Cage vs Niklas and Cubsfan


Idiot riding pedals
Jan 30, 2005
R³ x T's nbhd of North singularity
Ok, tiny pangea, we'll have to think about very early UU's, very early units, no govt techs. And pick civs so that we have all the techs we need.

They went Aztecs.

We'll need BW, IW, Mas, Alpha, Math, WC, pots, Wheel and HBR. That's 6 we can have as first, though I definitely wouldn't go Jap.

Persia: BW-Mas
Rome: Alpha-WC
Celts: Pots
Iro: Pots-Alpha
Greece: BW-Alpha
Egypt: Mas
Hitties: Alpha-Pots
Carthage: Mas-Alpha
Zulu: WC-Pots
Sumer: BW-Pots

I think the most powerful combos in this setting involve Sumer, Zulu, Persia, Rome and Iro. I like the ability to dis/reconnect for Persia and Rome, thing you can't get with the mounted units. Impis could be spectacular in small maps with early warfare focus. Iro and Sumer are AGR, QED.

We need BW for starters and WC wouldn't be luxury.

I'm leaning Persia-Zulu, Persia-Rome or Rome-Sumer.

I'm inclined to go Rome-Sumer. That's quite a combo of starting techs/traits and gives us a good shot a philo free tech which could be critical in this type of game. The other alternative could be Persia with Iroquois which would give us similar traits with a fast unit.
I didn't think we'd be researching writing at all. Should we go Rome, my plan would be to stay despot, pump a lot of 5spt / 10 spt warriors and massively upgrade them all into legionnaries with ressource sharing or reconnection. The techs I wrote up there are the ones I thought we needed - at all. This is partly why I put a lot of emphasis on starting techs, since they're a large part of our research total.
OK fair enough. Maybe having a fast unit would be helpful since I've seen Akots rip someone apart, using Rome, playing as Egypt.
Rome-Egypt is good, so is Rome-Iro or Persia-Iro or Persia-Egypt.

Everyone feel free to crash in, we're influenceable ;)
I'm inclined to have at least one ag so Iroquois is always a favorite. Having a powerful defensive unit along with the commercial trait for Rome makes them mighty enticing.
How about

Name: Beorn
Formal: Babes
Noun: Romans
Adjective: Roman
Title: Bear

Name: Whomp
Formal: Babes
Noun: Iroquois
Adjective: Iroquois
Title: Panda
How about

Name: Beorn
Formal: Babes with big...
Noun: Romans
Adjective: Roman
Title: Bear

Name: Whomp
Formal: Babes with less...
Noun: Iroquois
Adjective: Iroquois
Title: Panda

sorry, just being silly. :crazyeye: :beer:
Just what is a "cage" game? Is it like a PBEM, but with locked alliances? :confused:
Yep it's AW as a team. No holds barred and since I've SG'd with Cubsfan we have a good chance of whacking him early. MM'ing nightmare that guy.
Yep it's AW as a team. No holds barred and since I've SG'd with Cubsfan we have a good chance of whacking him early. MM'ing nightmare that guy.

Yes, I followed an SG where you had to play right behind him. If he has to do his own MMing, he'll shoot himself in the foot for sure.
We intend to help him there.
Marsden (saber) has put 300g on our loss, should we deal with him for a 300 in-game bet?
Alright, it's in the mail. Considering the UU discrepancy, I'll assume they are opting for a disruption strategy. They both have cheap, fast units that can efficiently come in and pillage our stocks.

I did a test run on a tiny emperor map and it would take me less than 30 turns to get IW, probably only a handful of those working on BW. That means I'll have a vet archer and/or spear ready for their first runner. The second settler is likely to be on time for iron.

I'll try a couple AWE games against the 2 civs of theirs and see how it goes.
Sounds good. Wheel/HBR while making rax/archer/spear?
That's the ticket.

So we need a bigger picture match plan - Starcraft/Warcraft college years taught me that much. General strategies that I think are useable in this context include:
- rush
- guerilla
- steamroller
- siege
- counter-siege

On our side we have great UU for a steamroller: whatever they do, they can't counter a big offensive of ours, shield for shield.

With their UU and traits, they are in a strong position to play guerilla. Solid disruptor in the EW, cheap fast bugger in JW. My guess is they will use this. They absolutely do not want us to massively build Legs and MW's. They'll level the play field by the bottom and try to pick us down off our momentum. Trust the Warcraft experience, it works and it's nasty.

The danger on our side is to remain static and defend our position with massed troops. They want to pillage, threaten workers and settlers, we don't want them to. If they manage to stall our development, they win because they keep the field on stone age warfare where they have an edge. They achieve this if we play the counter-siege card from T=0 because it is not really a siege, just a mock one they'll set up to disrupt our productivity.

The way I see it, the play we have is to rush. If we send a small, coherent threat to their homes (Niklas' is the one I have in mind), they'll have to fend it off with expensive warriors and that's not optimal. They'll burn double GA very very early. Niklas will have expensive warriors, cubs wil have cheap spears so my target of choice is clear. We can hammer down cubsfan as soon as we get real units going.

Should we manage to buy ourselves a few dozen turns that way, we'll be that much closer to Legs and MW's. At that point, enter Leg pillage and MW fast movement abuse. We can evaluate wether to siege, steamroll or guerilla the playground at that point, but until then we must force the fight back to their places.
Oh, and we need to know precisely where they are ASAP. I'll start my queue with a warrior.
Understood. Should I queue a warrior too then?
I think so. From Niklas' comment we might get starts not unlike the one from the Darwin Island game. So a pair of early warriors won't delay our production powerhouses much. I might even do two.
Public spoiler posted. I'm slightly reluctant but the masses need games. Bread too, which is to be furnished by Marsden's team... eventually.
Top Bottom