I just lost to OzzyKP

[StarlightDeath]

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.

[MMV]

you lost, huh?

Well Mrs.Lincoln, other than that, how was the play?

[friedrichpsitalon]

"I lost, so it's the game's fault."

Be glad - very glad - there's an auto word filter, or you'd have to find somewhere else to troll post for awhile.

[friedrichpsitalon]

And by the way:

- Show me the map (unmodified) that had no copper or horses. That's impossible on the mirror script.

- Tech is worth a considerable chunk of score. Obviously you weren't far enough ahead. That's what you're complaining about. Your lead wasn't big enough to matter.

- To stop a player from dropping larger numbers of border cities at the end, you have to be pressuring him militarily. You obviously weren't, and so he took advantage of it.

Sounds like you were pretty much dominated throughout the game, except that you decided to turtle and build wonders, and like many people who make that choice, didn't expand or develop enough.

Nicely done, Ozzy.

P.S.- Crossbows not worth anything? Huh. Depends on how you use them, I guess.

[friedrichpsitalon]

One other PS - if you were that far ahead in tech - this HUGE lead, as you put it, then why didn't your muskets stomp all over his archers and swords? It's only two techs further from machinery to gunpowder (three if you lack feudalism.) I get as far as Gunpowder pretty much every game, and I don't beeline for it at all.

...or was your tech lead a bit less than you suggest, sir? Perhaps Ozzy was only mildly behind in technology and had a lot more land, a clear win?

I'd love to see a save.

[ozzykp]

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

[reptile]

Wonders are only a very small factor in points - on their own - their effects really matter though. And you might get a lot of great people, but they need to be used correctly.
Crossbows have a 50% bonus against melee units, so they can destroy swordmen and macemen. They won´t be able to kill longbows and other crossbows in cities. And yes, they are expensive... in the early game. I remember I sometimes grabbed Machinery with the Oracle in the early stage of the game, only to find out that they were too expensive for my young, underdeveloped cities. You could use them as a counterunit to Praetorians...but they rather are for the middle/late game where they kill Pikemen and Macemen and where they can be produced a lot more.
To me it seems that Ozzy went for a very defensive strategy. Longbows are almost doomed to hide in their cities, because they can be killed by cheaper axemen with a bonus against archers - especially when the axeman belongs to an aggressive civ. Yes, they are very hard to beat in cities - you should have pillaged his land instead and try to bring down his economy...I guess you didnt outtech him at all, you were just too proud with machinery.
You argue that you should have won the game, because you are the better player (otherwise, you couldnt complain), but you are not. I would suggest you take a look at how the scoring system works. Your "strength" lies in quick expansion and an early chariot/horse attack, but if this fails, you will fall back in science and infrastructure. Rushes and mass city founding were probably the 2 outstanding concepts the game designers wanted to get rid off for CIV. You are playing "against" the game, i.e. trying to force your civ2 strategy onto civ4, instead of learning it. If you are not willing to change, then it´s really not your game.

[ozzykp]

Reptile, do you know Eyes or me from our Civ2 days? Just curious. Interesting to see CanuckSoldier/Darkstorm here, I wonder if there are any other old veterans still hanging around under different names.

[drspike]

Well played Ozzy - sounds like you adapted to the situation.

[Canucksoldier]

eyesofnight said:

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.

I wouldn't know were to start....so I won't. Don't let the door hit your but on the way out. You simply don't understand this game obviously.

CS

[friedrichpsitalon]

Ozzy - could you please send me a save of that game? There must have been copper and horses somewhere on that map.

It's possible that it was simply up in very unexplored tundra for the horses, and ice for the copper (which would be bad, but still possible) and that since it was a mirror, it was all spread up there.

If you've got a map with every tile explored and no copper or horses, that's another thing altogether, but I think that's rather unlikely.

[evil]

games starting to grow on me abit, but there isnt much depth to this game at all, its all about research and defence head to longbows and just sit around and maintain your lead,

or the military route get forges up asap and go kill

but btw inca are my favourite civ ^^ played a game with them yesterday, great land, few floodplains, and plains hill with forest , was centre of the map, so had a close neighbour to the left and a close neighbour to the right grow my city and little with the floodplains building chasquis , got to size 3-4 cant remember, switched to work the plains hill which was 4shields(?) or 3 cant remember that either, also worked grass with forest i think, but anyway, i was building a chasqui every 2 turns, my left hand neighbour gets rushed and dies , takeing his city sure beats building one... sent chasquis;s back home preparing for the guy on the right , but omg he send a stack of warriors at me..but he underestimated chasqui powa! and his stack get wiped out so when he sees whats coming i see "trrrr has retired"

also my second mp ancient game with china... start with a warior find a neighbour close. build a warrior, then a fishing boat to get that fish in the sea(didnt have the tech to road of farm yet so worker was useless.... then build another warrior and what do i notice, my neighbour builds a city next to me, settler must of been his first build, so naturally i send my scouting warrior towards his cap and my 2 home defence warriors to his new city while i build my 4th warrior, his new city was empty but had a warrior in cap, but that died to my 3

these small maps are fun for rushes, neighbours never suspect a thing there to busy building a worker for there second build, so when i come to take there city i have a free worker too.

[friedrichpsitalon]

I wish I'd kept a timeline in the beta of this same process. This is almost the same time into it that people usually think hiding behind Longbows is the way to go. Then people will realize the ways to beat Longbows, and the momentum will shift again....

After about five iterations of idea-then-counteridea, maybe folks will figure out how deep the strategy really goes.

[ozzykp]

Well I've looked here and on Apolyton and I just can't find your e-mail anywhere, nor do I see a spot to post a file on the forum. So FP, let me know your e-mail so I can send you a save.

[Avogadro]

on www.myleague.com/civ4players click his name on the Administration banner

[ozzykp]

The one place I didn't look, heh, thanks.

[sparta]

This is going to suck if EoN makes a new thread everytime he loses...

[TheGoddess]

After reading this thread this only reaffirms my opinion that this game was designed for the defensive minded person. Both EoN and Ozzy seem to confirm this. Both of their stacks were killed by their opponent and lead to a stalemate and a build-a-thon which seems to have decided the game winner.

Very sad.

[Canucksoldier]

Well Goddess, I wouldn't go jumping to conclusions, especially since you have no experience to draw on. This game can be anything. I was in a 5 person cton/always war last night and 3 of the 5 people died. So conquest victories are not out of the question, but like Fried has stated you have to be a smart warmonger not just aggressive.

CS

[StarlightDeath]

Wonders are only a very small factor in points - on their own - their effects really matter though. And you might get a lot of great people, but they need to be used correctly.
Crossbows have a 50% bonus against melee units, so they can destroy swordmen and macemen. They won´t be able to kill longbows and other crossbows in cities. And yes, they are expensive... in the early game. I remember I sometimes grabbed Machinery with the Oracle in the early stage of the game, only to find out that they were too expensive for my young, underdeveloped cities. You could use them as a counterunit to Praetorians...but they rather are for the middle/late game where they kill Pikemen and Macemen and where they can be produced a lot more.
To me it seems that Ozzy went for a very defensive strategy. Longbows are almost doomed to hide in their cities, because they can be killed by cheaper axemen with a bonus against archers - especially when the axeman belongs to an aggressive civ. Yes, they are very hard to beat in cities - you should have pillaged his land instead and try to bring down his economy...I guess you didnt outtech him at all, you were just too proud with machinery.
You argue that you should have won the game, because you are the better player (otherwise, you couldnt complain), but you are not. I would suggest you take a look at how the scoring system works. Your "strength" lies in quick expansion and an early chariot/horse attack, but if this fails, you will fall back in science and infrastructure. Rushes and mass city founding were probably the 2 outstanding concepts the game designers wanted to get rid off for CIV. You are playing "against" the game, i.e. trying to force your civ2 strategy onto civ4, instead of learning it. If you are not willing to change, then it´s really not your game.

First of all, I didn't chariot rush this game there were no horses. There was no copper either. I just sat at home building temples and libraries. I had forges and I got crossbows and macemen pretty early. I had every tech to go with that as well and I had theocracy+Vassalage. In addition, 3 of my cities had barracks which ozzy doesn't seem to remember so I had triple upgraded units. I also pillaged his economy, but apparently it only takes a couple jaguars and some longbows to bring down a stack of macemen and Xbows. Machinery only took me 10 turns to research and my cities were size 8's, 7's, and 6's. There was no underdeveloped cities because I spent the whole game developing them. In the future I probably won't even bother with wonders because they aren't worth the cost for what you get. The only one worth building is Obelisk. I could have gotten gunpowder, but I was busy researching 2 and 1 turn techs to get my points up. I really didn't have the confidence that a stack would take down a city of his. Also, I used Mali, not America and I didn't use the strategy I used against you.

- To stop a player from dropping larger numbers of border cities at the end, you have to be pressuring him militarily. You obviously weren't, and so he took advantage of it.

The truth is I knew what he was doing, I just wasn't willing to sink to that level because I feel I should be able to walk all over someone in a game. The fact is there is just no way to get a big lead and you spend the whole game just trying to out build someone. Also, if I'm not mistaken land points don't count on water and 2 of my biggest culture cities were on the edge of the map so half their culture got cut off. So all that culture I poured into those cities was for nothing. Yet another little quirk of civ4...how nice. I also really found it amusing as I watched a jag kill my upgraded, but slightly damaged, crossbow.

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.

You didn't win plenty of games. Even mokerguy was better than you and I beat him like he was nothing. Nobody in your clan was good including darkstorm in civ2.

I wouldn't know were to start....so I won't. Don't let the door hit your but on the way out. You simply don't understand this game obviously.

Funny how you say that on here, but when we chat in private you give me weak replies to my questions and tell me to just wait for the next patch or mod to fix gameplay issues. Then again, I guess that's your beta tester talking on here I guess.

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?

I asked you what you did to beat me and you replied "I didn't give up, and in this game that counts for something." Those words marked the day strategy died. This isn't a strategy game. I asked you over and over what amazing strategy you used to overcome me. You didn't answer me, only told me that I was whinning. What skills do you bring to this game that make you good? You didn't do anything to beat me that game except sit there and build some cities at the end. Is this what civilization has been reduced to? I play this game and I think back on civ2 on how clean it felt to play it. In this I feel like I am pulling teeth as I wade through mud. There is no flow to this game, it is just a slow walk through a bog.

- Tech is worth a considerable chunk of score. Obviously you weren't far enough ahead. That's what you're complaining about. Your lead wasn't big enough to matter.

I was far enough ahead, but land counts for more. I put everything into culture and it got cut off on the edge of the map. Ozzy didn't, he just used a trick at the end to start putting down cities in the back of his map on ice. Could I have done this? Sure, why not. How does this add to the "depth" of the game you always talk about though? You made 37K off this game and you are writing a strategy guide. Your future income in this game relies on its survival so I am having a hard time trusting you when you say how incredibly deep this game is and how amazing it is and how easy it is to take down cities. I ask you every time and you say use catapults and every time I ask what you do when they have catapults in their city too and you never answer. I'm not the only one on the ladder seeing these things, I'm just the most vocal about them because I wanted this to be a good game. AOC is dead and I have no other game to play (which might be a good thing) so it is either civ4 or nothing. I can tell you though as time goes on that people will continue to see what I have seen and they aren't going to enjoy sitting at home building forever. You maybe have played this game for 2 years, but I have been civing alot longer than you and I have 4 years of competitive gaming in RTS dealing with professional gamers. You tried to bring in the RTS crowd while at the same time making the game easier for the beginning player and now I'm not sure the game can be fixed. This game is no longer chess, it's checkers where you spend the whole game fighting to just get that one piece. I played checkers for 15 years btw, and while enjoy it by itself, it's not an idea I really want to see in civ4.

Btw, just out of curiousity, how many RTS competitive gamers did you bring on to help with the beta? How many top AOC players did you bring on or did you only use civ TBS players to try to turn civ4 into an RTS games? I think it really shows in how poorly you implemented the RTS strategies and tactics.