I just lost to OzzyKP

[zzZhenon]

ozzykp said:

hahahahahaha!


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 you used your roads to reinforce your capital... He didn't try to sit on a road with a high defensive bonus and pillage it? He didn't quickly move a chariot out of his stack to pillage then move away again in the same turn? (or i guess you guys didn't have horses)

So basically you defended because you outmaneuvered him. A well laid offensive strategy should have killed you since you emptied your cities to thwart an attack. Sounds like the old bait and switch would have worked well on you..... send the "obvious" stack, then send a small sneaky stack to you backdoor maybe even via boat. Attack with a few units at several different cities on the same turn.... very few can handle that kind of pressure in an elim game.

C3C would have taught him most of this already.

[StarlightDeath]

I was pillaging, but the city he talks about was only 2 spaces from the capital and I was taking a bunch of attacks so I had to get away which is why I moved up to his capital. There were no high defense areas to just sit on and pillage. Maybe you should look at a save first before you come on here sounding like an idiot.

[zzZhenon]

So he only had 2 cities? You didn't have superior units from tech advantage? How strong was your military compared to his? You do know that hills and forests give a defensive bonus...?

From both of your descriptions, you skipped past the city that he reinforced (good) and ran to hit his capital that probably had a 60% defensive bonus (bad)?

I'm not claiming to be an expert here, but I don' t understand why you post this nonsense about the game sucking or being for builders, etc. when obviously you're not even close to mastering the game.

I realize that your hat-size must be in the three-digits, but to blame the game EVERY time you lose is ridiculous.

I apologize if I'm offending you here, but enough is enough dude.

[StarlightDeath]

The problem is that the game doesn't allow anyone to gain any sort of lead. It bogs everyone down into one way and the only real way to win is to take a city. The expansion and city growth has been curbed to such an extreme that even a rank amateur can keep up with you if he reads the instruction guide. Where is the wonder in this game? Caunucksolder tells me there isn't any wonder. What strategy game has no wonder to it? What strategy game forces everyone down to the same level? This game has taken everything that was great about civ and turned it into a joke. They took out the hallmark of civilization, expansion, and now we have a bogged down game that nobody can seem to get ahead on. If you tinker with the basic tenants of game as old as civ there are going to be consequences.

[ozzykp]

He sounded quite smart to me, with a fairly good analysis. Of course if you had to move your stack to escape my attacks, then you concede that the game isn't all defense and that I was able to beat you on the attack and the defense.

As for your other preposterous claims... You said all your land area was lost to water tiles, but we played a mirror map, I had just as many water tiles as you did! What a dumb thing to say.

You also say you were "too good" to build some cities at the end to get your points up. What a load of bull. haha. "too good" to win, what an amazing concept.

Save your breath guys, Eyes will NEVER admit when he is beaten. I've been playing him for 6 years now. He never has and he never will. Even now he is saying I never beat him at Civ2, haha. Sure he beat me more often than I beat him, but the real trick to his madness is that whenever I (or anyone) beats him he doesn't really count it. Its the maps fault, or some other factor beyond his control.

I bet if I counted all the games we played of Civ2 where he quit after the first 30 or 40 turns because of bad land I might even have more wins than him. He wants perfect conditions and has very exact settings he requires for Civ2. His problem now is that he hasn't yet found his perfect custom setting and play style that he can use every time. Once he does, perhaps he'll start liking Civ4 more. Until then he'll keep making excuses.

What is very interesting too was when the game started (and this isn't an uncommon EON tactic), he hedged the game. Creating an excuse ahead of time before the game really got going to cover any potential loss in the future. Early in the game he said something to the effect of "you'll probably win, the land is in your favor, you'll see".

So before we even got started he framed the game in such a way that had I won honestly (unlike using the 'broken game system' to sleeze points) he would have just credited that to the map and not admitted REAL defeat.

Furthermore he blames the stupid point system (and I agree, winning on points is a pretty cheap way to win a game), but HE PICKED THE SETTINGS. If he didn't want to set up the game so it was decided on points after a certain time limit, he could have set it that way. I didn't even argue about the settings. I just went with whatever he picked.

So was the map and land in my favor? We had the same land!

Did I unfairly utilize and understand the point system? He picked that option! And he has played many more games than me!

One last point about the game being weighted toward defense and it being very difficult to take cities. In the first game we played, yes that's true, the big stack of horse archers he sent against me got chewed up by my promoted spearmen. But the big stack of jaguar warriors destroyed one of his cities without a loss, and had he not quit right there, would have marched on and destroyed the rest of his cities. So offense seems to work just fine, just not for him for some reason....

Ah well, its no use, after 6 years he still hasn't admitted honest defeat. But its always incredibly entertaining.

Thanks for making my day Eyes (twice) ;D

[ozzykp]

eyesofnight said:

The problem is that the game doesn't allow anyone to gain any sort of lead. It bogs everyone down into one way and the only real way to win is to take a city. The expansion and city growth has been curbed to such an extreme that even a rank amateur can keep up with you if he reads the instruction guide. Where is the wonder in this game? Caunucksolder tells me there isn't any wonder. What strategy game has no wonder to it? What strategy game forces everyone down to the same level? This game has taken everything that was great about civ and turned it into a joke. They took out the hallmark of civilization, expansion, and now we have a bogged down game that nobody can seem to get ahead on. If you tinker with the basic tenants of game as old as civ there are going to be consequences.

Translation: The strategies I spent years perfecting in Civ2 that I used to dominate everyone (on my settings) no longer work.

[StarlightDeath]

What was your ranking on civleague? What was mine? Who created the way civ2 is played? The fact that you are trying to say that you were on my level in civ2 is a joke and to be honest it's really sad because you were at the bottom of the ladder. You can get away with that nuts on here only because these guys weren't around for civ2 and they don't remember you. The fact is you were one of the lowest players on the league and I was number 1 with the highest points ever.

[StarlightDeath]

Translation: The strategies I spent years perfecting in Civ2 that I used to dominate everyone (on my settings) no longer work.

Ah, so that strategy I used last game was my strategy from civ2? I think we have very different definitions of strategy. Your definition of strategy is anything that helps you win. My definition of strategy is something that actually takes thought. Why don't you go ahead and explain to everyone exactly what I did last game that was so civ2 like. I'd love to hear it.

[ozzykp]

eyesofnight said:

What was your ranking on civleague? What was mine? Who created the way civ2 is played? The fact that you are trying to say that you were on my level in civ2 is a joke and to be honest it's really sad because you were at the bottom of the ladder. You can get away with that nuts on here only because these guys weren't around for civ2 and they don't remember you. The fact is you were one of the lowest players on the league and I was number 1 with the highest points ever.

1. I believe my highest rank was 8
2. I was always in the top 20 or so
3. I played a fraction of the games you did, and didn't obsess over the game just so I could get a higher rank.
4. I've admitted several times in this thread that you are a better player at Civ2 than me. You are. But by no means were you as incredibly dominating as you let on.
5. Yes, you created the way Civ2 was played, but this isn't Civ2!

[StarlightDeath]

No your highest rank wasn't 8 and you weren't top 20. Stop the bullnuts. You weren't a good civ2 player. You're trying to make yourself out to be so that it doesn't look like you went from a bad civ2 player to suddenly a good civ4 player which would in fact confirm everything I've said.

[Trayk]

sparta said:

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

maybe we should load up on crying towels too!! ;D

[ozzykp]

eyesofnight said:

I think we have very different definitions of strategy. Your definition of strategy is anything that helps you win. My definition of strategy is something that actually takes thought.

hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Clearly putting more thought into a losing strategy is the mark of a superior player!

Perhaps we should replace the point system (and the whole messy combat system) with a feature that tracks our emitted brain waves during the game to see who did the deepest thinking during the game.

Actually, deciding games on the quality of people's thoughts and intelligence would be a good idea. Then I'd never lose a game to you!

haha!

[StarlightDeath]

Do you really want to compare IQ's with me ozzy? Your whole accomplishment in life is fighting for youth rights. It's as bad as the civil rights movement that will last for eternity as they continue to cry they are being descriminated against. News flash ozzy, nobody cares about your "cause". The fact is I had to put way more thought into civ2 and AOC than this game. I haven't once looked at a save to see how people did something. I haven't once wondered about how someone won. Not once have I played someone and thought "How the hell did he do that?". I spent hours upon hours pouring over saved games and studying them to understand how the game works and how to build an unstoppable strategy in civ2. In AOC watched recorded game after recorded game for years to figure out how the better players play. This game...there's nothing to learn or wonder. It always comes down to just a few simple things.

[Trayk]

eyesofnight said:

What was your ranking on civleague? What was mine? Who created the way civ2 is played?

Being the greatest at Civ2 is like saying I was the best Dinosaur slayer in my cave clan!! ITS ANCIENT HISTORY!!

[ozzykp]

Oh, turning personal, nice touch.

If this game just comes down to a few simple things, then couldn't you, as a master player, master those few simple things and win every time?

Surely with 20+ games under your belt you should have a better mastery of those simple things than a newbie like me who has only played two games online so far (both wins against you).

[StarlightDeath]

If we play checkers can you get 10 pieces on me? No, because the game doesn't allow that. Even a completely beginner can whittle you down to a 4-4 game. However, the better player will eek out the win by taking that one piece. CIv4 is like that, only worse. You spend the entire game close in points and there isn't much you can do except maybe try and attack a city. The game just doesn't allow you to gain a lead because the game was designed with that in mind. As I said before, would you rather appeal to the beginning player or a hardcore gamer like me? It's an obvious answer and for someone like me there is no way around it.

[ozzykp]

If you didn't want a timed game decided by points then don't pick a timed game decided by points.

YOU made it a 'checkers match' don't whine to me about it.

[StarlightDeath]

Did you happen to look at the year ozzy? It was 1600 AD. There are only so many turns in a game. Where would you have been in civ2 by turn 150?

[ozzykp]

despite the fact that I am truly enjoying this back and forth, I've wasted too much time on it and I need to get back to work.

Have a nice day.

[StarlightDeath]

No reply to my last post ozzy? Maybe you just didn't have time, but you sure had time to try and come up with a lame way to get out of it.