Save Empire Earth

Texas Ranger wrote:@Kazter

Why the Seizmic hate?

Try read the previous bullshit replies he made on previous topics (not this topic.) and you will know why. =P

In retrospect, there weren't alot of good sword rushers on AoC in years past, in large part because alot of people found it a boring tactic and preferred exp. centric civs. Things like luring hippos for early food boost, harassing wallers with barbs, or popping a 12 f11 hero to crush someone booming with 2 barracks and shitty swords - these things just weren't done. Also it took me a long time to learn to boom properly with a sword rush civ and most people who played at the time would experience a major eco slowdown after their initial rush. Seizmic's style of exp. CA would work because people didn't understand that if you lured hippos, massed, and hit the CA player with 35 lvl 8 swords at 9 f11, he would die almost every single time.

Texas Ranger wrote: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.

I guess we're done then. All I was asking for was your explanation on how this would work against a rusher. As I've said earlier this comes down to "Texas being good, not the civ" or something like "Texas style + this civ works great".
If the the best balista+dog player in the world never lost to anything doing that strategy. It would have to do with him having better mechanics and not to do with the civ, just to make another example.

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

Discussing with Seizmic was halarious tho. Like you know he's a good player and all but he's explanation and logic was somewhat around Olinja's level and that's saying a lot.

herik wrote: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.

You came in to the discussion saying "You are all forgetting one of texases key tactics" like we had forgot something huge and we were all wrong. Something that's simply not true (we did not forget it, and it certainly isn't all that game-changing). Call it cocky or faggot as much as you want but to me that statement could not be taken seriously.

Elite wrote:In retrospect...

This is probably true, since every old player seem to put expansionism too high (IMO at least).

Expansionism is really really good, but alot of what I'm talking about has to do with playstyle aswell. Exp. with sword btd is pretty vicious in 1v1, but nobody played that way 4-5 years ago. AoC players just weren't all that interested in 5 minute victories.

Most of the people I played with were, correct me if I'm wrong, eec players anyway who rarely dabbled in exp. (Krass, lion, assys...). I found that none of them seemed to slow down economically after their rush, and if the game made it late their bases were sometimes bigger than my own!

Couldn't find any Seizmic replies. Was it in the strategy forum or somewhere else?

Edit: It has also occurred to me that since most of you are primarily EEC players or just don't play mid sh with expan very often, you don't understand how to boom as well as I do. Similarly, I don't know how to rush as well as you do. I feel like you're all underestimating how quickly I can get a strong eco. Now that glitching is (hopefully) out of the question, people can be shown the light!

Im sorry kazter and the rest of yall, but Texas is right. A tightly built base with morale and towers can really ruin sword rushers. Lets take two scenarios:

You slut rush him like most sword players do, and your gonna lose your swords because of what was mentioned earlier. He was ahead on cits to start with, and has alot more econ than you do. So hes gonna slowly pull ahead. The strat only works if he sits in his base and attacks when he is far enough ahead. Now for the second scenario:

Say the sword rusher sits in his base and booms 50 swords and hero at 13-14 mins. A player with expansionism, who is an expert ( as I presume Ranger is?) will have prolly that many swords himself and about 20-30 persians.

As far as build time goes, when it comes to something like swords, I dont think its really neccessary. If you think about it, if u start normal but have 2 barracks, that means you can farm earlier. So any excess food or iron goes to upgrades. Might be faster upgrades than the three rax player. I've never tested this out or really care because I have a strong dislike for Mid sh, but in theory it COULD work. Id like to someone test this out actually, be kinda cool to see if numbers is < upgrades or vice versa.

I rememeber enigma would do a 6-7 TC start and boom swords/archers. He would easiler hit a pop of 180-190 by 10 f11. This is with single pop units, not 2 pop CA. He would stop the slut rushes of warrman and eeralf all the time. How? Because of his tight compacted base. Believe it or not guys, It works if the guy knows how to do it.

I honestly have no idea why people are asking "how can this stop a slut sword civ? must be vs lower skilled players." Thats a false point because people have seen him beat lion and krass with this strat. And no one posting here now is better than them....in any setting.

So think what you will, I havent seen Ranger play AoC, but what he is saying is true. Ive seen engima stop rushes from eeralf and warrman and ended up rolling them. And they were good sword rushers back in the day. So it isnt much to think Ranger couldnt do it himself. I played him on Liga on GR and was surpised how fast he got an econ going, guess he knows how to boom.

Disclaimer: He still lost to the FUCKING CAPTAIN ULTMATELY AWESOMENESS COBRA SEX MACHINE BANGER OF CHICKS AND KING OF PLAYING OUTSIDE!!!

MacroMicroMonster wrote:Lots and lots of bullshit

Seriously BC, stop with the Seizmic crap (talking like seizmic) and go back to the liga-discussion where you know what your talking about.

Most of the shit you wrote is so stupid I'm not even going to comment on it, but this was over the top:

MacroMicroMonster wrote: I rememeber enigma would do a 6-7 TC start and boom swords/archers. He would easiler hit a pop of 180-190 by 10 f11. This is with single pop units, not 2 pop CA. He would stop the slut rushes of warrman and eeralf all the time. How? Because of his tight compacted base. Believe it or not guys, It works if the guy knows how to do it.

NO ONE idc if it's enigma or KrasS on speed, can start out with 6-7 TC and defend a swordrush wtf u smokin!

sry kazter but u werent around when enigma ruled. He would indeed start like that and pull it off. Nobody else could do this. Texas had a different start. With this civ he would by 7f11 start to outmass a sword slut player and have about 80 cits. by 13 f11 he would have hero out aswell as 30 persian and more swords than u.

You just cant get it in your head that these guys are THAT good!!

Captain Nemo wrote:sry kazter but u werent around when enigma ruled. He would indeed start like that and pull it off. Nobody else could do this. Texas had a different start. With this civ he would by 7f11 start to outmass a sword slut player and have about 80 cits. by 13 f11 he would have hero out aswell as 30 persian and more swords than u.

You just cant get it in your head that these guys are THAT good!!

Exactly. I'm sorry kaz, but it's you who has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to AoC. Youmight have a great knowledge of the ppl playing now and stuff like that. But I guess you've never seen people like enigma or texas playing. That's why I don't think it's you who defines what's possible and whats not.

Well... if enigma played vs engime, i think he would win sword slut rush vs 7 tc start lol.

Enigma stop swords rush with 7 tc start and no cr upgrads on units.

Why such rudeness kaz? I watched enigma do it all the time. Warrman was a good sword slutter, even by EEC standards. All I'm saying is I've seen iggy own rushers with his start and that Texas could prolly do the same. That's why expan is gay lol.

This to me is as ridiculous as "in the old days people would tc-boom on wing in 4v4 medium map liga and just roll over everyone". Now I can be wrong, maybe on a super-high level of gameplay 7-TC start actually own people rushing without special powers in civilization, but I hardly think so.

On the other hand, I got some hypothesis's on how this could seem possible.

1. People like Enigma were ahead of their time so much back in the day that they seemed godlike. 7-TC start's (on small) was not only possible vs rushers, but it seemed to counter them.

2. People didn't like fast games. They started getting more economy based civilizations, took away BTD first, then CR and in the end it was all about the late-game of Middle. So obviously people who were considered the best did huge risks in start doing 7-TC and got away with it. (Jump in to a game with Tool/Icestorm etcetc this is what you'll see them do).

3. People weren't good enough to understand timings on when to attack greedy bastards who 7-TC, and they did not understand how to properly swordrush.

4. A mix of 1, 2 and 3. Enigma was awesome, people enjoyed long games so chose to play it like one, and very few knew how to rush, and it just didn't happen since their pocket was booming as well.


Also I talked to Omega about when it was up in the "GR-something" topic and cobra stated:

DrHouseMd wrote:Engima would play on wing and own most sword rushers with his 7 TC start. He'd have like 70 cits by 7 f11 with exp, and just over whelm you.

And was given a response somewhat in the lines of "even a bad swordrusher could have easily beaten this kind of strat".

If I'm wrong I'm wrong, there is no need to feel sorry haha. But this seems humbug. Texas is good, Engima was prolly good too, but these statements are bigger than the once I'm saying about Ras and that's saying a lot.

was I not being clear about my sarcasm? Thought my numbers were enough to underline that lol.

It's really hard to spot sarcasm when others use the exact same numbers.