I can't believe this.. - Page 12

Theseus · August 22, 2002, 23:05

I agree, 1337 way overstated his level... but it turns out he could at least face it, which was cool.

Why WCs?

Let me try: Earliest 2-attack as a fastmover (and cheap), and industrious lets you build forward military roads. Religious is irrelevant?

I totally agree... I think the WC, and Egypt, have been underthought as a warmonger / rush civ. Obviously, terrain being an issue.

I haven;t spent much time or effort with JWs or Impi's... I think in the right hands they can be great, but damn, 1 attack seems weak to me.

Re SP versus MP, I am sure what you say is true, the best way to learn will be to play and watch.

HappySunShine · August 23, 2002, 00:41

The egyptian war chariot rush is basically the exact same thing as the horserush in civ2. Only difference is it's not an all terrain unit and you research the wheel instead. The really fast roads make such a huge difference. Even really far away horses are easily accessible. Not to mention that as I said Economy is more important than military. Kill the other guy's economy while yours stays intact. It's all about using the smallest number of units to inflict the most damage. That's why random combat results will basically kill the game if it's still in PTW. But of course we're dealing with complete idiots at Firaxis so it probably will stay. Lets face it, without Brian Reynolds Sid isn't ****. But back to the point, the increased speed of mining means you can get pyramids incredibly fast. Plus you get really cheap temples which means you can build a city wherever you want. And really cheap temples are needed in order to get the fastest wonder speed possible. And lets not forget the fact that there is no anarchy, another huge plus. I don't know what the corruption level of PTW is going to be. The way I have my game set right now is like it is in civ2. I disallowed pop rushing, lowered corruption, got rid of the idea of having a set limit of cities that are useful, made resources so they can never disappear, and some other things that will be needed in MP to make it work.

Theseus · August 23, 2002, 01:16

Quote:

Originally posted by HappySunShine
... The really fast roads make such a huge difference. ...It's all about using the smallest number of units to inflict the most damage. ... But back to the point, the increased speed of mining means you can get pyramids incredibly fast. Plus you get really cheap temples which means you can build a city wherever you want.

Agreed. Agreed. Agreed.

Just theorizing here, but knowing that the above will be the aggressor's creed, I think I'd do the same: build a fastmover flex defense force (probably WCs), let the attacker burn out on my defenses, and then go for the kill.

Roads must be insanely important.

vondrack · August 23, 2002, 01:35

Quote:

Originally posted by HappySunShine
The way I have my game set right now is like it is in civ2. I disallowed pop rushing, lowered corruption, got rid of the idea of having a set limit of cities that are useful, made resources so they can never disappear, and some other things that will be needed in MP to make it work.

Why is this necessary to make MP work? I can see reasons for making resources stay... even though I would not agree, since they are taking the luck element out of the game. But what is the reason for getting rid of the corruption due to the number of cities model?

Coracle · August 23, 2002, 02:08

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
As I said before, intel will be key and how will we get it?

In SMAC you could infiltrate and know what the opponent had and see the units that were in bases. This would allow you to be prepared if you had the tech.

Now with Civ3 this stuff is not available. Too expensive to investigate cities and spies come too late.

It seems we will be playing blind and maybe this factor will force us all to play rush games.

Sigh. Just ANOTHER reason to mod the game. Edit down the cost of investigating cities and give diplomats more spy-like capabilities. Everything related to Espionage is absurdly expensive, especially since its best use is only to get other civs to declare war on you.

Rush games. Like ICS, just another trick; a gimmick, the result of inadequate playtesting, that makes the game seem more artificial, less realistic, and more easily manipulated. In otherwords, less fun.

notyoueither · August 23, 2002, 02:29

Quote:

Originally posted by HappySunShine That's why random combat results will basically kill the game if it's still in PTW. But of course we're dealing with complete idiots at Firaxis so it probably will stay. Lets face it, without Brian Reynolds Sid isn't ****.

Good luck Binky.

Yeah, I'll be waiting for you and your chariots. Heh.

Zachriel · August 23, 2002, 08:43

Quote:

Originally posted by HappySunShine
It's all about using the smallest number of units to inflict the most damage. That's why random combat results will basically kill the game if it's still in PTW.

That's why random combat results will basically kill {your} game if it's still in PTW.

As I stated before, the results are not random, but probabilistic. You need to adjust your strategies accordingly. I don't agree that the rush has been ended and I certainly intend to use the rush to extend my empire in PtW. But even if the rush was no longer an effective strategy, that would not "kill" the game as there are many other strategies available.

SpencerH · August 23, 2002, 09:07

Quote:

Originally posted by HappySunShine
The egyptian war chariot rush is basically the exact same thing as the horserush in civ2. Only difference is it's not an all terrain unit and you research the wheel instead. The really fast roads make such a huge difference. Even really far away horses are easily accessible. Not to mention that as I said Economy is more important than military. Kill the other guy's economy while yours stays intact........But back to the point, the increased speed of mining means you can get pyramids incredibly fast. Plus you get really cheap temples which means you can build a city wherever you want. And really cheap temples are needed in order to get the fastest wonder speed possible. And lets not forget the fact that there is no anarchy, another huge plus.

The Egyptians can be very good choice (and they are one of my favorites) except of course when you dont have access to horses early on.

Quote:

I don't know what the corruption level of PTW is going to be. The way I have my game set right now is like it is in civ2. I disallowed pop rushing, lowered corruption, got rid of the idea of having a set limit of cities that are useful, made resources so they can never disappear, and some other things that will be needed in MP to make it work.

So when are you going to play CIV3 ?

Velociryx · August 23, 2002, 09:26

Your benevolent Happiness, you've made some good points in your last couple of posts, however this is hardly anything new or original. All of us "no-talent" guys have been talking about this stuff over in the strat forum for months (speed over power, Egyptians rock, etc.) Just so you know.

And I noted how you artfully dodged the meat of my posts (and others) by falling back on the old "you guys are all just a bunch of computer geeks with no life and no friends." Most intriguing of all is how you ascribed that very phrase to whining rookies a few pages back on this very thread, and yet fall back on it so quickly when confronted with arguments for which you can find no valid response.

Oh....I wasn't supposed to point that out though, was I?

You have a great day, now...'k?

-=Vel=-

Edit: Btw, I'm sure in your vast store of godly knowledge, you're aware that your post re: defense and barracks is entirely contradictory (ie - "barracks don't matter all that much unless you're defending in a city" on the one hand and "only a fool would attack a city, what you gotta do is surround the opponent's city" - So, you're saying that the BEST plan you can come up with is to use regulars (no barracks) to surround the enemy's city (figuring of course that since he's defending there, he'll have a barracks, and thus veterans).

Just wanted you to know I was paying attention.

-V.

Incan_Warrior · August 23, 2002, 10:58

Somebody call the vet.... we've got a dead horse here.

HappySunShine · August 23, 2002, 11:06

Quote:

Your benevolent Happiness, you've made some good points in your last couple of posts, however this is hardly anything new or original. All of us "no-talent" guys have been talking about this stuff over in the strat forum for months (speed over power, Egyptians rock, etc.) Just so you know.

Talking about it and executing it perfectly are two different things. I'm well aware of what rushes and strategies you guys have talked about. This attempt to show some sign of competence is pathetic at best. I wasn't the one that came up with the horserush in civ2, that was Kaak. However I took it well beyond the idea and turned it into a standard of play. I will do the same with the strategies in civ3.

Quote:

And I noted how you artfully dodged the meat of my posts (and others) by falling back on the old "you guys are all just a bunch of computer geeks with no life and no friends." Most intriguing of all is how you ascribed that very phrase to whining rookies a few pages back on this very thread, and yet fall back on it so quickly when confronted with arguments for which you can find no valid response.

First of all, there hasn't been much meat in your posts. If there were Ming wouldn't be telling you to shut the **** up. Second of all, saying "at least I have a life" after losing a game is very rookie. If you're stupid and can't understand the difference between what I said 50 posts back and what I just now said then I can't do much for you. I really don't see how my two statements even remotely contradict each other or are in any way related. There are morons everywhere I guess.

Quote:

Oh....I wasn't supposed to point that out though, was I?

Point what out? Don't get ahead of yourself there buddy, you have yet to post anything that would require me to respond with anything other than the usual lines.

Quote:

Edit: Btw, I'm sure in your vast store of godly knowledge, you're aware that your post re: defense and barracks is entirely contradictory (ie - "barracks don't matter all that much unless you're defending in a city" on the one hand and "only a fool would attack a city, what you gotta do is surround the opponent's city" - So, you're saying that the BEST plan you can come up with is to use regulars (no barracks) to surround the enemy's city (figuring of course that since he's defending there, he'll have a barracks, and thus veterans).

Just wanted you to know I was paying attention.

Either you're legally retarded or you don't know how to read since there is really no such thing as paying attention a computer. Let me try to put this into words even you can understand. Barracks heal units in 1 turn, since you're not having to move anywhere having veteran units is obviously better than having non vets. In a 2 movement war a regular chariot is going to kill a veteran chariot just as easily as a veteran chariot kills a regular. However it is sheer stupidity to attack a veteran spearman in a city with a WC. It really doesn't ****ing matter if the guy has a barracks or not, the idea of the rush is still the same. You obviously can't grasp this idea. I simply pointed out the uselessness of barracks in a rush, which again you obviously did not comprehend. Now, if we're not attacking cities, what are we attacking? Think hard on this one now, I know it's difficult for you. Only things you should be attacking in a rush are units you know you can win against. So capturing workers, picking off settlers, pillaging, and killing military units when you can is the tactical idea. The strategical idea (yet another thing you don't seem to understand) is to force the guy on the defensive, ravage his economy, and disorganize his units so they'll be chasing you instead of hitting your own economy. Now I really truly hope some dim sign of enlightenment is now occuring as you're reading this. However after your recent posts I'm beginning to think there is no hope.

And just a little word of advice, it's usually not a good idea to start claiming victory or saying things like "Oh....I wasn't supposed to point that out though, was I?" until you've actually made sure you're right or that I have no way to respond. So, "You have a great day, now...'k *****?"

Velociryx · August 23, 2002, 11:19

Sunny, you're so *cute* when you get riled up! Since you can't seem to help but resort to name calling when someone calls your bluff, kindly continue this conversation with me via e-mail so as not to muck up the boards with your spew.

I *do* hope you write me that e-mail tho....you're providing some really terrific entertainment value this morning!

-=Vel=-
(WebMaster@velociryx.every1.net)

HappySunShine · August 23, 2002, 11:24

Quote:

Sunny, you're so *cute* when you get riled up! Since you can't seem to help but resort to name calling when someone calls your bluff, kindly continue this conversation with me via e-mail so as not to muck up the boards with your spew.

I *do* hope you write me that e-mail tho....you're providing some really terrific entertainment value this morning!

Oh give me a break. You said the exact same thing back on page 1 and what page are we on now? That line might have worked if you had actually followed through on it since you're relying on your upstanding reputation to be the more mature man. However since you've already said that once and you then continued it's not exactly useful anymore. You also seem to have taken advantage of the week or so that I was gone to make all kinds of attacks so lets stop with the act and get back to business. If you can't come back with anything else just say so, but please don't insult my intelligence with this lame comeback.

vondrack · August 23, 2002, 11:37

Vel, I suggest we leave this HappyGuy be. It's even easier to "communicate" with almost-never-responding Coracle... however ridiculous is, what he says over and over. HSS is here just to show us how great and godly he is, to boast, and offend other people. He may be great, he may be not, PtW will show...

Do we really have nothing better to do but respond to him? I know I am shooting myself in the foot, 'cause I did take my part in this thread "discussion", but I have realized (albeit very late, to my greatest shame) it's wasting time, nothing else. He can't hear what we are telling him and he has very little to tell us, as all his rush theories are just... well, theories... Unless we really enjoy this futile oral ping-pong, I suggest leaving this thread die.

After all, he himself admitted that being the most hated person @ Poly is fun... If we start ignoring him, he may stop having fun and go away...

Velociryx · August 23, 2002, 11:38

I know....it's funny, isn't it? More than a week and you still don't have the guts to contact me and continue this privately. You'd rather feed your ego with the online drama, or whatever it is you get out of your public displays.

Someone picks apart your "strategy" and your reflexive response is to start the ol' name calling routine up again. Why? To deflect attention away from whatever central issues are being discussed.

And let's talk about that strategy a bit further, shall we? Gotta stay on topic and all, right? So....you say you don't need barracks. That they don't matter in terms of the rush. I say that the weakness of your strategy is this: Barracks first and then troops = 25% more capability per troop (extra hp = harder to kill). If you think a player would have his workers and support units just sitting out in the field waiting to be picked off by you, you're insane. Even in SP, players don't do that when there are baddies trolling nearby. And how will they know? Spotter units. Spearmen fortified on hills and mountains (defensive bonuses, plus more hp's than your regulars). Attack what you can kill.....so if you get your attack force on-scene and realize that you can't kill jack, you've wasted your time and production cos you've played your hand. Good strat! Send me that e-mail and we'll talk more!

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · August 23, 2002, 11:40

A very good point, vond. I don't know what it is about this guy, but there's just something in his attitude that BEGS for it. Still, you're right....restraint....restraint.

Too bad he'll never write me that e-mail tho. That'd be fun....

-=Vel=-

vondrack · August 23, 2002, 11:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
I don't know what it is about this guy, but there's just something in his attitude that BEGS for it.

Yep, I know what you mean... it is much like having a rash, isn't it? You know you should not scratch it, but the need is so strong... even though you are normally wise and follow what your doc says, you still scratch it...

That's what HSS is counting on.

SpencerH · August 23, 2002, 11:54

Quote:

Originally posted by HappySunShine
Either you're legally retarded or you don't know how to read since there is really no such thing as paying attention a computer.

Quote:

Barracks heal units in 1 turn, since you're not having to move anywhere having veteran units is obviously better than having non vets.

Quote:

In a 2 movement war a regular chariot is going to kill a veteran chariot just as easily as a veteran chariot kills a regular.

Quote:

However it is sheer stupidity to attack a veteran spearman in a city with a WC.

Some brilliant points there.

Theseus · August 23, 2002, 12:05

(Completely staying out of the fray... and DISCUSSING CIV3!)

It seems to me that Japan would be superior for the most effective early fastmover rush.

Starting with The Wheel, I would prebuild Chariots for a Horse rush.

First, the timing is the same as Egypt's... research one tech.

Second, pre-building rocks... what would Egypt be doing while researching?

Third, Horsemen are better.

Fourth, and here's the place for discussion, I would prefer Militaristic over Industrious. Yes, Ind will allow you to build a military road network faster, but I disagree with HSS as to the value of barracks, ESPECIALLY for a fastmover-based strategy. As Mil, barracks are cheap as dirt, and while the value of an extra hp is not to be ignored, the real benefit is in retreat odds. HSS is right, the initial objective is not city capture, but total enemy disruption; BUT, at some point, whether for the accomplishment of final objectives, or 'cause the enemy plays a tough defense, you have to go after 'hardened' units... and higher retreat odds provides a smart way to soften them.

All dependent, of course, on the MP configuration. A small duel, for instance, would argue for the early Egyptian GA, while a longer game argues for Japan.

HappySunShine · August 23, 2002, 12:08

Quote:

And let's talk about that strategy a bit further, shall we? Gotta stay on topic and all, right? So....you say you don't need barracks. That they don't matter in terms of the rush. I say that the weakness of your strategy is this: Barracks first and then troops = 25% more capability per troop (extra hp = harder to kill). If you think a player would have his workers and support units just sitting out in the field waiting to be picked off by you, you're insane. Even in SP, players don't do that when there are baddies trolling nearby. And how will they know? Spotter units. Spearmen fortified on hills and mountains (defensive bonuses, plus more hp's than your regulars). Attack what you can kill.....so if you get your attack force on-scene and realize that you can't kill jack, you've wasted your time and production cos you've played your hand. Good strat! Send me that e-mail and we'll talk more!

Well if you build barracks first that means you've sacrificed production of military units, not to mention you will still need to build a temple which means increased maintenence. The idea of a rush is to hit early. If barracks were so useful I would have used them in civ2MP. And of course 1 HP isn't really that big a difference with this combat system. Especially since elite units can lose to regular units. If their workers aren't building roads or doing something then they're useless. If they bring their workers inside their city to protect them, they're still just as useless. I'll consider that a job well done. Spearmen fortified on mountains is a complete waste since there is no such thing as ZOC anymore. I think this pretty much proves the fact that you always have and always will be an SP rookie. We had a similiar discussion in the civ2 MP forum about you and I said then that you were nothing more than pretty words with no real skill. You went on for a week with attacks, this suddenly wanting to take it to email is an obvious sign I am beginning to expose your limitations. It's obvious by this last post that you just don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Velociryx · August 23, 2002, 12:12

I made a week's worth of attacks? Funny that when you make mention of my "attacks" on you, you don't use quotes, but are quite fond of them most other times. Care to point out all my blatant, vicious attacks? C'mon....quote me! Show me my vicious attacks on you!

I'll wait right here while you do that. And if you DO happen to find any attacks I made on you, take a gander at the posts of yours they were in response to, and see if I used far, far less venom. 'k?

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · August 23, 2002, 12:14

PS: Note in my post I specifically did *not* say "blocking units." Rather, the term was "spotting units."

But you're right, of course. Knowing where the enemy is....bah! Useless info. 'Specially for gods.

-=Vel=-

SpencerH · August 23, 2002, 12:19

It seems to me that the Aztecs or the Zulus would be a much more suitable choice for a disruption type of rush (since you dont want to attack defended towns). Given their 2 defense impis are great for this tactic.

HappySunShine · August 23, 2002, 12:33

Quote:

I made a week's worth of attacks? Funny that when you make mention of my "attacks" on you, you don't use quotes, but are quite fond of them most other times. Care to point out all my blatant, vicious attacks? C'mon....quote me! Show me my vicious attacks on you!

I'll wait right here while you do that. And if you DO happen to find any attacks I made on you, take a gander at the posts of yours they were in response to, and see if I used far, far less venom. 'k?

An attack is an attack, I don't care what degree of name calling you use.

Quote:

PS: Note in my post I specifically did *not* say "blocking units." Rather, the term was "spotting units."

But you're right, of course. Knowing where the enemy is....bah! Useless info. 'Specially for gods.

How ****ing dumb can you be? Spotting units? Oh my god. I think this pretty much says it all. First of all, if you're going to be stupid enough to waste a unit as a spotter, use a warrior. Second of all a good offense is better than a good defense. Not only are you wasting money on maintaining that useless unit on the mountain but you're wasting production time. And what exactly will spotting my chariot do? You know the rush is coming, you know the goal isn't to take cities, so how does having a spotter protect your workers? Spearmen cost as much as a war chariot, so you won't be gaining any production advantage. So yes, you are correct, completely useless info from a completely useless player.

Velociryx · August 23, 2002, 12:37

Still waiting on those quotes, Sunshine....

-=Vel=-

PS: Good GOD but this guy should start his own think tank! Recon units are useless! Imagine the money our own US military could save! It's a miracle!

HappySunShine · August 23, 2002, 12:38

Quote:

It seems to me that the Aztecs or the Zulus would be a much more suitable choice for a disruption type of rush (since you dont want to attack defended towns). Given their 2 defense impis are great for this tactic.

Impis aren't that bad an idea, however having an attacking units is always better than having a defensive unit. All you can do with impis is attack unprotected workers or attack the lone chariot from time to time. The real thing you're looking to kill is that protected settler going to make a city. That's where impis and jaguars fall short. Aztec jaguars are too weak to do any real damage. By the time they get there the other guy will have war chariots. And again, the Egyptian economy is just too much for the Aztecs. Unless you start like 10 squares apart I don't see how jaguars will be that useful.

HappySunShine · August 23, 2002, 12:42

Quote:

PS: Good GOD but this guy should start his own think tank! Recon units are useless! Imagine the money our own US military could save! It's a miracle!

Last time I checked this game wasn't real life you idiot. So yes, recon units are completely useless. What a joke this has become. You no longer even show the slightest bit of competence in this discussion.

As for quotes, go read pages 11, 12, and 13. Refer to the whole discussion about me needing to change my ways. Yes, that's an attack, you just used a more elegant tone than I do. But it is an attack nonetheless. I'm fine with attacks, but don't try to act like you're an angel because it's just not going to work.

Velociryx · August 23, 2002, 12:50

No sir. That was the TRUTH. If it hurts, that's a different issue and perhaps something you should consider carefully.

As to your latest comments, I'll go slow here, cos this is tough:

1) Civ is meant to be an abstraction of human history
2) War is a part of human history
3) War is fought by...military
4) Military uses recon units
5) Information in battle is valuable
6) Recon units provide information
7) Recon units have value

Amazing....

-=Vel=-

sabrewolf · August 23, 2002, 12:52

HSS, there's a difference between vel's attacks ("consider bla bla") and your attacks ("you idiot", "shut the **** up", "dumb rookie", etc.)

i think we're all looking forward to take out your regulars and get your defenseless, improvementless cities with our spotting units.

btw: a warrior IS a unit... a weak one, but a unit after all. and if he can detect your attack force 6 turns earlier than the cultural border would... the defender has a biiig advantage...

ah yes... and if you now attack me too: please try and use arguments and not just insults... thanks

HappySunShine · August 23, 2002, 13:07

Quote:

No sir. That was the TRUTH. If it hurts, that's a different issue and perhaps something you should consider carefully.

As to your latest comments, I'll go slow here, cos this is tough:

1) Civ is meant to be an abstraction of human history
2) War is a part of human history
3) War is fought by...military
4) Military uses recon units
5) Information in battle is valuable
6) Recon units provide information
7) Recon units have value

Amazing....

Ok, I called you a moron. That was the TRUTH. If it hurts, that's a different issue and perhaps something you should consider carefully.

1) That's your own opinion and obviously not shared by the civ2 MP players.
2) Obviously.
3) Thank you again Captain Obvious.
4) In real life it does, but last time I checked civ wasn't a real life game.
5) In civ it's really not.
6) What little information they provide you should already know. And WC provide far more information as they pillage and rape your women than a couple of spearmen fortified on mountains ever would.
7) Recon units are useless. It's a fact. You've never played MP before, you're an SP rookie and really have no right to even talk to me. Like I said, we knew you had no skill before Civ3 even came out.

Yes, your stupidity is quite amazing.