English and conquering the russians I got knights in the early AD, deleted China, and then fought a long war with Egypt which featured at least 4 battles I lost where I had superior firepower. On the bright side I got to see warrior armies that hit 22.5. They lost 22.5v18 to an Egyptian pike army. The other one was 18v18. It too died, neither inflicted any damage to the pikes.

    Eventually after about a thousand years of sending knights at Egypt I won. It was really annoying because anticipating victory I'd switched all my cities to gold to try to conquer them, then Egypt caught up fast in tech race (they had Collossus) and they had pikes when I was sending my knights and super-warriors over. So I had to switch back to teching in order to outstrip them in case I needed to get to tanks (I didn't), because I had already gotten into Industrial which is what I was trying to avoid when I got knights but I must have backfilled because I got there anyway.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    28
    So I just did a game with the Greeks, and got tanks at around 1000 AD. I'm honestly disappointed in that, was hoping for better, though I realize I made a few mistakes.

    Let me start at the beginning. I moved Athens a few tiles to adjust it's positioning, and as it turns out, Tenochtitlan was several tiles away. So I manage to put together a warrior army (I settled next to a barb and got gold), and conquered Tenochtitlan from it's hill. So I'm like "Okay, free settler pump", so I immediately start making settlers out of Tenochtitlan while I continue with Athens' early game agenda. Getting a powerful Athens together in order to have a strong teching start. I have 4 cities before 2000 BC and I've started teching. Knights at 1000 BC would have been fairly easy, but I wanted to see how quickly I could get to combustion while playing relatively smart. Also, Athens wasn't a big time hammer city, so I would have had to take time to get the knight armies together.

    I made a good few mistakes in my opinion. I should have been more aggressive with expansion in industrial after the monster start I'd had, and gotten to the islands. I also should have paid closer attention to the tech tree before making a decision on what bonuses to go for. These two things fixed and I believe I could have had tanks at 200-500 AD.

    Is tanks at 200-500 AD an acceptable time for the Greeks?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    28
    Okay, after today's games I've played with the Greek's, here's my thoughts.

    The greeks are a fairly consistent civ to start with if you use them passively. In almost all cases they will be in medieval close to 2000 BC with minimum, exceptions being island starts and situations where you are rushed early, the latter only applicable to MP.

    Once the 4 pop/library Athens is set up and I have reached medieval it is fairly easy to tech up to industrial. 1000-700 BC is my average time reaching industrial.

    Alright, great. I'm in industrial...but here's where I run into problems. My settler pump (what I use my second city for) has only had time to provide me with maybe 3-4 more cities in that time. So I only have 5-6 cities and I'm still only at maybe ~70 science a turn. So I switch into Code of Laws, and try to expand to islands. While I'm expanding I'm getting very little in the way of tech and the lead I've gotten early shrinks considerably. I try to rush a couple settlers from the mainland cities (pumps and growing cities), then rush settlers from the cities I'm founding since they're at 4 pop, and continue the train for as long as I think I can. My problem usually becomes not having enough gold, making me think i should get currency early and quickly, and save some gold to plan for that.

    After at least decent expansion, back to democracy and 1/2 cost libraries get rushed in as many cities as I can get them in and I am powerful again after the mid-game expansion lull. But I'm not a fan of that lull. Against the AI it doesn't mean much. They get to within 10 techs. Big deal. Another player? That's a different story.

    I got my best tech victory ever today at 1400 AD, though I could have saved a few turns by having more gold ready for rushing space ship parts. Space flight got GS'd in like 1150 AD. Tanks were achievable at 400-700 AD, which was better, but again, that mid-game crash for expansion is not that great.

    My results have gotten me intrigued on how the Greeks are best utilized. I have been thinking legion rushes, cat rushes, knight rushes, and tank rushes. So far, I like the tank rush the best, since I have the money techs by then and can easily rush the tanks by that point. But, doing that, so far I must suffer through the mid-game lull I am currently having. I believe the strongest games for them will come when they have multiple settler pumps through either early game aggression, or an extra good place for a settler pump.

    The more I play with them, the more I am intrigued by the possibilities, and yet the way they play is tricky to me. They play backwards almost. Build library, start teching, expand...instead of expand, start teching, knight rush or build libraries in your 20+ cities. The greeks crash for a few turns in industrial for expansion and it seems to be right when most civs are hitting their stride as far as tech is concerned.

    I am going to keep playing with them to see if I can iron out this expansion business. They play backwards compared to the way I've learned to play.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    6,319
    Quote Originally Posted by BS14cars View Post
    Okay, after today's games I've played with the Greek's, here's my thoughts.

    The greeks are a fairly consistent civ to start with if you use them passively. In almost all cases they will be in medieval close to 2000 BC with minimum, exceptions being island starts and situations where you are rushed early, the latter only applicable to MP.

    Once the 4 pop/library Athens is set up and I have reached medieval it is fairly easy to tech up to industrial. 1000-700 BC is my average time reaching industrial.

    Alright, great. I'm in industrial...but here's where I run into problems. My settler pump (what I use my second city for) has only had time to provide me with maybe 3-4 more cities in that time. So I only have 5-6 cities and I'm still only at maybe ~70 science a turn. So I switch into Code of Laws, and try to expand to islands. While I'm expanding I'm getting very little in the way of tech and the lead I've gotten early shrinks considerably. I try to rush a couple settlers from the mainland cities (pumps and growing cities), then rush settlers from the cities I'm founding since they're at 4 pop, and continue the train for as long as I think I can. My problem usually becomes not having enough gold, making me think i should get currency early and quickly, and save some gold to plan for that.

    After at least decent expansion, back to democracy and 1/2 cost libraries get rushed in as many cities as I can get them in and I am powerful again after the mid-game expansion lull. But I'm not a fan of that lull. Against the AI it doesn't mean much. They get to within 10 techs. Big deal. Another player? That's a different story.

    I got my best tech victory ever today at 1400 AD, though I could have saved a few turns by having more gold ready for rushing space ship parts. Space flight got GS'd in like 1150 AD. Tanks were achievable at 400-700 AD, which was better, but again, that mid-game crash for expansion is not that great.

    My results have gotten me intrigued on how the Greeks are best utilized. I have been thinking legion rushes, cat rushes, knight rushes, and tank rushes. So far, I like the tank rush the best, since I have the money techs by then and can easily rush the tanks by that point. But, doing that, so far I must suffer through the mid-game lull I am currently having. I believe the strongest games for them will come when they have multiple settler pumps through either early game aggression, or an extra good place for a settler pump.

    The more I play with them, the more I am intrigued by the possibilities, and yet the way they play is tricky to me. They play backwards almost. Build library, start teching, expand...instead of expand, start teching, knight rush or build libraries in your 20+ cities. The greeks crash for a few turns in industrial for expansion and it seems to be right when most civs are hitting their stride as far as tech is concerned.

    I am going to keep playing with them to see if I can iron out this expansion business. They play backwards compared to the way I've learned to play.
    I suggest you focus on learning some civs that will teach you basic things:

    Romans : fast expansion
    Arabs/Zulu : fast aggression, in different ways. One is really fast (Zulu). The other one can take more time but it can work until industrial era.
    Chinese : fast expansion + fast aggression.

    Setup a goal and try to reach that goal.

    I guess a good one would be 15 cities at 0BC as Romans
    1 cap conquered before 2000 BC as Zulu
    2 caps conquered before 500-1000BC as Arabs
    1 cap conquered and 15 cities at 0BC as Chinese.

    When you feel you can do all of this consistently, you can setup new goals.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by MorteEterna View Post
    I suggest you focus on learning some civs that will teach you basic things:

    Romans : fast expansion
    Arabs/Zulu : fast aggression, in different ways. One is really fast (Zulu). The other one can take more time but it can work until industrial era.
    Chinese : fast expansion + fast aggression.

    Setup a goal and try to reach that goal.

    I guess a good one would be 15 cities at 0BC as Romans
    1 cap conquered before 2000 BC as Zulu
    2 caps conquered before 500-1000BC as Arabs
    1 cap conquered and 15 cities at 0BC as Chinese.

    When you feel you can do all of this consistently, you can setup new goals.
    2300 BC Domination Victory as Zulu after reading this and hooking up the game to see what I could do.

    Moved my settler a turn and settled in 3900 BC with a Spanish border right next to me. 3600 I walk in on their cap. 3300 I walk in on Berlin. Amazing luck so far but no gold because barbs don't seem to be that plentiful. But first two barbs I took showed me AoC and 7cog, got the 7cog and was rushing warriors every turn. Last two civs were Japan and America. Lost a 4.5 v 2.5 vs. American warrior so made peace...they were teching but not building any warriors so I moved two more armies up to conquer them. Conquered Kyoto in 2500 and conquered Washington in 2300.

    Shame I didn't record that. It could have been a new world record. (for Non-GOTW and non-scenario Deity wins)

    I will probably try Chinese or Arabs later today and see if I can hit those goals. (I think I should be able to for Arabs. I seem to remember getting two caps around 2000 BC playing as Arabs once)

    So...thanks Morte.

    Also, I should note that with better battle luck I could have had a 2600 Domination Victory. But I can't complain about RNG when I got two walkins. I guess that was the game's karma coming back to bite me.
    Last edited by BS14cars; 4 Weeks Ago at 02:16 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    6,319
    Quote Originally Posted by BS14cars View Post
    2300 BC Domination Victory as Zulu after reading this and hooking up the game to see what I could do.

    Moved my settler a turn and settled in 3900 BC with a Spanish border right next to me. 3600 I walk in on their cap. 3300 I walk in on Berlin. Amazing luck so far but no gold because barbs don't seem to be that plentiful. But first two barbs I took showed me AoC and 7cog, got the 7cog and was rushing warriors every turn. Last two civs were Japan and America. Lost a 4.5 v 2.5 vs. American warrior so made peace...they were teching but not building any warriors so I moved two more armies up to conquer them. Conquered Kyoto in 2500 and conquered Washington in 2300.

    Shame I didn't record that. It could have been a new world record. (for Non-GOTW and non-scenario Deity wins)

    I will probably try Chinese or Arabs later today and see if I can hit those goals. (I think I should be able to for Arabs. I seem to remember getting two caps around 2000 BC playing as Arabs once)

    So...thanks Morte.

    Also, I should note that with better battle luck I could have had a 2600 Domination Victory. But I can't complain about RNG when I got two walkins. I guess that was the game's karma coming back to bite me.
    Good job

    Keep trying, you should reach the point where you feel confident about all this stuff. Learning Chinese or Arabs will be fun I think. You can expand really fast with one and play aggressive at any era with the other one.

    There's a lot you can do with luck + optimization. Some multiplayer games can end that quickly too.


    Forcing yourself to do better is the only thing you can do to improve.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6,105
    Quote Originally Posted by glenneyre View Post
    IMO The Aztecs are FAR superior to the Zulu.
    I prefer Aztecs too but my view is they are a fairly even match-up as REM stated. Zulu can just rape the land & not even attack other civs (there are specific Zulu strategies depending upon map placement [i.e.: center]). They can then camp/scout/settler steal other civs w/warriors forcing them to go to the sea (which slows them down significantly, except Spain which will be just fine, a reason lots of people like Spain when competing against power civs). If Zulu come fast w/knights/caps (2+ armies), once they break your defenses, overrun makes it difficult to defend, although this illustrates why it's critical to have counter-attack units available & positioned (legions, cats). Aztecs can generally resist Zulu fairly easily but their early aggression lifetime is shorter than say Arabs so if Zulu take all caps & Aztecs come w/HA, it's typically too little too late. But that instant warrior & auto-heal can make singles extremely efficient in different directions which really dampens Zulu gold-grabbing advantage. Arabs can match-up very well w/Zulu & generally can cause real issues since warrior battles favor Arabs & vet WA is a vet HA for other civs (minus movement).

    Quote Originally Posted by glenneyre View Post
    All the ZULU have is the initial Zulu WA rush.
    While this is accurate, it ignores the fact that in most games, especially H2H games, the outcome is decided in the first 20 turns in 90% of the games. So the speed of Zulu WA's becomes a significant factor in concert with that fact. The power of 300 g in first 20 turns vs. 100 g can not be overstated. Early resource/gold acquisition is critical in CivRev, especially all other factors being equal.

    Quote Originally Posted by glenneyre View Post
    With the Aztecs you are very versitile. The 25g gets a warrior out super early. With the combination of settler movement and that, a capital (or 2) is almost guarenteed. You also grab most of the gold huts/villages. If you want to go for the HA rush it is very tough to defend, although not automatically the best option with them as once thought. Even after the HUGE early advantage, you still have the auto heal benefet, which is really helpfull in attacking and defending.
    So this supports REM's assertion that 25g is good, auto-heal is good w/AoC being a nice wildcard factor (5+ is powerful as REM stated, 8+ is game-over typically). The rest are meh (although I offer that 50% gold in Modern is a better timeframe than Industrial like Zulu/Spain).

    Quote Originally Posted by glenneyre View Post
    When I start a H2H MP game the Aztecs, USA, and China scare me the most. Next would come Zulu, Spain, and Arabs.
    Generally, I agree. However, it's more the player than the civ imo. A good player w/Germany can absolutely destroy (even America) but it takes skill. Arabs can be tough too the entire game. I can't tell you how many times I've come from behind w/Arabs to win against better civs w/competent players. Spain is always a good choice, it is arguably the most versatile civ outside of America/China.


    best regards...

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by MorteEterna View Post
    Good job

    Keep trying, you should reach the point where you feel confident about all this stuff. Learning Chinese or Arabs will be fun I think. You can expand really fast with one and play aggressive at any era with the other one.

    There's a lot you can do with luck + optimization. Some multiplayer games can end that quickly too.


    Forcing yourself to do better is the only thing you can do to improve.
    I feel confident with Zulu, Aztecs and Arabs. The warrior rush with Zulu is stupid easy, Aztec horserush is fast and harder to kill than most, and the Arab horses (or warriors) are very powerful. I currently prefer the Arab horses for their mobility but I can respect the power of Arab warriors.

    I'm confident in my ability to rush something (or someone), and I love to do it because every cap is another settler pump. Expansion, much less so. So I'll probably try Romans first to start expanding from the get go. I'll try China after that. That being when I decide I want to play some CivRev.

    Totally agree with last bit, aside from perhaps getting an XB1 with a backwards compatible version of the game, and playing against quality competition.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    28
    Okay, tried Egyptians yesterday and today. Not a strong civ by any stretch of the imagination, but I played two games with them. In the first game I had 15 cities and a cap by 100 BC with the collossus, and I had 12 cities and 2 caps by 0 in the second game using hanging gardens. I guess not horrible, but it's not something I'm going to get really good at unless I keep playing. And I still need to try Rome or China. Regardless of who I'm playing as, I have a couple questions.

    I almost never get a free galley out of a barb hut. I always get either a caravan that I end up selling after moving 2 spaces for moderate map knowledge or a wealth of gold between 30 and 50. So assuming no free galley from a barb, when do you guys prefer to build/rush a galley, if you do it at all?

    When do you guys go to islands to settle more cities? I read a lot of strats that say "go to islands to settle some nice trade cities out there", and I go to play and then I've put 15-20 cities on the mainland and not a single island city when the game is over, and I always wonder if/when I should actually be going to the islands during my games.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •