OzzyKP: Eyes Slayer

[OzzyKP]

Ok, this has nothing to do with Civ2, but the folks on the Civ4 forum totally won't appreciate this, so I'll treat you all with my exploits.

I was asked in the other thread to do a review of Civ4 MP. So I played another game tonight. Wouldn't cha know it, I was up against EyesOfNight once again. Better yet I beat him again.

So yea, I've played a grand total of two multiplayer games on Civ4 both games were duels against Eyes and both games I won. (considering he's played like 20-30 games online so far, I'm just dying to hear his excuse).

Actually though, I know his excuse, he was kind enough to post it over on the Civ3Players Ladder League site. He started a new thread titled "
I just lost to OzzyKP "

What an amazing game. The fact that iron was the only resource on the entire map on mirror really made the game enjoyable. Even more enjoyable was the fact that I spent the whole game ahead. I had a huge tech lead. There is nothing ozzy even kept up with me on. Even though I was way ahead though (had this been civ2 it would have been a joke I was so far ahead) it doesn't really matter because being ahead in tech doesn't really count for anything. Not only that, but crossbows aren't worth nuts and they aren't worth their cost. So I wonder, what exactly is it that ozzy did to beat me. Hmmmmm...he didn't out play me. His army stack go completely obliterated. Oh wait, I forgot, he was "persistent" and in civ that that counts for something according to ozzy. He didn't mow me down with his military prowess. He didn't out grow me with his amazing economic abilites. All he did was sit at home all day and grow with his walls and culture bonus and upgraded longbows. I guess this is what civ is all about. Sitting at home and building temples and monasteries. He did a nice little tactic at the end too and built a bunch of new cities to get his land rating up. Didn't matter that I had all the great leaders in the world or all the wonders. Nope, just sit back and build temples and libraries because that's what civ is all about. I'm tired of canucksoldier and his weakass replies about how they didn't have a chance to do a public beta because of 2k games and about how gameplay can be adjusted in coming patches. I'm tired of the bullnuts betatester non-disclosure influenced bullnuts replies about how deep this game is and about how you have to adapt. The fact is this game is geared towards the lesser player. You talk about depth, but a sign of depth is the gap between lesser and better players and the gap is very slim indeed. Maybe people like ozzyKP weren't any good at civ2 because it just didn't have the depth and strategy civ4 does? Now that there is depth and strategy suddenly everyone who sucked at the previous games is now a good player. I don't see Mp lasting a year because I'm not the only one on the ladder seeing this.

My response:


hahahahahaha!

Oh how i've missed this kind of entertainment. Its been years since Eyes has given me good laughs back in the civ2 days. This is just fantasitc!

The bigger the ego the harder the fall. ;D

His tech lead wasn't that huge. But yes, he did have a tech lead. As far as I could tell no muskets or anything like that. And yes, the map didn't have any horse or any copper. Mirror map, two iron on each side. Heh, I didn't even know what a mirror map was when I started, so he had a slight edge there at the beginning (i sent a scout to my left and met the map edge to my surprize)

So yea, I was the Aztecs and he was the Mali (that skirmisher is a damn nice unit, I had no idea). I spent much of the early game building a big stack of jaguar warriors (since I didn't have a whole lot of other options for units at that point), so I sent them on the slow trudge over to attack. Sadly that almost killed me. I had way too many units and too many cities and at one point I had to put science down to 0 and still was hemorraging money. I thought I was totally done for.

I sent a scout and a jag to his south to try and draw some of his units that way before I moved my stack in from the north. Plus I tried to move my stack far enough back to knock off some of his rear cities that were less defended, but no good, he had too much culture and was able to spot me too far out, plus my stack moved too damn slow. Worse yet I hadn't explored enough and I was a dumbass who still hadn't figured out the true nature of the mirror map so my stack popped up not at his rear but right at his well defended capitol.

Unforunately All the time I spent building those units he advanced in tech and had great anti-melee units to counter me, so I got totally f-ed up. My stack was destroyed, i pillaged a bit and then he killed them off.

Now, if I was Eyes (and I've played him enough over the years to know this) I would have just thrown in the towel right then, but I played the game out. Thankfully losing that big stack helped my budget a bit and I was able to start inventing again.

Also (to backtrack) while I was moving the stack I was so distressed about my lack of funds and the fact there wasn't anythign I could really build with my cities to help my financial situation I set my cities on building wonders just to keep them busy and stop them from making more units. So I got the pyramids and parthenon (Eyes got the oracle and maybe another two or so, i forget which).

I got a few more tech (finally got feudalism after like 25-30 turns, sheesh), and made a few longbowmen when his big stack of macemen and crossbowmen arrived. I drained all my cities (more or less) to defend the first city he came across and he wisely moved his stack around that city and headed to my less defended capitol.

I thought I was in trouble again, but I used the longbowmen (and a few remaining jaguars and axmen) in my lead city to attack some of his units and kill a few. For some reason (as far as I can tell) Eyes has some problem with building barracks, so his units weren't very well promoted which helped me out. Then once he placed his big stack next to my cap and was about to attack I slipped in my stack of D units from my other city into my capitol just in time to save the city from his stack. He lost a few in that attack and then I mopped up later.

So yes, my stack was completely obliterated, but so was his. Was my position more despirate? Perhaps. But if he was so far ahead, then he should have pressed his advantage and been able to beat me, but he didn't... I scrambled enough to force him back.

So at this point we had less than 30 turns left and I realized he just blew his wad and wouldn't be sending another stack my way. I realized this would be settled by score. So I jacked up my tech rate (and started getting all the cheap techs i missed earlier, now inventing a new one every turn) and I started making a bunch of settlers and started sticking them every where for the points. In the end I had more points.

So was it a glamourous win? No. Did I totally overpower and devestate him (ya know like I did in our first game)? No. Am I going to thump my chest and claim to be the greatest? No. Clearly I made lots of mistakes. BUT I WON. Not by accident either as he claims. Yes I made mistakes, but clearly he did as well. If I was playing so crappy, why didn't he destroy me? He only destroyed one city of mine(one turn after I founded it), one of my sleeze cities at the end. Oh, great accomplishment.

With the 20 or so games he's played for this ladder alone he clearly has more experience with the game than I do (I've only played two MP games, both victories against him, hehe), so one would think he'd know the point system. Honestly I didn't look at the points at all until he lost his stack, then I saw how many points were given for each thing and I started scrambling to get as many points as I could. For some reason he didn't do that. So he lost.

He can think up whatever excuses he wants or blame the game or say that it is made to allow "inferior players" the ability to beat "superior players". But honestly if he's so superior why do I keep beating him? If being "superior" isn't based on winning, what on earth is it based on?

No question he is good at civ2, better than me I admit, but I was always competitive and i've won plenty of games against him there. Each time you can be sure he was whining about it like now blaming the map, blaming luck, blaming anything he can think of.

And then, as now, I just enjoyed every minute of it. ;D

[VetLegion]

BUT I WON

EoN does make some points though, that may prove true once the game has been tested more.

[Deity Dude]

Congrats Ozzy, you beat "The Greatest Player on Earth"

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by VetLegion

BUT I WON

EoN does make some points though, that may prove true once the game has been tested more.

It keeps getting better. We have a mighty fine back and forth over at this forum/thread: http://civ4players.proboards44.com/i...ead=1131075110

EoN's strongest point is that deciding a game based on points is dumb. I agree. That's why i don't much like quick duel games and prefer longer, more epic diplogames. The point he neglects to mention is that HE made it a points game. HE picked the settings.

He got just the game he wanted. I didn't ***** and moan about the settings, or the map, he picked everything and I just played on his turf. He has no room to complain.

I simply out-manuevered him.

[StarLightDeath]

http://civ4players.proboards44.com/index.cgi?board=general

Go there if you want to read everything I have said so far. This game isn't civilization and I know for a fact that the civ2 players here aren't going to like it. Ozzy likes it because he can finally hang in a game. How can't he? The game works against the better player.

[Ming]

The game works against the better player

You mean it works against a person who is trying to use Civ II strategies in a different game?

What determines a "better" Civ IV player... I would think it would be based on who plays Civ IV better, understands the game better, uses the strategies that work best for Civ IV...

[StarLightDeath]

No. Did Ozzy know something I didn't? I didn't use a civ2 strategy in that game. The fact is knowledge doesn't factor into this game. CanuckSoldier said this himself, there is no wonder in this game. YOu don't get an edge by knowing something more than someone else because there is nothing to know. You can't outexpand someone because the game isn't designed for that. Out culturing someone is like trying to see who can build a temple the fastest. Unit defense bonuses are insane. I played a game and my musketman with a base strength of 9 after city defenses and upgrades had a strength of 23. That's enough to fight a navy seal and all I did was click on buildings. Is that skill ming? Is this what you want in a game Ming? I haven't used a civ2 strategy once in this game yet. It has so totally killed everything that was civ that to even think to try something like that is suicide and hasn't once entered my mind. You'll understand when you play it Ming.

[OzzyKP]

What did I know?

I knew that placing a bunch of spam cities at the end would jack up my score so I'd beat you on points. That's what I did, and that's how I beat you.

Is that a fair way to win? I dunno. But YOU picked that setting.

As for your 23 strength untouchable musketman, Fried quite effectively showed that with a few cats you can knock down that 23 to a 13 and make it equal with a (much cheaper) maceman.

[StarLightDeath]

Yes, and fried has consistently said that about cats. Now go find me a thread or a reply where fried answers my question about the city defender using his own cats on your stack. OWNED

[OzzyKP]

you can't bombard a stack, you can only bombard cities.

If someone had some mounted units in the stack with some anti-cat bonuses then the attacker would have the advantage.

[StarLightDeath]

Hello genius, catapults are melee units now. While you are using your turns to bombard, I am using my turns to whittle down your untis to nothing. Not only that, but it is only 2 turns to get to your stack, and it's what, 15 turns for you to travel to mine? Plus, I can attack you at any time where you need to wait to brign down my city defenses before you can attack me. And then lets not forget the triple upgraded and higher tech units. I'm sure your assault would work well...kind of like that jaguar attack right? The fact that you can win a game by spamming some cities at the end kind of proves my point. By year 1600AD where would you be in civ2? In civ4 I was at gunpowder with 7 cities.

[Ming]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath
No. Did Ozzy know something I didn't? I didn't use a civ2 strategy in that game. The fact is knowledge doesn't factor into this game. CanuckSoldier said this himself, there is no wonder in this game. YOu don't get an edge by knowing something more than someone else because there is nothing to know. You can't outexpand someone because the game isn't designed for that. Out culturing someone is like trying to see who can build a temple the fastest. Unit defense bonuses are insane. I played a game and my musketman with a base strength of 9 after city defenses and upgrades had a strength of 23. That's enough to fight a navy seal and all I did was click on buildings. Is that skill ming?

If that's what it takes to win, maybe that is the skill required for CivIV

Is this what you want in a game Ming?

Probably not... but until I can get a new computer so that I can play the ****ing game, it's hard for me to say if there isn't some other way we can add more strategy to the game... or whether it is now just a build culture game. Maybe the settings can be changed to create a different kind of game then the one you were playing.

I haven't used a civ2 strategy once in this game yet.

My comment was more to point out that even though you may be one of the best players ever for Civ II, what you know doesn't really apply to Civ IV, so to make the claim that good players can't take advantage of the game is a little premature.

It has so totally killed everything that was civ that to even think to try something like that is suicide and hasn't once entered my mind. You'll understand when you play it Ming.

I hope you are wrong... and that after playing the game more and getting deep into it, that we will discover that the game actually is good... But from all the early comments, it just sounds like an improved version of Civ III... which in my opinion, was no longer the true Civ experience that we felt with Civ II.

I still look forward to playing the game... learning, having fun with it... and I hope that it really is the game we were looking for... But until I get a new computer...

[StarLightDeath]

LOL Oh god, please. Civ3 was a godsend compared to this game. I would take civ3 any day over this thing. ANY DAY! Even the civ3 players are pissed off at this thing. I mean, I just can't put into words how ridiculous this game is now. You just have to play it and then you're going to cry. The first 2 days or so you're going to be amazed at all the new features as you try to find a strategy to win with...then the day is going to come when you say "that's it"? The beta testers themselves say there is no wonder in this game and there is no secret and they see no problem with that. That should say it all.

[VetLegion]

StarLightDeath, I read your critique with interest. But even if the game is geared towards the defender, it's almost trivial to fix (in a patch or a mod). Just decrease the defense bonuses.

On the other hand, what I feel would really brake the game is if the game engine never allowed a better player to increase the gap between him and the worse player.

In previous Civ titles they tried to make it so that advantages don't accumulate in a way that would make the gap uncrossable (tech in Civ2 costs more for leader than for Civ catching up, etc...).

How is this in Civ4, in your opinion?

[StarLightDeath]

Civ2 the tech doesn't cost more for the guy in the lead. CIv3 on the other hand is another story. Civ4...I can't really put into words you just need to play it. The best way I can describe it is hitting your head against a wall in an attempt to crack the wall. I spent 4 days playing the game obsessively trying to find that way ahead. Trying to find that capability in the game. The simple fact is the game is designed to keep people even. There is nothing there to allow you to get ahead. The combat system just simply sucks. It is so boring now I can hardly stand it. Everything is slow and I feel like I am trudging through mud when I play it. The game has absolutely no flow to it. I am actually having a hard time finding things I like in the game these days. As for it changing, you'd have to change a ton. You'd have to change the basic idea of the way the game is played and I'm not sure they're willing to do that. This game screams "BRING IN NEW PLAYERS WE MUST COMPETE WITH AOE3" so they copied a bunch of stuff from AOC to bring in the AOC crowd and poorly implemented it while at the same time trying to cater to the beginning player. What makes it worse is when the beta testers in their infinite wisdom accuse me of not liking the game because "your strategies from civ2 don't work anymore". How dumb is that? I was known through the Age of empires community as someone who played unorthodox and used civs nobody else used and created strategies nobody else came up with. I got good at civ2 by creating new strategies. I started off this game by trying to find new strategies...problem was there are no strategies to be found.