FIN vs RX7

you believe what you want there.

cmontuptim wrote:

It wont work...lol

Why do you think China became so popular and consequently called OP?
Its because it probably the only civ who is guarenteed to beat port lol...Iro do well vs them in team games (i think) but iro is too hard to play lol

And unless you plan to build 20 mortars buzz you wont be able to get all the rax/castles down fast enough to win...
China players are notorious for either building a shitload of walls (josh style ^^) or building a shitload of buildings...
They wont have them all in one spot...You will have to get within range of china mortars if you plan to get them all...
Mortars wont win you the game unless you can keep them alive...which you cant do vs china...

Thats disregarding ports army has no hope at all of standing against china army

i would like to play you this matchup 1 v 1 soon

u china me port

sapikles wrote:

cmontuptim wrote:

It wont work...lol

Why do you think China became so popular and consequently called OP?
Its because it probably the only civ who is guarenteed to beat port lol...Iro do well vs them in team games (i think) but iro is too hard to play lol

And unless you plan to build 20 mortars buzz you wont be able to get all the rax/castles down fast enough to win...
China players are notorious for either building a shitload of walls (josh style ^^) or building a shitload of buildings...
They wont have them all in one spot...You will have to get within range of china mortars if you plan to get them all...
Mortars wont win you the game unless you can keep them alive...which you cant do vs china...

Thats disregarding ports army has no hope at all of standing against china army

i would like to play you this matchup 1 v 1 soon

u china me port

That wouldn't be a civ-measuring game

No thanks sap, vsing people who run with every civ like you is a waste of time
Would rather not play tbh lol

*edit for typos lol

cmontuptim wrote:

No thanks sap, vsing people who run with every civ like you is a waste of time
Would rather not play tbh lol

*edit for typos lol

lmfao. savory in disguiese? whats with all these pansies who are in trt now.

dont worry ivan, thats what they say when they dont want to lose.

i think ivan and i and one more should join whiplash tourney as a clan and lay some ownage down!

Buck the System wrote:

cmontuptim wrote:

No thanks sap, vsing people who run with every civ like you is a waste of time
Would rather not play tbh lol

*edit for typos lol

lmfao. savory in disguiese? whats with all these pansies who are in trt now.

dont worry ivan, thats what they say when they dont want to lose.

i think ivan and i and one more should join whiplash tourney as a clan and lay some ownage down!

yes please do i cant wait for that

yea that sounds like totally fab team, ill just build 10+ walls and they lose automatically

Might also need to point out that im not in trt...

Oh and saying i dont want to play vs someone who spams seige units whole game from one side of the map to the other has nothing to do with winning or losing...Its just incredibly boring....Games for me = fun

If I want to vs a port who will just wall off and run with mortars and goons Ill go play vs some 2nd lts
At least they are low enough to be forgiven for thinking it is a skillful tactic...Unlike sap who should know better IMO

cmontuptim wrote:

Might also need to point out that im not in trt...

Oh and saying i dont want to play vs someone who spams seige units whole game from one side of the map to the other has nothing to do with winning or losing...Its just incredibly boring....Games for me = fun

If I want to vs a port who will just wall off and run with mortars and goons Ill go play vs some 2nd lts
At least they are low enough to be forgiven for thinking it is a skillful tactic...Unlike sap who should know better IMO

omg man, what do you think you know? theres a reason ivan and other players ranks are far and above the others who have stalled. they play the game as it needs to be played.

if anything bitch at sandy, hes the most misdirection player that i see on here mostly. call it what you want, but this is how the top of the top got there. by confusing.

ok there wooden staues, got it?

the top of the top..? there more or less even with most of the top players who are about today only thing whats wins games is civ choice and maybe about who runs where.

_spunk_ wrote:

the top of the top..? there more or less even with most of the top players who are about today only thing whats wins games is civ choice and maybe about who runs where.

Which is legitimately how a game should be at high levels, look at the top supremecy players, they are so even in skill that minor imbalances could be exploited.

That said, in treaty civilisation imbalances are worse than in supremecy, Port and Spain for example reign in above the other non-OPs because of exploitable imbalances in their military/economy balance, for example Portugal is extremely good because of their fast artillery combined with good economy for a non-eco civ, which can easily support their infantry/cavalry/artillery.

Buck the System wrote:

cmontuptim wrote:

Might also need to point out that im not in trt...

Oh and saying i dont want to play vs someone who spams seige units whole game from one side of the map to the other has nothing to do with winning or losing...Its just incredibly boring....Games for me = fun

If I want to vs a port who will just wall off and run with mortars and goons Ill go play vs some 2nd lts
At least they are low enough to be forgiven for thinking it is a skillful tactic...Unlike sap who should know better IMO

omg man, what do you think you know? theres a reason ivan and other players ranks are far and above the others who have stalled. they play the game as it needs to be played.

if anything bitch at sandy, hes the most misdirection player that i see on here mostly. call it what you want, but this is how the top of the top got there. by confusing.

ok there wooden staues, got it?

Im not saying people shouldnt move if the opportunity arises...Thats retarded...
But for your entire game strategy to be spamming seige units is equally retarded in my opinion...And thats all it is...An opinion
A well timed move from one location to another wins games, we all know this...No point going into it...We all know the importance of map control and how you can end a game faster by convincing one of your opponents to think they are being doubled on a constant basis (therefore getting pissed off and resigning ^^)

Like all things, I beleive there is an obligation by the higher ranked/better (in most cases) players not to overkill these strategies...
Yes germans should dopple rush from time to time, its useful for clearing a fb, or flanking, or even buying yourself a bit of time...
But for a top player to think "im going to go german and dopple rush all game that will be lololololol" is just ridiculous...
We all say that each civ has strengths and weaknesses, and the key to winning is to use your strengths and exploit opponent weaknesses, but playing a heavy seige game isnt doing this...
All civs have some sort of useful seige unit (although china probably the least as pikes come with ckn/keshik...lots of killing...) so where is the challenge, or the skill in this?
People like you buzz are the reason online games were alot more fun when it was just the nerds playing them :p
The online world is too much like the real world now...FUll of over-aged, unemployed smacktards who think winning is everything...

Im in the minority but id rather not win if i am just going to play a lame strat to win =\
Kerk always says there is no pride in losing, but ive thought about it, and i disagree...
If you play in the spirit of the game and lose to someone who isnt, then to me that makes you better than them...
The fact they feel the need to resort to such lame tactics shows that they arent as skillful as they need to be to win a proper game as that civ doesnt it?
Winning = Nothing if you didnt deserve it IMO...
But thats the difference between us...And why Ill never make it "to The Top"
Saying that...Not sure i mind
Average is good enough for me :p

Defeat isn't honourable nor prideful, there's no honour in defeat. Whether someone "respects" you or thinks they're "better" than you doesn't mean shit if they don't win.

If runners beat you, fair and square (no cheating HM, etc), then it's perfectly legitimate and they won with a better tactic and teamwork. "Lame tactics" can work and winning with "lame tactics" is still deserved. I enjoy playing with Kerk because he shares a similar mindset and we mesh together really well as a team.

Brett wrote:

_spunk_ wrote:

the top of the top..? there more or less even with most of the top players who are about today only thing whats wins games is civ choice and maybe about who runs where.

Which is legitimately how a game should be at high levels, look at the top supremecy players, they are so even in skill that minor imbalances could be exploited.

That said, in treaty civilisation imbalances are worse than in supremecy, Port and Spain for example reign in above the other non-OPs because of exploitable imbalances in their military/economy balance, for example Portugal is extremely good because of their fast artillery combined with good economy for a non-eco civ, which can easily support their infantry/cavalry/artillery.

hmmmm civs i dont use. what a coincidense. i use the garbage!

cmontuptim wrote:

Buck the System wrote:

cmontuptim wrote:

Might also need to point out that im not in trt...

Oh and saying i dont want to play vs someone who spams seige units whole game from one side of the map to the other has nothing to do with winning or losing...Its just incredibly boring....Games for me = fun

If I want to vs a port who will just wall off and run with mortars and goons Ill go play vs some 2nd lts
At least they are low enough to be forgiven for thinking it is a skillful tactic...Unlike sap who should know better IMO

omg man, what do you think you know? theres a reason ivan and other players ranks are far and above the others who have stalled. they play the game as it needs to be played.

if anything bitch at sandy, hes the most misdirection player that i see on here mostly. call it what you want, but this is how the top of the top got there. by confusing.

ok there wooden staues, got it?

Im not saying people shouldnt move if the opportunity arises...Thats retarded...
But for your entire game strategy to be spamming seige units is equally retarded in my opinion...And thats all it is...An opinion
A well timed move from one location to another wins games, we all know this...No point going into it...We all know the importance of map control and how you can end a game faster by convincing one of your opponents to think they are being doubled on a constant basis (therefore getting pissed off and resigning ^^)

Like all things, I beleive there is an obligation by the higher ranked/better (in most cases) players not to overkill these strategies...
Yes germans should dopple rush from time to time, its useful for clearing a fb, or flanking, or even buying yourself a bit of time...
But for a top player to think "im going to go german and dopple rush all game that will be lololololol" is just ridiculous...
We all say that each civ has strengths and weaknesses, and the key to winning is to use your strengths and exploit opponent weaknesses, but playing a heavy seige game isnt doing this...
All civs have some sort of useful seige unit (although china probably the least as pikes come with ckn/keshik...lots of killing...) so where is the challenge, or the skill in this?
People like you buzz are the reason online games were alot more fun when it was just the nerds playing them :p
The online world is too much like the real world now...FUll of over-aged, unemployed smacktards who think winning is everything...

Im in the minority but id rather not win if i am just going to play a lame strat to win =\
Kerk always says there is no pride in losing, but ive thought about it, and i disagree...
If you play in the spirit of the game and lose to someone who isnt, then to me that makes you better than them...
The fact they feel the need to resort to such lame tactics shows that they arent as skillful as they need to be to win a proper game as that civ doesnt it?
Winning = Nothing if you didnt deserve it IMO...
But thats the difference between us...And why Ill never make it "to The Top"
Saying that...Not sure i mind
Average is good enough for me :p

ok i hear all you said and sure its acceptable ,but.to say a dopple rush is hard to stop is just clueless. now they are also, imo germanys best unit so im suppse to not use them for what they are......siege? i kniow from experience they arent for sitting back and guarding skirms and such. they are mobile and heavy siege so wtf. now also to sya that someone will play the civ the same way every time they play them is jusy crazy also. unless youve become a robot, every game is different.

Never said it was hard to stop...lol...

Annoying does not = hard
Its almost winning by boring your opponent to death =\

And brett...There is honour in defeat...Its a concept most people dont get (almost said americans but its not just yanks...lol) but honour/pride/whatever should come before victory...

Yes im very aware this is a game...
Saying that, if its just a game why is there the urge to lame and bs each other anyway?

Id rather not win the game if at the end i say to myself "was that worth the 40 mins of treaty?"
My opinion is no doubt warped by the fact that for a year i dropped from 30% of games cos of my shit net (kind of puts winning and losing into perspective if you dont get the chance to do either alot lol) but surely you can comprehend the difference between a win and a good game?

If you cant, you should quit and find a new uncompetitive hobby ^^

Buck the System wrote:

Brett wrote:

_spunk_ wrote:

the top of the top..? there more or less even with most of the top players who are about today only thing whats wins games is civ choice and maybe about who runs where.

Which is legitimately how a game should be at high levels, look at the top supremecy players, they are so even in skill that minor imbalances could be exploited.

That said, in treaty civilisation imbalances are worse than in supremecy, Port and Spain for example reign in above the other non-OPs because of exploitable imbalances in their military/economy balance, for example Portugal is extremely good because of their fast artillery combined with good economy for a non-eco civ, which can easily support their infantry/cavalry/artillery.

hmmmm civs i dont use. what a coincidense. i use the garbage!

ottos, india, and germany aren't garbage if you have a clue what you're doing...
Also, I agree with cmon on this one. I believe there can be honor/pride in defeat. For one, knowing that you became a stronger player creates a sense of pride imo. Losing is how you get stronger. Also, stronger players can still lose from time to time, and it's not always their fault. Let's say your allies can't hold their own, but you're obliterating an enemy player. You may lose, but you were still the stronger one at the end of the day. I'm sure we've all had noob partners before, and you can say that they were a better team, but not stronger players. Winning at all costs, despite being a douchebag, doesn't seem like a game played for fun imo.

cmontuptim wrote:

Never said it was hard to stop...lol...

Annoying does not = hard
Its almost winning by boring your opponent to death =\

And brett...There is honour in defeat...Its a concept most people dont get (almost said americans but its not just yanks...lol) but honour/pride/whatever should come before victory...

Yes im very aware this is a game...
Saying that, if its just a game why is there the urge to lame and bs each other anyway?

Id rather not win the game if at the end i say to myself "was that worth the 40 mins of treaty?"
My opinion is no doubt warped by the fact that for a year i dropped from 30% of games cos of my shit net (kind of puts winning and losing into perspective if you dont get the chance to do either alot lol) but surely you can comprehend the difference between a win and a good game?

If you cant, you should quit and find a new uncompetitive hobby ^^

Allow me to point out a huge logic flaw in your thinking: In a real war, if a General of your country failed to keep pace with the enemy and lost hundreds of thousands of lives, all because he was fighting some diversion of an army, while another army encircled his flanks or attacked and destroyed his ally, would you say "At least those hundreds of thousands of men died with honour and we lost the war with honour"?

Fuck no. You'd be outraged at the General, he'd be relieved of command and you'd replace him with someone that has a fucking brain.

Saying there's honor in death and defeat is a false concept drummed up by useless romantics who don't understand real war, the Samurai bushido code had it's zenith in an era where there was almost no military conflicts to speak of in Japan, the Knight's of Medieval Europe didn't win wars because they fought head up and "with honour", they won because of smart strategic planning and ruthless combat.

The core military text on tactics and strategy, the one every Modern day General has read, Sun Tzu's The Art of War, teaches a simple principle that fighting for glory leads to defeat and fighting for victory leads to victory, he also regards information gathering, misdirection and movement to be key things that win a war.

There's no glory in defeat, say what you want but whoever walks away the victor is the still the victor, in a game or in real life. Yes, I got serious here, but even in a game, victory is more fun than defeat, so playing to win is playing for fun too.

for some reason your confusing real life with a game...... id rather get beat in agme by fighting then be a lame arse and run around all over the place

_spunk_ wrote:

for some reason your confusing real life with a game...... id rather get beat in agme by fighting then be a lame arse and run around all over the place

Quoting myself: "There's no glory in defeat, say what you want but whoever walks away the victor is the still the victor, in a game or in real life. Yes, I got serious here, but even in a game, victory is more fun than defeat, so playing to win is playing for fun too."

I'm not confusing a game with real life, I'm just being simplistic and applying one thought process to both rather than saying "oh it's okay to loose because I 'played with honour'" in a game, where I'd never accept that in anything else, if I don't give something my all I always feel worse for it.

I dunno, a game might be just a game, but that logic applies the same in a game as it does at anything else, there's no fun in loosing without giving it your all. Doing everything within your power to try and win seems more fun than loosing to me.

each to there own i guess.....

Sorry Brett...But if "giving it your all" is running around like a bitch then you may aswell not bother playing because your too retarded anyway...

And to say there is no honour in defeat is a very odd statement...
It comes down to the idea of playing in the spirit of the game...

As high ranks dont we owe it to each other to show respect to the abilities we have?
For example...Sure me and alan bitch at each other alot, and wind each other up...And if he ever plays with me again (lol) I still wouldnt chose a lame ass strat to use against him...
For no other reason than because he is a good player, and I have moments where I am a good player, and a good game comes from good players playing properly...

The issue I have with saps style is this...
He is a good player playing a proper heads up fighting game...
But he chooses to play a style of play which is boring for everyone else in the room...
Its a lack of respect for other players who have
a) spent the time practicing and working on their game to become skillful enough to play with the higher ranks
and
b) spent an hour of real time booming and preparing for a fun fight...

It is no surprise sap excels in rush tbh, because its this stlye of play that suits rush players (raid raid raid..)
But its also why rush is 99% 12 year old inbreds who dont have two brain cells to rub together...

The thought that as we get higher we lower our playing standards is unacceptable for me to consider...lol...
Dont get me wrong...I fucking HATE losing...But I would still take the loss if at the end of the day I can feel confident that if the fight had been proper I could of won..

I hate chasing, so why would I want to inflict boredom on somebody else?
Im here for fun, and I assume thats true for the most part...
A good game is what we all want (as high ranks and as low ranks) and I dont see why people need to ruin that for everybody else in the room...

Its like noob bashing...Yes you get the win...But its not a good game...And its hardly ever fun =\
So why bother?
Spend 40 mins studying or jerking off or reading a book or something...
Games die when the spirit of the game leaves, its whats happening to treaty because people arent enjoying it anymore...
And the people to blame are those who put winning before everything else...
Instead of dopple rushing, why not just drop trick your opponents as 2:01?
Just as fun for both teams and you save yourself some time...

Something to consider

EDIT*

And your comparison to a real life war is way off Brett...
You are confusing real life rewards or reasons for war with a game...
Winning is not worth giving up your honour...
Where as in real life, you may be doing it to save your country, or stop something that effects the entire world...
Dont get them mixed up

_spunk_ wrote:

each to there own i guess.....

exactly, and why i reserve the right not to play against certain people that feel that way about a game made for fun. go play the sims if you feel that way about a game, you never lose!!!

Sims is Awesome!!...I mean *cough* totally gay...yeah...gay...

No military tactician on the face of the earth would say that mobility and strategy is being a bitch, out-manoeuvring and out-thinking the enemy is what you're supposed to do. If people won't exploit it, I will, if I can win by head to head, I'll win it that way, if I can win by out-manoeuvring you, I'll win it that way.

I already countered your "Don't confuse a game with real life" argument, too, when replying to Alan. There's no reason to apply a different mindset to a strategy game as you would to a real war, even if the circumstances are different. Victory is victory.

There's no honour in defeat and you can't convince me of anything to the contrary.