Announcement

**War4ever** · February 15, 2003, 14:57

strat king x2x2 just means you can build units to search the board faster....and it means you can leave your cities undefended provided you keep your enemy at bay.

thats fine......but we always hear about people and say "i would have won had that explorer not come off the boat and take four undefended cities that turn"

or some other variation of this.....

while battles are not always fought town to town, they are not always fought out in a battlefield either.

leaving cities undefended is just asking for trouble.. regardless the settings.....

and besides, civ isn't a horseman rush game.........it doesnt' take alot of skill to build 30 horsemen and rush/block your opponnent...anyone can do that

and if you have put a block out, i would hope you would work on your infastructure...i mean what else are you going to build, its certainly not anymore units......they are all at the front.

x2x2king just means you can send more units into combat, which is why games end quicker...there are that many more mobile units trekking across the board.

you find people quicker and games end quicker.....

besides, no one said deity games can't end quickly....we just use slightly better units to do it...

instead of horsies, we use pike/cat combos or pike/crusader/elephant , or legion/phalanx etc.....

if i have a couple of hours or less, king x2x2 is fine, but if i want to play for more than 4 hours....i will take x1 movement plus anything else everytime ......

also king level removes one huge element out of your games..... HAPPINESS...... so right there you have lost one major decision that affects all your cities and has a trickle down effect on the whole game

**Ming** · February 15, 2003, 15:04

Yeah... heaven forbid they should let happiness problems in their games. But of course, they will claim that it takes strategy out of the game. It actually make you make more decisions... any fool can play without happiness problems. Knowing how to deal with it while still doing everything else you need to do is a skill they are obviously missing...

**StrategicKingMi** · February 15, 2003, 17:32

I dont play the way SH does. I like bigger boards. I play accelerated starts on premade boards to avoid early ends to games. I prefer to attack with Clads, destroyers or crusiers. Not to mention cannons. I hate running around with horses to end a game.
Further more, as far as happiness problems, there is no
"strategy" to deal with it. It is set in stone and the same for everyone. Build a temple, build units, raise lux rate etc. Thier is no human mind working against you. Thinking and reacting to what you do. Just a preset limitation that does not change game to game.
Only thing I like about 1 x 1 is the need for irrigation which is lacking in 2 x 2.

**StrategicKingMi** · February 15, 2003, 17:46

Do I count thoose early game loses as loses?
Sure i do. Cause I lost...But there is a HUGE difference between losing and getting BEAT! I rarely get out played.
Am I better then HS? Sure I am, I am better then anyone in the world at med-large board 2 x 2 king games.
Is he better then me at small map, large land duels? How can you be. It comes down to luck between anyone with a pulse. (Or, as I have found, time and time again, the host ALWAYS starts with a supurior starting position, so if U host, you win most of the time, I have a whole series of saves stored up that bares this point out vividly, which is why I wont waste my time on random boards)

**DrSpike** · February 15, 2003, 17:56

How does the host always end up with a better starting position?

**Ming** · February 16, 2003, 05:39

The "better" starting postion is based on what the AI considers is a better starting postion. And unless you love food over production and trade, it's not really the better postion

**DrSpike** · February 16, 2003, 07:51

Well that assumes the host gets placed first. But either way I don't see how hosting guarantees you a better start when we all know 'better' in the AI's opinion is not necessarily what a human would consider good.

**Deity Dude** · February 17, 2003, 03:50

Originally posted by StrategicKingMi
Another reason 1 x 1 sucks is time. I played Deitydude in my l;ast, and I mean LAST , 1 x 1 game. I killed him, destroyerd all units he had with in 25 squares of any of my citys. Closed the entire board off from him. Gathered all the huts, which of course gave me techs or barbs that killed more units then he did and I was like 26 turns till monarchy or republic, and thats probably underestimating.
We played for three hours and thier was only a pathic 10 citys on the board 5 of mine, and 5 of his.

As for what is more skillful 2x2x king or 1x1x deity the answer is neither. It's like speed chess vs normal chess, they're different games. But what amazes me is that you keep bringing up this game and blatantly lying about it.

When you resigned I was in Monarchy and about to go to Republic - you were at least 30-40 turns from Monarchy (no exxageration). I was about to build 2 cities on the next turn or 2 you had no settlers. It is true that you destroyed a couple of warriors of mine with an archer you got out of a hut, but that archer was about to be bribed on the next turn. I was way ahead in gold and techs. We played for about 1 hour and 20 mins when you resigned due to your hopeless position. In fact you forfieted right at the time the game was about to get real ugly. You saying you were winning that game is like the Lions saying they had a winning season last year.

Get over it Strat, you were gonna get killed so you quit. It's OK. It's not the end of the world.

Now, as I said the last time you started this crap; I'm willing to drop it if you are, but if you are gonna keep these lies up I will respond.

As for Eyes, no one need comment. Reading his posts tells us all everything we need to know. It's amusing that this time hes going after the moderators when they are the ones who always defended his crap.

And lets remember for all his talk, everytime I have challenged Eyes in this forum he has ducked it. His usual excuse is that I'm not worthy of getting beaten by him. Yet in our 2 games we have an even record. He beat me in a 2x2x king match with his standard 3800bc capital rush. In a 2x1x king rematch he quit in 1800bc (in a losing position) claiming bad land. That makes us even. If we are to believe his posts (which I do not) that makes me his most worthy opponent since he claims to beat everyone else at least 90-100% of the time.

**War4ever** · February 17, 2003, 21:54

actually my record with Sean is just as good....with way more games played...

and Raz has a winning record against him

**Hydey** · February 18, 2003, 17:45

Originally posted by War4ever
actually my record with Sean is just as good....with way more games played...

and Raz has a winning record against him

Please don't count games where you had any luck at all

It defeats the purpose of only counting games you win

**HappySunShine** · February 18, 2003, 18:04

Amazing how much **** you talk war and boast such a great record yet you refuse to play. You've always been a ****ing loser and no amount of lying will ever change that.

**rah** · February 18, 2003, 19:22

Originally posted by rah
Yes, I really would like a straight answer to the question of when exactly was the last time he played.

Still waiting.

**Ming** · February 18, 2003, 20:48

How to be a "THE GREATEST CIV PLAYER IN THE WORLD"
As can be written just by reading the fine forums at Apolyton

1) If you get off to a bad start, no matter what the reason, just quit and say you didn't really lose.

2) Never mention when other people actually beat you

3) If somebody does beat you, just claim that the settings they made you play on are only for idiots and morons, and claim you could have beaten the person on the settings of your choice

4) And if that doesn't work... call them a **** loser and accuse them of lying.

5) Any time you lose, just say it was bad luck and not really a loss. If you win, always claim it was skill, and not your opponents bad luck

6) If all else fails... cheat.

So there you have it. You too can be an instant expert at civ. And the best part about it is, you don't even really need any actual skill

*this message brought to you by The Apolyton Get a Life Foundation*

**War4ever** · February 18, 2003, 21:02

Originally posted by HappySunShine
Amazing how much **** you talk war and boast such a great record yet you refuse to play. You've always been a ****ing loser and no amount of lying will ever change that.

a 50-50 record isn't great, but against someone as GREAT as you sean

all of this coming from a guy who doesn't seem to want to authorize me to his icq to play.....

ah right, b/c you get new numbers all the time its too much hassle

**HappySunShine** · February 18, 2003, 23:17

I already authorized you moron. I await your next lame attempt at an excuse.

Announcement

The Creativity of 2 x 2

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment