- Sep 19, 2014
If you really have incentive to learn, given you've played such long time, if you have learned sth, there shouldn't be any 200+ games, except that you're playing with very strict limitations. (besides no chop, no harvest, no pillage and no trade, you shall add further constraints)
If you still have 200+ games without constraints, maybe even with somethings that make the game much easier(such as more CSs, larger maps, etc). I'm not saying you're inferior, however I think it is justifiable that you shouldn't claim yourself "superior" and shouldn't try to promote your 200+ "strategy", at least not to me.
You're overconfident, however you don't play as well as you try to claim, and that's the thing.
I don't like to win that early. That's what you don't get, most people aren't trying to win that early, mainly because Civ has a roleplay side to it. I like to be efficient, I play well, but I don't aim to win before turn 200. I find it boring, unfulfilling and not really a good measure of how well I played, since that isn't what I aim for. What usually makes my games take longer is that I set to myself secondary roleplay objectives that doesn't necessarily help me win faster, I care about how my Empire looks and I'm usually peaceful, even when being aggressive would be more beneficial. The only limitations that I set to myself is that I don't abuse war, which is one of the most unfair advantages the player has over the AI, and I avoid what I actually consider exploits, like those trade shenanigans (not trade as a whole).
The T1-save is on #0, you can try yourself.
I don't have the time, nor the will to play in a way that I don't enjoy. I would, however, love to see you play peacefully.