Sword Civ/Start

Moderator: taco

Post Reply
User avatar
Omega
Administrator
Posts: 1807
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:56 pm
Lobby Username: [-Ts-] Ωmega
Location: Washington, DC / USA
Contact:

Sword Civ/Start

Post by Omega »

Source: Omega at original EE Train Forum

"The Civilization you should be using has Build Time Decrease and Cost Reduction on Buildings. It has Hunting and Foraging and Iron Mining for Economy. It has Sword Attack, Hit Points, Speed, Cost Reduction, and Build Time Decrease. It has 6 'free' points, which you can use for whatever as long as it's not bad--two non-bad things you can put are either Citizen Speed and Siege Range, or Citizen Hit Points and Siege Cost Reduction. The Civilization you should be using does not have Farming, and it does not have Sword Armor.

The start you are using should be able to get 15 swords at 3 f11. Your start should also get towers up relatively quickly. Your start should allow for an unbroken sword timeline, and an unbroken citizen timeline. A decent sword start which can achieve all of the aforementioned things you should be able to do is:

1. Select Capitol, make 5 Citizens.
2. Select 6 Citizens and send them to an Iron Mine.
3. Repeat step 2, but send your Citizens to a different Iron Mine, obviously.
4. Load your Civilization.
5. Select 2 Citizens and tell them to make a Barrack.
6. Select 3 Citizens and tell them to make a Barrack.
7. Repeat step 6.
8. Select 1 Citizen at one of your Iron Mines and tell them to make a Settlement.
9. Repeat step 8, but select a Citizen at a different Iron Mine, obviously.
10. When your Barracks are completed make Swords at them. It may help to put all 3 of your Barracks on a hotkey.
11. When your Barracks are finished, select 3 Citizens and tell them to make a Tower somewhere where a Tower is needed.
12. Repeat step 11 two times.

I will allow everyone to figure out exactly the rest of what you should end up doing... However you should be putting people on food (hippos/hunt/forage) until you have enough food coming in, after which you should rally to wood... It should be noted that it is sometimes a wise move not to make Towers (or as many towers) and instead work on a Wall. Sometimes 3 Towers is what you want, other times it is 4. Making only 3 Towers means you have more Stone for 4 Houses and/or a partial Wall. Making 4 Towers means you have stone for 2 Houses or a partial Wall. It should also be noted that hunt will gather faster than forage, and certain types of hunt such as Hippos, Elephants, and Walruses can easily be lured to a Settlement or Capitol eliminating travel time. Early returning Iron is something you are going to need to do to keep continuous Sword production up, so make sure you do it. Finally, you should make it your goal to get a Warrior Hero around 16 f11."
Image

Shang
Forum Noob
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:03 pm

Re: Sword Civ/Start

Post by Shang »

You dont need sword hp on swords. And shouldnt go swords if ur forced to make 4 towers. Best to stick with 3 and houses.

User avatar
Omega
Administrator
Posts: 1807
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:56 pm
Lobby Username: [-Ts-] Ωmega
Location: Washington, DC / USA
Contact:

Re: Sword Civ/Start

Post by Omega »

Shang wrote:You dont need sword hp on swords. And shouldnt go swords if ur forced to make 4 towers. Best to stick with 3 and houses.
What else would you suggest other than HP, and why is it possibly better than HP in a real game?

What should you go, then, if you'd be forced to make 4 towers assuming you made swords?

Why is it best to stick with 3 towers and houses always?

Before I write any kind of response to what you've said, it may help if you actually clarify what you're exactly saying, and what your reasons are for saying it are.
Image

User avatar
PeLlE
Nemesis
Posts: 708
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 10:44 am
Xfire: thepelie
Lobby Username: [-Ts-] Pelie
Location: Bayern, Germany ^^

Re: Sword Civ/Start

Post by PeLlE »

The only thing coming t my mind which is NOT already in this civ would be armor. I'm pretty sure that armor can be suefull in some very special cases, but in my oppinion HP is by far more suefull because it makes you swords useful in almost any situation. basicly I'd say hp is by far better than armor. You could also include soemthing else into your sword civs (a non-sword upgrade), but I don't see anything that is usefull since a single upgrade on another unit won't be more powerful than having 1 good equiped unit. All in all I'm pretty sure that the basic sword civ (which omega explained) is the best solution. I'm also interrested what you would put into your civ instead of HP.

And to the 3 towers and houses: This basicly depends on map and enemy. But for beginners I think its best to start with 4 towers. Later when they got the start they can start customizing it.
dreamwalker: i already clearly stated for all the english people that i dont play here
eeralf: ======???????????
eeralf: dont undersstand say it in street language
dreamwalker: fam mans already said im not gwarning wid yo shit on dis ting

User avatar
Omega
Administrator
Posts: 1807
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:56 pm
Lobby Username: [-Ts-] Ωmega
Location: Washington, DC / USA
Contact:

Re: Sword Civ/Start

Post by Omega »

Pelie wrote:And to the 3 towers and houses: This basicly depends on map and enemy.
Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!
Image

Shang
Forum Noob
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:03 pm

Re: Sword Civ/Start

Post by Shang »

Omega wrote:
Shang wrote:You dont need sword hp on swords. And shouldnt go swords if ur forced to make 4 towers. Best to stick with 3 and houses.
What else would you suggest other than HP, and why is it possibly better than HP in a real game?

What should you go, then, if you'd be forced to make 4 towers assuming you made swords?

Why is it best to stick with 3 towers and houses always?

Before I write any kind of response to what you've said, it may help if you actually clarify what you're exactly saying, and what your reasons are for saying it are.
First off, if you playing aoc, and rushing, don't put hp. better spent on cit upgrades or even slavery if ur feeling that way. Secondly, if you have a map so bad for swords, that your forced to make 4 towers, dont go swords, simple as that. If your irons are to spred out, go ca, or knights if your feeling lucky. Plus, if your rushing, houses will make your cits be able to take more hits, so if there rushing you, it'll help your cits stay alive in addition to making your swords that help out at your base stronger than the attacking ones.

User avatar
PeLlE
Nemesis
Posts: 708
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 10:44 am
Xfire: thepelie
Lobby Username: [-Ts-] Pelie
Location: Bayern, Germany ^^

Re: Sword Civ/Start

Post by PeLlE »

I don't know aoc, but I still bet, that a civ with hp is mor ebeginner friendly and easier to paly with than a civ without hp on swords. All mid games I played on aoc I was using a civ similar to omegas one and it worked just fine. I don't think that a civ without hp can handle towers or sword vs sword battles. HP on cits saves your cits from dieing tho.
dreamwalker: i already clearly stated for all the english people that i dont play here
eeralf: ======???????????
eeralf: dont undersstand say it in street language
dreamwalker: fam mans already said im not gwarning wid yo shit on dis ting

User avatar
Omega
Administrator
Posts: 1807
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:56 pm
Lobby Username: [-Ts-] Ωmega
Location: Washington, DC / USA
Contact:

Re: Sword Civ/Start

Post by Omega »

Shang wrote:First off, if you playing aoc, and rushing, don't put hp. better spent on cit upgrades or even slavery if ur feeling that way.
I disagree.

If you notice, citizen upgrades are already present. Either citizen speed or citizen hit points. If you drop sword hit points, you have 15 more points to spend on citizen upgrades. Citizen range is worthless; citizen build time decrease is worthless and you can't afford it; citizen cost reduction is unaffordable; citizen attack is worthless. So we're left with using our 15 points to buy either speed, or hit points, whichever we don't have in the civ. Since you said to drop it for cit upgrades OR slavery, I'm only considering cit upgrades here. Since that is exactly what you stated. This means you either have citizen attack or citizen range, and 5 or 6 points left over. Epic fail? This can't be correct? More importantly, if we assume that you need the extra citizen upgrade for survivability, we can conclude your opponent is trying to kill your citizens with swords. Period. Nothing else is going to be a threat that merits that much bonuses on citizens. This means you're essentially expecting that your opponent will be terrible for you to win, and that you will never need to engage his swords army to army, or most importantly need to present the threat of doing so and possibly winning.

As for Slavery, what are you smoking? Go test exactly what that power does. It's worthless. It's worthless in the early game even, when it's at it's most powerful point. The only time it's any good is when your opponents are extremely bad and you're going to run through 3 of them in 7 minutes of playing, killing all of their citizens, and in this case there is no point to having it, because you win no matter what. Against a good opponent, you won't kill that many citizens that slavery makes a huge difference in the early or middle games; your team won't kill that many either. Not enough citizens gained to force a win, not even enough to give you a very sizable advantage, not even enough to give you a moderate advantage. Towards the end of the middle game and late game, the ability to force and win direct confrontations is what wins the game. Slavery might as well not help you at all at this point at all, because you're not really gaining anything from it at all anymore, and any gain from it you do get has essentially zero value; on the other hand, sword hit points is extremely valuable at this stage of the game. Heck, sword hit points is more valuable at any stage of the game, except in the game where you've killed 3 of your opponents in 7 minutes.
Shang wrote:Secondly, if you have a map so bad for swords, that your forced to make 4 towers, dont go swords, simple as that. If your irons are to spred out, go ca, or knights if your feeling lucky.
You are assuming that two things hold true to say this: 1) that if you have a bad map for swords, you have a better map for other units (I reduced what you imply significantly here to make your argument stronger; it sounds as if you really mean that if you have a bad map for swords you have a decent to good map for ca or knights), and 2) that making ca or knights instead of swords on wing will be better than making swords if you have a bad map for swords and a better map for ca or knights.

So let's start with #1. This is obviously false. Maps are random. You can have a terrible map for swords, that's even worse for some other unit. You can have a map with 1 stone mine and 2 trees, with 2 hippos that immediately run away from your base. You can have a map with a quadruple iron mine. It's random! It's possible that you have a terrible sword map, but that your map for ca or knights is better. Then again, the reverse is also entirely possible. Which means that you can't actually say what you're saying and have it hold true all of the time, which it would need to for your entire argument to be correct. However, for #2 I will simply assume that we are in the situation where you have a bad sword map, but a decent or good ca or knight map. I am trying to be generous to your arguments here.

#2... First of all, "luck" has nothing to do with knights on wing succeeding. The other side completely and totally failing at playing the game known as Empire Earth is what makes knights on wing succeed. Nothing short of that will do it. I have a hard time thinking you're even serious at this point now that you've suggested this.

So, how about cav archers? It's certainly a possibility, but you need a few things to be right. First of all, you don't need a decent ca map, or a good ca map, you need a great to amazing ca map. If you don't have that, you will not be able to defend well enough against a good player. Second, your pockets base needs to be good enough that the other team can't force a win simply by going straight to him when they can't get at you. Third, and most important, is that the circumstances need to be such that cav archers will have more of a positive contribution than swords with a bad map would in this situation.

If all of those hold true, I agree, cav archers it is. However, for a very significant amount of the time, in fact the majority of it, still going swords is THE best option. Period.
Shang wrote:Plus, if your rushing, houses will make your cits be able to take more hits, so if there rushing you, it'll help your cits stay alive in addition to making your swords that help out at your base stronger than the attacking ones.
Yes, houses reduce the amount of damage taken. Yes, houses are good.

I do find it interesting that you advocate the use of houses to make your defending swords stronger (i.e. live longer), but think that hit points is crap for making all of your swords stronger (i.e. live longer).

I also find it telling that you somehow think defending swords in your base really need to live longer for some reason, along with your citizens. If they're trying to eco rape you, they're not going to engage your swords in your base where you have a serious advantage of houses and towers. They're just going to kill your citizens. Not attack your swords. That is, unless they're idiots. (Please note: they might attack your swords under these conditions if they can win, or gain an advantage by doing this; then again, if this is the case you probably need to suck less)
Image

Shang
Forum Noob
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:03 pm

Re: Sword Civ/Start

Post by Shang »

I'm getting tired of explaining this to someone who never really made a name for himself in the game. so I'm going to use as little words as possible.

first off, in writing these posts, im thinking of 1v1's mostly, just to throw that out there.

now lets start: cit speed AND hp would be an extreamly benificial thing to have. I cannot remember my sword rush civ that i had in ee, so im not certain that i had both. but Speed and hp on cits with a good micro around your base are very hard to kill. And with houses, the enemy might as well give up trying to send in swords and start massing and look to get richard before the other guy. And as for slavery, its probably the best power to have with your swords. If you cant kill 3 of your opponants cits withing 7 min, might as well quit the game, cuz your not going to win. The purpose of the sword civ is to cause havok to the enemy eco, which cant be acomplished without killing cits. (the one time i beat seizmic out of the 2 times i played him i won with a slavery sword civ. I'm well aware of what slavery does, and the first cit u kill, you get one. this makes sure ur not falling on your eco while your microing at his base. (i used to rally to wood, so i could get more racks and houses).
Next, if you are in a team game (3v3 or 4v4, (2v2 you still have a good option of going ca or knights)) and are wing, then your right, best option is swords. And still the better option is 3 towers and houses. tower around your forage and the closest iron near it (even if its far away) and then house up. your cits wont die and your swords will defend them better (increasing defence and damage). and people have gone knight before on wing and been successful (i.e pinky and dusk). Not to mention if you go expansionism, then you really dont need 4 towers, you can make you base compact and then boom out towards the mines.
and your last paragraph is very stupid, swords with houses will protect the cits the swords are attacking, while boosting the attack of your swords, ending the enemies attack that much faster.
Like i said before, your swords shouldnt be getting hit by anything out in the field. So hp is a waste. You stay away from sword battles if ur outnumbered, and keep away from towers. Im sure if i still played ee, and we 1v1'd you using your civ and me using one i make up, you would be pretty dissappointed.

User avatar
Omega
Administrator
Posts: 1807
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:56 pm
Lobby Username: [-Ts-] Ωmega
Location: Washington, DC / USA
Contact:

Re: Sword Civ/Start

Post by Omega »

Shang wrote:I'm getting tired of explaining this to someone who never really made a name for himself in the game. so I'm going to use as little words as possible.


Never really made a name for himself in the game? Really? This is actually comical. Although, I have no need to defend myself from your accusation, as even if true, my argument does not rest upon me being good at the game, meaning that even if I were the absolute worst player ever, it would have zero bearing on the merit of my argument. How about we just say my argument rests upon careul observation of an expert AoC player known for being good at swords?

More importantly, the fact you need to preface your argument with this, which basically amounts to an implicit logical fallacy, is really a sign of how weak your argument really is.
Shang wrote:first off, in writing these posts, im thinking of 1v1's mostly, just to throw that out there.
Thanks for finally stating this.
Shang wrote:now lets start: cit speed AND hp would be an extreamly benificial thing to have. I cannot remember my sword rush civ that i had in ee, so im not certain that i had both. but Speed and hp on cits with a good micro around your base are very hard to kill. And with houses, the enemy might as well give up trying to send in swords and start massing and look to get richard before the other guy.
I don't ever think I stated that cit speed and hit points together did not give citizen survivability bonuses that just having one did not confer. However, I do disagree that it's optimal, because there are simply better things that you can do with your civilization points. In fact, I think my objection to this might have gone something like...

"If you drop sword hit points, you have 15 more points to spend on citizen upgrades. Citizen range is worthless; citizen build time decrease is worthless and you can't afford it; citizen cost reduction is unaffordable; citizen attack is worthless. So we're left with using our 15 points to buy either speed, or hit points, whichever we don't have in the civ."

Well, actually that was an exact quote. Can you please explain what you use all those other points for, because you had stated that you could do additional citizen upgrades OR slavery, which implies they are mutually exclusive options. I'd really like to know what you use those points for, so I could actually comment on the use of them. Since you just said citizen upgrades though, logically we must conclude you mean buying stuff like citizen range in addition to speed/hp (whichever you're missing)... Which is obviously bad. So please present this alternative civilization with lots of citizen bonuses and no sword hit points that lacks slavery? I'd love to see what you do with the points.

---

Honestly, if you don't suck and have either hit points or speed, the game will last until at least one player has a hero. You don't need both to live that long and keep your eco, and you certainly do not need both to prevent your opponent from simply zerging swords directly at your cits irregardless of your swords and towers.
Shang wrote:And as for slavery, its probably the best power to have with your swords. If you cant kill 3 of your opponants cits withing 7 min, might as well quit the game, cuz your not going to win.
That honestly has no bearing on whether or not you win a game, although it can be a good indicator. Maybe it's a 1 vs 1, which on aoc means medium map, and they walled up? lol

If you kill 3 citizens in 7 minutes, then you gain 2 citizens from slavery. Is two citizens game-breaking? I think not. Then let's look at the costs... Which include 10 civ points.
Shang wrote:The purpose of the sword civ is to cause havok to the enemy eco, which cant be acomplished without killing cits.
Yeah, because causing them to simply run their citizens away or populate them or anything else which causes them to stop mining or mine at a much slower rate doesn't do anything to hurt their economy... Oh wait, I bet it does! And I bet players might advocate running citizens around (i.e. not mining) when they get attacked? Hey, I bet you've already done that here! Ohmy!

So would you agree that causing citizens to not mine at all for a period of time hurts someone's economy?

As far as that being the purpose of a sword civilization, partially yes, but not wholly. Swords are good for a lot of things other than killing citizens. And it's 100% obvious they are, as people continue to make them even into very late game, when everyone is walled up and killing citizens is unlikely.
Shang wrote:(the one time i beat seizmic out of the 2 times i played him i won with a slavery sword civ. I'm well aware of what slavery does, and the first cit u kill, you get one. this makes sure ur not falling on your eco while your microing at his base. (i used to rally to wood, so i could get more racks and houses).
1 extra citizen is not godly amazing. 2 extra citizens is not godly amazing. Yeah, it's a bonus. It's not a game-breaking bonus even if there were no costs at all, and there are most certainly costs to it.

As far as being seizmic goes, somehow I'm guessing it was a fluke... Or he was really, really drunk.
Shang wrote:Next, if you are in a team game (3v3 or 4v4, (2v2 you still have a good option of going ca or knights)) and are wing, then your right, best option is swords.
Yes, in 2 vs 2 you still have that option, but it's generally optimal if someone goes swords and someone goes ca. Knights are more powerful, but they're still weak and will get omgwtfpwned by good teamwork from the 2 players most of the time...
Shang wrote:And still the better option is 3 towers and houses. tower around your forage and the closest iron near it (even if its far away) and then house up. your cits wont die and your swords will defend them better (increasing defence and damage).
I haven't been disagreeing that 3 towers and then houses is usually the better option. I've only been disagreeing that it is always, without any exception ever, the best option.

As for the rest... Wow... You don't even know what morale does? You think it INCREASES DAMAGE? All I can say is wow. Look for the post on here as to what morale actually does, or test it yourself.
Shang wrote:and people have gone knight before on wing and been successful (i.e pinky and dusk). Not to mention if you go expansionism, then you really dont need 4 towers, you can make you base compact and then boom out towards the mines.
If you were to present an expansionism sword civilization along with a simple build order and basic strategy, then we could discuss this. Right now you're merely making a claim, without even saying what would be in the civilization except one power. However, I will say that your 'standard' expansionism sword civilization will get trampled by the civilization that I posted in this thread. This can be evidenced by it beating texas ranger, whom you seem to think is very good. (In fact, his standard exp sword civ loses to the cav archer civ I posted in the other thread, or at least it did in 100% of the encounters I observed)

As for some players being able to pull off knights on wing, what does this exactly say? Does it say that knights on wing is a good strategy, or that these players were good? Or does it simply say that the opposing pocket completely and utterly failed at playing the game? Or maybe some combination? I'll let you think on that.
Shang wrote:and your last paragraph is very stupid, swords with houses will protect the cits the swords are attacking, while boosting the attack of your swords, ending the enemies attack that much faster.
Like i said before, your swords shouldnt be getting hit by anything out in the field. So hp is a waste. You stay away from sword battles if ur outnumbered, and keep away from towers. Im sure if i still played ee, and we 1v1'd you using your civ and me using one i make up, you would be pretty dissappointed.
1) Morale on units reduces the damage that they take by 10% per bar of morale. It has no other effect. You're claiming it increases the attack of units. You have no idea what you are talking about.
2) My parahraph makes pefect sense when you understand how the game works... You see, you said something about "making your swords that help out at your base stronger than the attacking ones", and somehow, since morale only makes them live longer (just like hit points)... Well, maybe you can figure it out?

As for the rest of this, you seem to be completely discounting there possibily being a disparity in the strength of the swords (i.e. hit points vs no hit points). If there is a disparity, what you said does not hold true. And you're also assuming that your swords will never be getting attacked by anything except swords and towers when they're raping citizens.

Why do you make these assumptions? I find it much more reasonable to think that if there's a disparity you go by who wins and how much when you decide to engage (instead of raw numbers discounting strength and positioning), as well as situational factors such as distractions. I also find it more reasonable to think that if a player can dictate the actions of another player by forcing them to choose not to fight except in very specific areas (i.e. they'll loose even with equal numbers due to a disparity in strength), then that player owns the game because they chose the terms on which it is played as long as they can dictate this.

As for you playing me one on one, I laughed. If you're up for it, hit me up in the lobby. I'll make the special exception for you and play a single game. The only thing I will request is that this 1 vs 1 be played upon a small map, we both start swords, and we have 6 observers so there are no questions about who won.
Attachments
ouch.jpg
ouch.jpg (161.31 KiB) Viewed 5621 times
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Standard - High (SH)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests