AoC Mid Sh 1v1/2v2 Civ

Talk about strategies in here! (If you just want to post a civilization, use the Civilizations forum; if you only want to post a build order, use the Build Orders subforum)
Post Reply
User avatar
eeralf_
Nemesis
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:07 am
Lobby Username: eeralf
Location: Mannheim (Deutschland)
Contact:

Re: AoC Mid Sh 1v1/2v2 Civ

Post by eeralf_ »

sry all, maybe iam off topic

in past i played always with Build time reduce on swords, now i use Build time reduce on Buildings and get better results, hmm maybe iam wrong, when i dont do build time reduce on swords , i get lots of civ points, hahaha, u cant do all spend on one unit , or?

maybe on a hard 1vs1 its better , but 1vs1 is random often cuz map, ok map is always random, and some games never work real good, but build time reduce on buildings is real fine

Proooost!!!
Image

Elite
Advanced Member
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:37 pm
Lobby Username: Elite

Re: AoC Mid Sh 1v1/2v2 Civ

Post by Elite »

A good player is not going to waste swords attacking someone who is turtling in this fashion until he has the power to overwhelm them outright. I think a big factor with this civ would be whether or not you get a second iron mine behind your base that you can wall in, going straight to mixing persians after 1 iron is a bad idea imo because swords with hero are pretty impervious to persians until you have a very large number of them (30+).

Texas Ranger
Intermediate Member
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:43 am
Lobby Username: Texas Ranger

Re: AoC Mid Sh 1v1/2v2 Civ

Post by Texas Ranger »

he can't do nothing... I'll be sitting on 4 mines by 10F11 if undisturbed.

herik
Momma's boy
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:40 am
Lobby Username: herik

Re: AoC Mid Sh 1v1/2v2 Civ

Post by herik »

You are all forgetting one of texases key tactics, he knows where to put buildings, to make HIM have the advantage in boom vs rush, where the rusher will always attack first.

User avatar
Arntzen
Administrator
Posts: 1983
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 4:13 am
Lobby Username: _[eC]_Arntzen_
Location: Norway

Re: AoC Mid Sh 1v1/2v2 Civ

Post by Arntzen »

Oh yeah we forgot the key tactic, if you know where to put buildings you will obviously win with 2/3 of the production building 20% longer build time and weaker swords. (And for the record, that was sarkasm, as Sheldon Cooper would say.)
A Good Place to Start: viewtopic.php?f=75&t=3884
Click to download: eC Civilization

Captain Nemo
Global Moderator
Posts: 1101
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:23 am
Lobby Username: >Heros<=Captain Nemo*

Re: AoC Mid Sh 1v1/2v2 Civ

Post by Captain Nemo »

he'd just say bazinga ;)
bosshaft: "A warm pussy is so much better than a dick! Trust me."

User avatar
lightnessking.
Nemesis
Posts: 2050
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:27 pm

Re: AoC Mid Sh 1v1/2v2 Civ

Post by lightnessking. »

Captain Nemo wrote:he'd just say bazinga ;)
No, he'd ask to someone else if it was sarcasm and than says he's getting good at detecting it. o.O bazinga.
You cannot make another post so soon after your last.

User avatar
Arntzen
Administrator
Posts: 1983
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 4:13 am
Lobby Username: _[eC]_Arntzen_
Location: Norway

Re: AoC Mid Sh 1v1/2v2 Civ

Post by Arntzen »

[youtube]wWrgG6Oosns&feature=related[/youtube]
Guess I messed up the quote, but you guys get the idea. He only uses bazinga once he's doing "a practical joke" on someone.
A Good Place to Start: viewtopic.php?f=75&t=3884
Click to download: eC Civilization

Texas Ranger
Intermediate Member
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:43 am
Lobby Username: Texas Ranger

Re: AoC Mid Sh 1v1/2v2 Civ

Post by Texas Ranger »

Kazter wrote:Oh yeah we forgot the key tactic, if you know where to put buildings you will obviously win with 2/3 of the production building 20% longer build time and weaker swords. (And for the record, that was sarkasm, as Sheldon Cooper would say.)
Longer build time is irrelevant, because the swords are on constant production. It's not like I sit on two barracks forever. Swords are not weaker in the early game because they have houses. Your ignorance on this is quite astonishing considering how highly you seem to be placed as an all-sett player. I realize that I am still far worse than in the past, but in the Sierra lobby days, there was no player I could not beat with this civ, and yes, the majority of them were/are primarily sword rushers. There was also a lot more competition back then.

Placing buildings is of course important but that's something that should be considered in every game regardless so I don't mention it.

User avatar
lightnessking.
Nemesis
Posts: 2050
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:27 pm

Re: AoC Mid Sh 1v1/2v2 Civ

Post by lightnessking. »

Have to disagree texas... After f11 7-10 your army is outmassed plus the enemy is stronger, which can easely overrun you.

Plus with weaker swords it's harder to eco kill, while ur enemy can actually kill of a few citizen. I'd say your civ works in late game, but deffinately not in early game. A sword player doesnt have to rush 1, 2 or maybe 3*3 swords. He can also save up and overrun you quite easely after they're lvl 10.
You cannot make another post so soon after your last.

User avatar
Arntzen
Administrator
Posts: 1983
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 4:13 am
Lobby Username: _[eC]_Arntzen_
Location: Norway

Re: AoC Mid Sh 1v1/2v2 Civ

Post by Arntzen »

Texas Ranger wrote:Your ignorance on this is quite astonishing considering how highly you seem to be placed as an all-sett player.
Let me explain how I look at sword vs sword match-ups. Something I got a ton of experience on in EEC, but not close as much in AOC, I'll admit. In my experience classic expan civ against classic rush civ is pretty much 50/50. Those two civilizations are both really strong and if the players are equally skilled I think it more often then not comes down to how good map the expan player has. Let me try to explain to you how my games against an equal player usually goes down.

Expan player usually get's up 3 towers and at least two houses before enemy swords comes rallying in. Rusher sees this and smartly decide to go around and kill off hunt. Expan player should have lured those hippo's in before this stage, but sometimes he/me forgets or they are far away. Rusher uses second wave to either try harass iron mine or simply try to kill of citizens trying to wall of (if they haven't got there yet he puts his swords idle where it would be smart to get a wall).
Worst case scenario for the rusher in start is that he looses 2-3 swords in an exchange for killing of the hunt (either because of tower or boomer swords). Worst case scenario for the boomer is much much worse.
3rd and/or 4th wave of sword's usually goes to defend rushers hunt/iron. Rest goes towards enemy base to keep him off second iron. The boomer will almost always (without hunt) try to get two farms up before going for second iron. Another thing is 90% of the time the boomer won't have towers for those farms and the second iron mine. The boomer usually goes for the second iron mine after the two farms are built and then third barracks.
Now, if the rusher knows what he's doing he's taking HUGE advantage of the fact that he's outnumbering his opponent. He won't go into moral+towers with his army to fight the boomer swords, he will split them up and come from every angle. Once the boomers swords go after a group of swords he send them back again and goes in with another group. Even tho players like you will build a really compact base, this is really successful and normally the rusher won't loose much swords while the boomer is running his citizens around crazy and he's swordsmen are confused on where to go. Once we start looking at the game at around 8-10 f11 the boomer will likely have 2 iron mines and 4 or 5 barracks up (if he have been defending well). At the opposite side around this time the rusher will either try to take advantage of total map control and take middle hunt (not always possible) and get TC, if not he'll just keep rushing and focusing about the attacks. Since I've been training sword rush a ton on EEC I've almost consistently around 50 swordsmen upgraded to either 8 or 10 and around 40 citizens at f11 10. This is far from horrible considering the rusher would have given the boomer a pain in the ass since start.
If the rusher has seen opportunities of killing citizens he'll have less swords, normally this means around 15 hero, if the defender have been doing a really good job, this would mean f11 13 hero. Reason is if defender does a good job, the rusher wont come close to the enemy citizens so he'll just run back when the boomer is group speeding his citizens away. This means the rusher keeps more of his swords alive, where as if he get's opportunities to run in he'll try to trade swords for citizens.
Now let's imagine the boomer did a great job and faces a strong f11 13 push. Depending on how the towers are placed the rusher will either go straight into the base (if they are spread far out) or go around picking off iron mines and starting on hammering at the farms for example. Forcing the boomer to move out of his cozy towers and fight. Now the balance between boomers sword amount and the rushers aren't very far off, difference is one has hero and the other don't. This fight really comes down to how good micro the players has. A smart boomer will try to stall as much time as possible to get to around the 15-17 mark where his hero will pop out, or try to lure enemy into the towers. The game either ends straight up here either by boomer just dies or he defends it good. Normally this fight goes in the rushers favor, the question is how much. If he's not able to do an really good trade killing most swords and 10-15 citizens total (before f11 15-17) or at least picking off iron some of the farm and some barracks while not loosing much. If he doesn't trade well the boomer goes on and wins pretty much easy from here on and out.

That's my opinion on the normal civs, ANY time I see something that makes the Expan civ worse I start leaning towards the rush civ. A civ without BTD will have even less chance and will basically get played with unless he had a really good map. To me civs without BTD either NEEDS to open 3rax or they should in my head straight up die. Another thing that makes you civ worse (against rush) is it has to pick one of hp/att where as the normal expan civ has both.

I've never met a great mid aoc player (other then you) saying expan civ without hp and btd is around 50/50 against a rush civ, except for seizmic who's a joke to discuss EE with.
4 iron mines at f11 10 is a joke.

Maybe your opinion on this matter has to do with you being extremely good expan player and not so good rusher and me being more or less equal in both, but not extreme of course. (IMO at least).
A Good Place to Start: viewtopic.php?f=75&t=3884
Click to download: eC Civilization

ben55
Senior Member
Posts: 470
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:49 am

Re: AoC Mid Sh 1v1/2v2 Civ

Post by ben55 »

The only scenario this civ could maybe beat a competent player is 2v2 Medium Map. But even then a specialized CA/SWORD team would kill his teammate before he is relevant enough to leave his base.

At 13-15f11 a sword player will have x2 your swords with a Hero -- persians aren't a viable counter to sword mass + hero. A competent CA player oughta keep you off your non towered mines too. Ideal map and some luck you may have a chance in a normal 1v1 setting.
"Nothing is impossible, the word itself says "I'm possible"!"

Texas Ranger
Intermediate Member
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:43 am
Lobby Username: Texas Ranger

Re: AoC Mid Sh 1v1/2v2 Civ

Post by Texas Ranger »

@Kazter

I can see neither of us will change our opinion in this thread, but here's some facts:

My win-rate is based on the many games (keep in mind I only ever played mid, so it's a lot of games) that I've done over the years. The fact that it doesn't look strong in theory doesn't bother me in the least, considering how well I know I've done with it.

In my opinion, any sword expan civ that DOES have BTD should die, it's completely unnecessary. I'm really opposed to 3 barracks as well, but I could probably accept it in some cases. BTD is easily compensated for with more barracks, and an expan civ should have no problems with wood after 10F11. Using my start, BTD and a third barracks would not allow me to have constant production. Remember, I only start with 1 mine. The way I have it set up now, any excess iron goes into sword upgrades and by the time they're at 10 I'll have more iron/rax anyway.

You're right, this civ is more dependent on map than most.

You're right again, my rush is weaker than my expan play (although it's not bad, and my ca rush I think is pretty good).

Wrong here, 4 mines at 10F11 is easily attained for me IF, as I said, I'm not eco'd. Not really relevant vs. a rush civ, though.

A civ has been made that replaces Calv CR with sword HP. Testing in progress...

Why the Seizmic hate? :(

herik
Momma's boy
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:40 am
Lobby Username: herik

Re: AoC Mid Sh 1v1/2v2 Civ

Post by herik »

First of all texas, ben is zeke not seizmic.
kaz don't b a faggit, its funny how cocky u've gotten all of a sudden, im merely stating a fact that buildings will make the rushes army scatter/lose proper control of army/ make the rusher funnel his swords through the building to attack. There are iother advantages to explain to this also, but i really cant b bothered wasting my time on a disagreement that will go for longer.

Texas Ranger
Intermediate Member
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:43 am
Lobby Username: Texas Ranger

Re: AoC Mid Sh 1v1/2v2 Civ

Post by Texas Ranger »

I know, but he said 'Seizmic is a joke to discuss EE with'. Wondering why.

Post Reply

Return to “Strategy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests