I'm sure it will come off as petty/insincere, but honestly the first game the only reason I lost was that it was epic speed with no barbarians, so my plans were totally off. I've become a bit too accustomed to standard speed and/or barbarians that can prevent the game from being over before classical. (Typically still in classical, but barbarians slow the game down a lot.)
I highly doubt I will lose again unless NJ learns that everything isn't luck and actually focuses on improving.
Second game had 3 key points:
1- NJ didn't use strategic resources and had a strategic monopoly of horses on their capital. (As well as elephants.) There are no horses nor elephants within easy reach for me.
2- NJ tries to forward settle me and prevent me from having access to the only elephants available to me. It doesn't work. My archers rip the wall-less city apart and net me a puppet without much effort.
3- After a bunch of skirmishing elephants finally come though and allow my to crush NJ's army easily. They concede. Final screenshot:
Conclusions: Despite having every advantage needed NJ managed to lose. If NJ chose not to forward settle and instead settled on the elephants, or made more warriors/archers to prevent me from moving past his early 'settler prevention force' it would have been impossible for me to win.
Additionally they didn't rush horsemen, despite having everything needed nearby. They would have had horsemen out 12+ turns before I could get elephants, which means I would have been screwed.
So despite the "unlucky" person getting such an advantaged start they still managed to make such basic mistakes.
Also it's impossible to show here, but their tactical skill was lacking. They played at about the level of the AI.
None of this is meant to be an insult, simply a 100% honest analysis.
Finally for those who 100% called it:
