Let Us Talk About Germany!!!

I.LOVE.GIRLS.GIRLS.GIRLS wrote:

naw quite the opposite actually, came up outta the ghetto to canada..right buzz.


and WOW buzz, you must be seeniale!!!! do you not remember the whole Ivan hacking my account thing?? he got kicked out of TRT when allbinx found it again....

and for your information, i actually passed math with a good 51% !

hahahaha was fun to make u get pissed

it was fun when stenio1212 stole ALL of yours n wigs' accounts too! listening to you BEG to have them back XD

I.LOVE.GIRLS.GIRLS.GIRLS wrote:

it was fun when stenio1212 stole ALL of yours n wigs' accounts too! listening to you BEG to have them back XD

lol not my accounts

_spunk_ wrote:

and do u really think the masses are gunna start copying new strats i kinda doubt it. my strats aint thr best but i no i aitn gunna start copying everyone else strats just so i can have 50-100 more points , im all about the fighting

I often drop what I consider "unneeded" booming cards for a more militaristic style of play, such as the Coin Trickle with Otto/Spain, Wood cards with Port (I haven't used those in centuries), etc.

I value the strength of a civilisations army more than 50 points in a boom, because if I dominate the first fight and can jump on you before you're prepared because of that, it can win me the game way faster than 50 points in score.

lets give some % to the things that really matters in a tr game

30% boom
20% base
50% fighting

i am possible wrong but anyidea?

seems reasonable

sapikles wrote:

lets give some % to the things that really matters in a tr game

30% boom
20% base
50% fighting

i am possible wrong but anyidea?

absolutely you are off.

every civ for the most part has the same units, + or - a couple of unique ones.

the actuall boom for every civ is done slightly dif and for most others drasticly dif.

the fighting is all the same xcept for movement and traintimes. hmmm an epiphany!

call it what you want but i wont put % on it. the so called fighters,boomers, and artists will allhave an opinion.

i added artist for sandy and his walling

Saying that 50% of treaty playing is in your fighting isn't that off, your decisions in fighting affect the out-come of the game more than any other decisions, while truly horrible booms can hurt a team, at high ranks it's more often that you get maybe a 100 point difference in boom between players even when they do bad, base layout affects your ability to defend well, but doesn't explicitly determine a game, Sanderson is a prime example.

Sanderson, Alan, Dan, Ivan, Kerk, Myself and pretty much all of the other top players place the most emphasis on combat, specifically micro, strategy and teamwork (with Kerk and me, macro too, we're obsessive about keeping balanced economies for our needs, etc), because of this we usually fair better in fighting than we do in booming (although we're still fairly good boomers), for example Kerk only does around 2200-2300 with British now because he doesn't wood trade, but he utilizes the additional card he gains to get his army rolling faster, keeping him up and on top of his opponent.

I know for a fact Me, Sanderson, Ivan, Alan and Dan apply similar thoughts to our play styles, we view combat as the main thing that decides a game. Each of us have our own distinctive styles:

Sanderson is flexible, differing styles for different civilisations.
Ivan is similar but prefers melee civilisations from my experience.
Alan and Dan are near clones of each other and fight very similar, adaptable but tend to prefer infantry/cavalry combat.
Me and Kerk are meat and cannon players, we love artillery warfare, so we need a solid meat shield to cover a large artillery base.

The thing is though we all are pretty good at our respective styles, we don't usually win games on our economy, we win on our army and fighting.

Just my long 2 cent opinion.

Brett wrote:

Sanderson is flexible

Mmm... stretches..

dan?

EddieG/Sozmeboy.

ah

who is girls girls girls

Brett wrote:

Saying that 50% of treaty playing is in your fighting isn't that off, your decisions in fighting affect the out-come of the game more than any other decisions, while truly horrible booms can hurt a team, at high ranks it's more often that you get maybe a 100 point difference in boom between players even when they do bad, base layout affects your ability to defend well, but doesn't explicitly determine a game, Sanderson is a prime example.

Sanderson, Alan, Dan, Ivan, Kerk, Myself and pretty much all of the other top players place the most emphasis on combat, specifically micro, strategy and teamwork (with Kerk and me, macro too, we're obsessive about keeping balanced economies for our needs, etc), because of this we usually fair better in fighting than we do in booming (although we're still fairly good boomers), for example Kerk only does around 2200-2300 with British now because he doesn't wood trade, but he utilizes the additional card he gains to get his army rolling faster, keeping him up and on top of his opponent.

I know for a fact Me, Sanderson, Ivan, Alan and Dan apply similar thoughts to our play styles, we view combat as the main thing that decides a game. Each of us have our own distinctive styles:

Sanderson is flexible, differing styles for different civilisations.
Ivan is similar but prefers melee civilisations from my experience.[yea ports is all mele action.Alan and Dan are near clones of each other and fight very similar, adaptable but tend to prefer infantry/cavalry combat.
Me and Kerk are meat and cannon players, we love artillery warfare, so we need a solid meat shield to cover a large artillery base.

The thing is though we all are pretty good at our respective styles, we don't usually win games on our economy, we win on our army and fighting.



Just my long 2 cent opinion.

i wont debate you on the "boomers" fighters" thingy. nor will i class a player into a catagory, since no single game is the same.

Brett wrote:

Saying that 50% of treaty playing is in your fighting isn't that off, your decisions in fighting affect the out-come of the game more than any other decisions, while truly horrible booms can hurt a team, at high ranks it's more often that you get maybe a 100 point difference in boom between players even when they do bad, base layout affects your ability to defend well, but doesn't explicitly determine a game, Sanderson is a prime example.

Sanderson, Alan, Dan, Ivan, Kerk, Myself and pretty much all of the other top players place the most emphasis on combat, specifically micro, strategy and teamwork (with Kerk and me, macro too, we're obsessive about keeping balanced economies for our needs, etc), because of this we usually fair better in fighting than we do in booming (although we're still fairly good boomers), for example Kerk only does around 2200-2300 with British now because he doesn't wood trade, but he utilizes the additional card he gains to get his army rolling faster, keeping him up and on top of his opponent.

I know for a fact Me, Sanderson, Ivan, Alan and Dan apply similar thoughts to our play styles, we view combat as the main thing that decides a game. Each of us have our own distinctive styles:

Sanderson is flexible, differing styles for different civilisations.
Ivan is similar but prefers melee civilisations from my experience.
Alan and Dan are near clones of each other and fight very similar, adaptable but tend to prefer infantry/cavalry combat.
Me and Kerk are meat and cannon players, we love artillery warfare, so we need a solid meat shield to cover a large artillery base.

The thing is though we all are pretty good at our respective styles, we don't usually win games on our economy, we win on our army and fighting.

Just my long 2 cent opinion.

i guess him playing games with me for the last 5 years hes kinda copied my style shame he cant copy my headshot pwnage in FPS's

Ivan doesn't really play a whole lot of Ports, it's not like he's SilentNightmare or anything, infact I see him play Spain and Germany more than Ports.

Besides, I stated he's similar to Sanderson but seems to be bias towards melee-style civilisations. That doesn't mean it's all he does..

Also, that's all merely my observations, if those players want to correct me in my analysis from what I've seen from them they're free too, but I'd say it's all pretty basic info on their play styles so...

melee is what all the cool guys do...

well german does infact have the best mele unit besides sams. but guess what, x2 pop is fine for the dopple but wheres our musket. german isnt a mele civ. the dopples are used mostly for siege.

imo the best mele civs are otto/jans, india/sepoy. see these units can interchange between the two mades of action. unlike germany who cant.

lets try to mele with skirms, then try to combat the lameness of out popping the german civ with 1 pop units by the opponent is just not fun. especially vs a civ like brits with the range of long bows the dopples are useless except for siege. 3 ww can defend the main area of attack from cav but unless german civ uses movemet they wont win vs head on fight when being totally outranged and trained times.

what about aztecs lol. 1/2 their units are hand